[drshock]

Originally Posted by God Hand Apostle

Illinois is one of the more strict states on gun control. Concealed carry is illegal. College campus is a gun free zone to everyone (except the killer). The dude stopped at one point, and fucking reloaded. I hate to be glib when talking about a situation like this, but how did that work out?

Exactly, no one else is allowed to carry a gun. So who is gonna stop him?

It's like putting a angry-steriod injected pitbull into a cage full of poodles. Who do you think will win?

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by ukfswmart

That is a ridiculous statement to make, quite frankly. Guns are legal and easily available in the US, so of course it's easy to obtain one illegally. How difficult is it for underage kids to get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes? All you have to do is get someone who can legally obtain them for you (or at least looks looks old enough), give them the money for it and bang, you've circumvented the law. It's the same case with guns; if you can't legally acquire one, you can quite easily have somebody purchase one for you. Restricting these substances to minors makes it more difficult (not impossible) for them to be obtained; I'll allow you to extrapolate the rest from that

This is where you're just dead wrong. The only thing that's even remotely less easy is that you have to meet someone behind the gas station *parking lot* instead of behind the counter. Guns also have more of a paper trail going, so it's a different issue... that motivates even some otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens to get guns 'semi-legally' to avoid bureaucratic bullshit and being a suspect of every crime in an area thanks to gun-control evangelists.

EDIT: I'll add a bit more detail. Since Clinton tightened the restrictions on interactions with Cuba, nobody has been able to legally bring Cuban cigars into the country. For obvious enough reasons the supply of cigars brought in before then is decreasing in size every day, and products of Cuba are the most highly prized cigars in existence - so much so that 'Cuban-seed' leaves wrapped by families that left Cuba fetch prices well above and beyond other cigars and regions that produce tobacco even 'similar' to Cuban tobacco sell for higher prices than other cigars regardless of actual quality - 'Cuban' is the 'vintage' here. Even going to several other countries to attempt to mask the final destination of Cuba gets people arrested. However, there is too much demand for these cigars - they're the best of the best, so people smuggle these cigars - completely illegal - from any other country they come to before the States. End result? Although they're not all that hard to find, the price is greatly increased, so we're encouraging the people who smuggle them to continue smuggling them in with several hundred percent markups.

To summarize... Cuban cigars are illegal. Cuban cigars are not hard to obtain at the right price. Cuban cigars can not be bought through an 'old enough' or 'not batshit insane enough' middleman; clearly the law - which is still well-enforced and which lands many people in jail - is not helping the problem.

Again, just because something works across the pond doesn't mean it'll work well here. I know you mean well and all that, and I know you're not stupid, but there's just simply no way to curb the high demand for some items, and guns will be among those items for as long as they're restricted. END EDIT.

FURTHER EDIT: No matter how many things we make illegal - even if we were to assume that bans would be effective - the simple problem is that America has deeper problems than having guns available. Pretending that banning guns will stop issues like this is just avoiding the issue entirely; people here are just fucked up and no amount of banthisbanthat legislation is going to fix that. END FURTHER EDIT.

Jeff

[Ojinomoto]

Originally Posted by Hawksmoor

It's different... It's also how society regards violence as a means to an end... If violence is considered as viable troubleshooting mechanism, violence will be used more often. With the violent tools that come with it.
These are depressing times for a lot of people, there's not a lot of hope around. Maybe that, should be adressed too?

Could you (USA) guys say this though?
Since this country was "founded" and "grown" upon the aspect of "take your best guns, destroy the enemy, get (whatever outcome one wants,) and bask in the glory of having conquered, could you say that using guns as a means to an end is woven in our culture's DNA? I mean, since we were founded after the sword and ax days of the middle ages, look at all the wars we've fought that used guns. And look how we've become the "Strongest, most powerful nation in the world" (some proclaim.) Hell, even the founding fathers have even put it specifically in the Constitution. Granted, I don't like violence since we are humans, not animals, who can communicate our problem and solutions, I DO agree with myself carrying a nice 9mm on me for the fact that there are fucked up people in this world who would like to take what I (we) have. The thought of it is as normal as life, death, sex and, hunger.

I like this thread. Keep going.

[s7eve]

Fuck another one

I am not sure that making guns illegal is the answer, guns are practically illegal over here and it is still easy to buy an illegal firearm, gun violence is also still a problem.

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by JBroll

T
FURTHER EDIT: No matter how many things we make illegal - even if we were to assume that bans would be effective - the simple problem is that America has deeper problems than having guns available. Pretending that banning guns will stop issues like this is just avoiding the issue entirely; people here are just fucked up and no amount of banthisbanthat legislation is going to fix that. END FURTHER EDIT.

Exactly. If someone REALLY wants to kill someone, they'll do it with whatever they have to do to kill someone. beat them to death if they have to. Will we ban baseball bats and 2x4's with nails in them? Really.

[Zepp88]

It would be nice if killing people wasn't so efficient though...

