14 Killed in Binghamton NY rampage

[T@T]

Originally Posted by transplant99

maybe if one of the victims had a gun...there wouldnt be 14 dead?

I HATE guns....let me make that clear...but in any country where they are available, it makes as much sense for as many as possible to have them and use them the right way as it is to try and limit the legal folks from having them while the criminals dont follow the same procedeure.

Sensitive for me as I lost a good friend to mindless violence involving a handgun while he was on vacation in Vegas.

My gun law:

Shotguns and hunting rifles:

Must be locked up in a government regulated holding area or private gun club, each place will have a target area for use but when you want to go hunting you sign the gun out on a hunting permit with a 7 day max with limited ammo. (how many times can you miss your target)

Handguns:

Total ban, these evil things are designed for one thing "killing people"
Ban them completely except for police,secret service and some guards (all of these must be turned in to a holding cell when not at work)
Give people one year to turn in their handguns, after that a very very stiff jail sentence if caught with one.

First offence if caught - automatic 3 years in the pen
Second offence if caught - 10 years in the pen
Caught commiting a crime with a gun - 20 years automatic

Even the hardest criminals would think twice about carrying a gun.

Harsh? sure it is but over 100,000 people who were injured or killed by guns in the USA last year alone probably beg to differ.

Guns are not for population control and I hate seeing the damn things rolling into Canada like there some sort of produce

[Azure]

Yeah, and in the real world that would never work.

Some of us actually USE guns to protect livestock, our pets....etc, etc. Or, we hunt.

And most of us are responsible about it, and store our firearms in a locked safe, and ammunition is a different lock container.

Out of all the 100,000 people killed the US last year with guns, how many were killed by the guns of a responsible gun owner?

But, if you want to ban guns, I want to ban alcohol. How many people are killed every year from drinking and driving accidents? Those 5 innocent people killed recently in Calgary by Daniel Tchetter would be alive if alcohol were banned.

[Devils'Advocate]

It's my belief that rocket propelled grenade launchers should not be banned. The responsible RPG owners should not be punished because some people would use them for illegal purposes.

As for baseball bats, knives and brass knuckles.... do you really think this guy would have been able to kill 14 people with a baseball bat? Guns just make it so easy to kill that people don't even think they are going to be stopped. It reduces the bravado needed to walk into some place and start massacring people. Walk in with a knife and there's a good chance someone bigger than you is gonna beat the crap outta ya. Walk in with a gun and everyone backs off.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

But, if you want to ban guns, I want to ban alcohol. How many people are killed every year from drinking and driving accidents? Those 5 innocent people killed recently in Calgary by Daniel Tchetter would be alive if alcohol were banned.

That was tried once. People made moonshine in their basements. It got smuggled in. Mob bosses got super rich selling it underground.

When weighing the pros/cons of prohibition, the government realized that the cons of prohibition outweighed the pros. I'm not so sure that assault rifles win that battle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It's my belief that rocket propelled grenade launchers should not be banned. The responsible RPG owners should not be punished because some people would use them for illegal purposes.

Are they banned? Now sure, but even if they are, I'm sure gangs in the big cities have no problem getting their hands on them.

If you want to ban guns....handguns even, you only ban them from responsible gun owners. People who want to kill someone badly enough will still get their hands on a gun.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That was tried once. People made moonshine in their basements. It got smuggled in. Mob bosses got super rich selling it underground.


When weighing the pros/cons of prohibition, the government realized that the cons of prohibition outweighed the pros. I'm not so sure that assault rifles win that battle.

Oh, so you seriously think all those mob bosses will suddenly hand in all their weapons, and obey the law?

Here in Canada it is impossible to get assault rifles for personal use, and there are some pretty restrictive laws regarding handguns. And guess what? People still get shot. Usually by gangs and people who don't care about the law.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, so you seriously think all those mob bosses will suddenly hand in all their weapons, and obey the law?

If the laws were tough enough then possibly they may think twice...so yeah.

