I love how, instead of actually responding to posts (like mine) that explain quite well how the whole banning gun thing won't work, people keep parading down saying 'Ban pistols! Nyah!' as if nothing sensible had ever been said for the other side.
Again, fuckers, you'll only stop people who follow laws from getting guns - you won't get handguns away. That means people won't be able to defend themselves or others, and the fucks who do things like this will have no more problems than they would have before. For fuck's sake, Virginia Tech, as does just about every other big university, has its own goddamn police force and a campus-wide ban on firearms - how the fuck do you ban things more than that? The problems are in the implementation of what we already have - yes, it is illegal for loonies and felons to get guns, whoever said that, we're not that stupid - and the fact that we just have fucked up people here, not that we have guns available. Anvil, if you can seriously come down here and tell me there's no point in having a gun because you feel that fucking safe when four dozen people a day are killed by someone else, you either have the mind of a two-year-old or the balls of a grizzly bear on crystal meth.
Bans on guns have already been tried in Europe - read the other goddamn post and tell me Germany's murder rates didn't jump - and there's no indication that they'll work better here. Simple estimate based quite simply on the last few years' numbers - there are likely about 300 million legal guns in this country, and our murder rates hover around fifteen thousand a year. Do the math - it sounds to me like those numbers are telling me that only one in twenty thousand guns is used every year in a murder, and that's before we factor in the huge number of guns that aren't legal, the murders done without guns, et cetera. Does that indict guns? No, it quite clearly says that guns are a tool and not the crime themselves. Anvil, fairer surveys point to handguns being used two hundred thousand times a year for personal defense - real fucking useless, isn't it? You're not helping the victims of crimes with firearm bans.
It's still a vain attempt at putting the blame on something easy like guns instead of saying 'well, he was fucked in the head a few times over, let's find a REAL solution to our problems' like someone without a superiority complex or an inability to think outside a party line.
Jeff
Fucking exactly.
I mean fucking think about this:
If you're going to use a gun for an illegal act, why in the
fuck are you going to be concerned if your gun is legally registered or not. You're not.
In fact, if you plan on getting away with such an act, you
don't want your gun to be able to be traced back to you.
So banning handguns is absolutely fucking retarded. You take away the right of people who abide by gun laws, to own handguns. These are the people who have a direct, registered, blatant connection to their firearm. Someone who is going to use a gun to commit malicious acts, with an intent to get away with them; isn't going to go to the local gun store and go through the paperwork and registration.
Do you think gangsters go down to their local gun shop and do this?
Fuck no.
"If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."
It really doesn't get any clearer than that.
But yeah, lets outlaw baseball bats since those are used to beat people's asses and kill them. Or let's outlaw kitchen knives while we're at it. Hey let's outlaw cars too. After 9/11, I'm still appalled at the fact that commercial jets weren't outlawed.
Yeah the last one is more of a joke than the other examples; but seriously. The same logic could be used for knives or blunt objects, as they're used for murder time and time and time again. A few assholes kill some people with them, and that ruins it for everyone? No, just with handguns.
In the grand scheme of things, what's the difference between a guy in a car who is psychotic, or hey even drunk while we're on that subject, killing people with the vehicle; and that same person with a gun, killing people?
I'd venture to say that every single one of us who drives is theoretically, in a scenario almost every day, where we could use our vehicle to try to kill around 4 dozen people if our heart so desires or we're convinced that we should do so. Sometimes that even happens. But have we outlawed cars because drunk drivers kill people and sometimes psychos mow people down with them? No.
Yeah you could argue that guns are basically engineered to kill things. No doubt about that. That's what sets them apart from the things I compared them to earlier. But the human mind thought up and engineered that weapon. As it did with cars and knives and bats or tazers or whatever the fuck. It's your mind-state that determines the use of what you're wielding.
I guess I've lost track of where I'm going with this, and I probably haven't said anything that hasn't been said before, but honestly: Do you think that even if that guy didn't own or have possession of those guns, that it was going to stop him from killing those people? How about improvised explosive devices? In some situations, those are even
easier to kill people with than a handgun.
I'm done I guess. I suppose I just think it's retarded to outlaw guns or handguns from those who truly enjoy them and don't use them for malicious intent. It won't solve anything. You'll just have those people owning guns illegally (but still responsibly mind you), not owning guns; and it won't affect a thing at all in the black market and with crime rate. In my opinion anyway.
How is a law going to have any effect upon those who don't follow the law in the first place?