[Metal Ken]

We cant not make it efficent. there's just too many easy ways to do it, even without guns.

[JBroll]

We also have cars, electricity, food, books, doors, fire, and large pieces of metal at our disposal even if we ban guns, knives, violent video games, evil atheistic violent Marilyn Manson satanist heavy metal music, and everything else that's designed to only bring evil into existence.

Jef

[ukfswmart]

Originally Posted by JBroll

This is where you're just dead wrong. The only thing that's even remotely less easy is that you have to meet someone behind the gas station *parking lot* instead of behind the counter. Guns also have more of a paper trail going, so it's a different issue... that motivates even some otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens to get guns 'semi-legally' to avoid bureaucratic bullshit and being a suspect of every crime in an area thanks to gun-control evangelists.

EDIT: I'll add a bit more detail. Since Clinton tightened the restrictions on interactions with Cuba, nobody has been able to legally bring Cuban cigars into the country. For obvious enough reasons the supply of cigars brought in before then is decreasing in size every day, and products of Cuba are the most highly prized cigars in existence - so much so that 'Cuban-seed' leaves wrapped by families that left Cuba fetch prices well above and beyond other cigars and regions that produce tobacco even 'similar' to Cuban tobacco sell for higher prices than other cigars regardless of actual quality - 'Cuban' is the 'vintage' here. Even going to several other countries to attempt to mask the final destination of Cuba gets people arrested. However, there is too much demand for these cigars - they're the best of the best, so people smuggle these cigars - completely illegal - from any other country they come to before the States. End result? Although they're not all that hard to find, the price is greatly increased, so we're encouraging the people who smuggle them to continue smuggling them in with several hundred percent markups.

To summarize... Cuban cigars are illegal. Cuban cigars are not hard to obtain at the right price. Cuban cigars can not be bought through an 'old enough' or 'not batshit insane enough' middleman; clearly the law - which is still well-enforced and which lands many people in jail - is not helping the problem.

Again, just because something works across the pond doesn't mean it'll work well here. I know you mean well and all that, and I know you're not stupid, but there's just simply no way to curb the high demand for some items, and guns will be among those items for as long as they're restricted. END EDIT.

FURTHER EDIT: No matter how many things we make illegal - even if we were to assume that bans would be effective - the simple problem is that America has deeper problems than having guns available. Pretending that banning guns will stop issues like this is just avoiding the issue entirely; people here are just fucked up and no amount of banthisbanthat legislation is going to fix that. END FURTHER EDIT.

Jeff

I completely get what you're saying man, and the cigar example was brilliant. I just don't see what harm would come from tightening gun control laws as it would involve some degree of reduction in weapon availability, that's all

Maybe it's a cultural issue. Personally, I don't see the point in 'needing' to carry a firearm on you at all times, or what the purpose of civilian access to handguns serves. I guess I simply don't 'get' the fascination with guns that America generally has

[Hawksmoor]

Originally Posted by JBroll

We also have cars, electricity, food, books, doors, fire, and large pieces of metal at our disposal even if we ban guns, knives, violent video games, evil atheistic violent Marilyn Manson satanist heavy metal music, and everything else that's designed to only bring evil into existence.

Jef

Michail Kalashnikov, designer of the famed AK47 ( probably the most ubiquitous weapon in the world, even more then a machete) was once asked if he felt guilty about designing a weapon that had killed so many people over the years.
His answer was: " No, I sered my country designing this weapon, and if I hadn't designed it it would probably be (his colleague designer) Simonov's design they would have used. Or wooden clubs... If they wanted to."

Albert Einstein made a remark at the height of the cold war in the 50's: " I cannot predit what weapons will be used in World War III, but Iam pretty sure that I can predict the most used weapon in world war IV: The Club."

Silk, a character played by DMX in the feature movie Romeo Must Die: " Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

It is a simple fact that in no field human creativity has developed somuch as in the field of weaponry, and finding means to destroy, maim, and kill other living beings. That is not a theory, that is a FACT.

Inmates in prisons make potenially deadly utencils from newspapers for example. It defies what we know about newspapers, and the fabric paper in general, but with some creative proces it is possible to turn a newspaper in a deadly weapon.

The logic that everything potentially lethal should be banned if guns were banned is not a valid one. There is a vast difference between some utencil that is potentially lethal if handled in a certain way, and a utencil that is designed for its lethallity. Guns and any other weapons belong in the latter contextual frame.
The fact that by their very nature guns are lethal, or maiming, makes them something that in the best case should be controlled or in the worst case forbidden.

Some of you will say that my argument isn't fair and that guns can be used for competitions such as benchresting, accuracy shooting, action shooting, biathlon and the like. Here too the fact remains that these competitions were first developed from military training practices designed to learn soldiers how to use their weapons in a lethal fashion.

Conclusion, for now: there is a difference between potential lethality inherent to a utencil, and intended lethality inherent to a utencil. This rejects a large part of your statement, jeff.