Originally Posted by Azure

Here in Canada it is impossible to get assault rifles for personal use

Unfortunately. Not remotely true.

Originally Posted by Azure

there are some pretty restrictive laws regarding handguns.

LOL...Laws mean d!ck without consequences.

Originally Posted by Azure

Usually by gangs and people who don't care about the law.

Because it's easy to be a criminal, why should they care? I would love to see how they would react to a gun law that would put them away for years just to possessing one!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Some of us actually USE guns to protect livestock, our pets....etc, etc. Or, we hunt.

Uhhh, everytime I hear this excuse I get sick!

There are more guns in the USA than adult people, how many of them are protecting a friggen goat or pig?

Very stupid argument.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, so you seriously think all those mob bosses will suddenly hand in all their weapons, and obey the law?

Do you honestly believe that selling RPG launchers at Walmart is a proper response to the ability of the Russian mob to get their hands on one?

I mean, why do we bother having *ANY* laws? There really isn't any point since criminals are going to ignore them anyway. Why bother banning crack cocaine given that criminals will be able to get their hands on it?

Personally, I think I'd rather to continue to have more stories like this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...s.html?ref=rss
than to throw up our hands, say we can't fight gun violence and our only option is further proliferation of weapons.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I can barely read that sentence, but eradicating all guns is simply not even worth discussing because it's impossible.

Exactly. It's not like they're bears or dogs...

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Exactly. It's not like they're bears or dogs...

Yeah, but are guns annoying? Do they poop everywhere? Bark in public? Wreck picnic sites? Didn't think so.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

If the laws were tough enough then possibly they may think twice...so yeah.

Yeah, you have a skewed viewpoint. Mob bosses make their living by being able to export violence on other people. No way they would suddenly start following the law.

Because it's easy to be a criminal, why should they care? I would love to see how they would react to a gun law that would put them away for years just to possessing one!

I want a law that puts people who drink and drive away for life too.

Or a law that puts people who kill someone else away for life too, or, it certain cases....the state can execute them.

Oh wait, the latter already exists. And surprisingly, death row is full in the US. And there are even more people serving life in prison for killing someone else.

I guess those TOUGH laws really stopped all those innocent people from being killed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Do you honestly believe that selling RPG launchers at Walmart is a proper response to the ability of the Russian mob to get their hands on one?

RPGs are being sold at Walmart?

There is a huge black market for firearms in the US that is never going to go away. People who want to have access to firearms, especially mob people, will HAVE access to firearms. Their 'job' requires it.

So how does 'banning' guns, which in fact would only ban them from law-abiding citizens, solve the black market problem?

Personally, I think I'd rather to continue to have more stories like this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...s.html?ref=rss
than to throw up our hands, say we can't fight gun violence and our only option is further proliferation of weapons.

Personally I think people should quit having a knee-jerk reaction everytime someone is killed with a gun, and say guns should be banned.

There are MILLIONS of people who own guns for personal use, and NONE of them have EVER harmed anyone.

Those are the people YOU want to force to give up their guns.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Exactly. It's not like they're bears or dogs...

If bears harm people they should be banned as well.

[Devils'Advocate]

Azure, your whole argument is pinned on the theory that gun control laws will not impact criminals being able to get their hands on firearms. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would seem to disagree with that assessment. Gun control laws make it MORE DIFFICULT for criminal elements to get their hands on weapons. Weapons violations lead to search warrants lead to an unravelling of various criminal activities as was the case with the link I provided earlier.

I think it is pretty clear that:
"making it more difficult for criminals and the mentally diseased to gain access to weapons" > "sportsman's need to target shoot with assault rifle"
unless you have seriously convinced yourself gun control has no impact whatsoever on the ability of criminals and the mentally diseased to get their hands on guns. Which is an extremely tenuous position to take considering how many police associations would be in disagreement with you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Azure, your whole argument is pinned on the theory that gun control laws will not impact criminals being able to get their hands on firearms. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would seem to disagree with that assessment. Gun control laws make it MORE DIFFICULT for criminal elements to get their hands on weapons. Weapons violations lead to search warrants lead to an unravelling of various criminal activities as was the case with the link I provided earlier.

