mrstickball said:
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
killerzX said:
Signalstar said:
300 million guns in this country is still not enough to keep us safe. We need moar nao! |
we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, as prooved time and time again by the lower crimerates in areas where citizens are armed in greater numbers thanks to laws that permit them to do so, and high crimes in area with low amounts of legal gun ownership thanks to laws that prohibit lawful gun owners.
|
There are more crimes in those 'low crime' areas (lol) than anywhere in Canada so there is your proof that guns need to be put in the hands of officers and not just your average Joe (Adam Lanza) who could at any point take a gun from their parents and go mass shoot some 1st graders at a public school.
If the gun wasn't in the hands of Adam Lanza; if he didn't have access to the guns, then the shootings wouldn't have taken place. Only a moron would defend this situation.
A mass shooting resulting from a random person with a gun has just taken place...lets give every random guy a gun.
Only in America. Okay maybe afghanistan too.
|
The homicide rate in Canada is about 1.6. The homicide rate in New Hampshire (one of the most free gun states) is .6. The homicide rate of my county in Pennsylvania is .8. The homicide rate in Washington D.C during it's handgun ban was 35, after that was declared unconstitutional it dropped to 24. Just to put things in perspective. Adam Lanza could have easily driven a car into the building, set it on fire killing people as they fled, or bombed the school. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of ways to kill people without guns.
|
Yes I know I went overboard with 'anywhere in Canada' statement but it holds true overall for America.
Just because there are plenty of ways to killing people doesn't mean anything. Psychologically the human brain will look for the easiest way to do something and in this case guns are the easiest way to kill someone. Its all about means and if you take that convenience away from someone then psychologically it won't be worth it for them. The main reason someone would choose means over convenience would be if it were a targeted person that they were trying to kill. Adam Lanza didn't have a target (most mass shootings don't, if any at all) and what was the weapon used? A gun of course because its the easiest way to kill someone.
If Lanza were to have hated someone and killed them there is the possibility of other means of killing them in which case you would have a point, but if your just going to point out that he could have just taken a car and crashed it into a school then light that school on fire...when the hell has this ever happened? And how many times? There are cars all over the streets in America and are stolen all the time. Everyone's got a friggin' lighter or match. So why didn't he just do it that way in the first place? Because his mother (a random person in America) had a gun. I've never heard of someone doing something like that. Not in places other than America where Gun Laws are more prominent.
|
The problem is....If there are states that have very loose gun laws, and very low crime rates, shouldn't that tell you that there are other significant factors at play in regards to the problem of violence in America?
There are states with very horrendous crime rates. There are states with very European crime rates. This is despite the fact that most have very similar gun laws. If this is the case, then it has to be another reason. If you can't see that, then I believe you're not trying to look at the situation properly.
If guns were banned, maybe Mr. Lanza would not have done what he did. But alternatively, what if such a ban provoked other would-be mass murders to do their deed, believing they wouldn't be caught? That should be a core issue - if access to firearms really yields more murder and violence.
|
I am trying to look at the situation from both sides but I don't agree with one side of it. And yes I do agree that if guns were banned it would lead to people being provoked to retaliate, not necessarily with murder but other things too. I'm sure it would be a core issue but I'm also sure a nation/government with centuries of civilization behind it can figure out how to combat an issue with a reasonable outcome. I mean is America so effed up to the point where if you banned an inanimate object then everyone would just kill each other?