Link?

All those gangs in Calgary sure don't have a problem getting access to guns. Even assault rifles that are banned under our laws.

I really have no problem with certain gun restrictions.....although I do think law-abiding citizens should be able to own certain versions of the assault rifle....but you're living in a delusion if you think ANY kind of gun law will stop gun violence.

I think it is pretty clear that:
"making it more difficult for criminals and the mentally diseased to gain access to weapons" > "sportsman's need to target shoot with assault rifle"
unless you have seriously convinced yourself gun control has no impact whatsoever on the ability of criminals and the mentally diseased to get their hands on guns. Which is an extremely tenuous position to take considering how many police associations would be in disagreement with you.

Again, assault rifles are outlawed in Canada for the most part.....the list of prohibited firearms is staggering actually. And yet, crimes are STILL being committed using those firearms. I wonder why.

Most of the guns criminals have access too come from illegal sources anyways. I wonder how exactly your genius plan to take guns away from law-abiding citizens would also take those guns away from all the people that sell them illegally.

Canada has not had 'easy access' to guns since 1978, and the rises and drops in crime, violent crime, and homicide rates, do not
correspond to changes in our anti-gun laws. Both Canada and Britain have also both increased the restrictions on firearms owners in the last 15 years, and have seen dramatic increases in violent crime and the use of illegal firearms.

[Devils'Advocate]

I think a reasonable person would look at each of these:






And ask themselves the question:
"Does the benefits of people being able to own this type of weapon outweigh the negative consequences of freer access to these weapons to the mentally unstable and/or criminals?"

The first one is a difficult debate given that in rural communities hunting and defending livestock are important valid uses of the weapons. But from there on down I don't think win the pro/con battle.

But your argument doesn't look at each weapon individually. It says weapons, no matter how deadly and dangerous, should be free from gun control laws because criminals can get their hands on them so so should law abiding citizens. I think that is a very, very dangerous position to take.

[transplant99]

I think it is pretty clear that:
"making it more difficult for criminals and the mentally diseased to gain access to weapons" > "sportsman's need to target shoot with assault rifle"
unless you have seriously convinced yourself gun control has no impact whatsoever on the ability of criminals and the mentally diseased to get their hands on guns. Which is an extremely tenuous position to take considering how many police associations would be in disagreement with you.

Well sure...except for that whole annoying constitution thing getting in the way.

Again...its FAR too late to "ban" guns in the US....it simply will only have an effect on those who choose to follow that law...and no one else.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wonder how exactly your genius plan to take guns away from law-abiding citizens would also take those guns away from all the people that sell them illegally.

My genius plan involves police raids like the story I linked to.

Or McGinty's new federal-provincial program:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.o...527-gun-nr.asp

There is lots that the police and government can do to crack down on criminal activity involving weapons.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And ask themselves the question:
"Does the benefits of people being able to own this type of weapon outweigh the negative consequences of freer access to these weapons to the mentally unstable and/or criminals?"

You want to argue freer access to weapons? Washington DC has banned firearms since 1976, and their crime rate is 8x the national average, while other states that allow CCW have very low crime rates?

Why are countries like Norway and Switzerland, both that have VERY high rates of firearm ownership, similar to the US actually....considered such peaceful countries?

Why is the homicide rate in Canada now DOUBLE what it was back (pre-1963) when persons with a clean criminal and psychiatric record could legally acquire nearly anything, including machine guns?

A recent study by Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000 to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is about 700-800 to 1.

But your argument doesn't look at each weapon individually. It says weapons, no matter how deadly and dangerous, should be free from gun control laws because criminals can get their hands on them so so should law abiding citizens. I think that is a very, very dangerous position to take.

Again, studies have shown that criminals usually get their hands on weapons through illegal sources. There is no way any LAW would stop that.