MERGED--> all Gun Control discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
These events will continue to happen until guns are much more tightly regulated in the US, that is the reality.


I disagree.

That is not a reality.

Germany had a school shooting a few weeks ago.
Gun laws in Germany are very strict.

In the US last week a man killed his two sisters with a knife.

These things happen because of evil people bent on doing evil.

Whether they wield a gun, a knife, bomb, or stone....
they will vent their evil.
 
the guy with the knife could have killed a lot more people with an AK-47.


How many cops would the guys in Pittsburgh or Oakland have killed with knifes.

or even the guy in NY, that took out 14 people?
 
i disagree.

That is not a reality.

Germany had a school shooting a few weeks ago.
Gun laws in germany are very strict.

In the us last week a man killed his two sisters with a knife.

These things happen because of evil people bent on doing evil.

Whether they wield a gun, a knife, bomb, or stone....
They will vent their evil.


ignorant comment.............we cannot blame "evil" anymore. There's psychological reasoning for these acts.
 
If there are no records then how do you know 2 occured?


And how many illegal killings?

Actually that 254 is a little skewed since "self defense" is pretty easy to claim when it happens on your property.

My newspaper was nice enough to report it, they don't get factored in on any crime statistics reports.

ignorant comment.............we cannot blame "evil" anymore. There's psychological reasoning for these acts.

Fine if you can't blame a knife you can't blame a gun.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/world/main4222185.shtml




Home » World
Deadly Stabbing Spree Kills 5 Chinese Cops
Revenge-Minded Man Sets Fire Outside Station, Then Storms Inside Armed With Only A Knife

Comments Comments 10

BEIJING, July 1, 2008
Send this story via emailE-Mail Story


(AP) A man armed with a knife stormed a police station in Shanghai on Tuesday, stabbing officers inside and killing at least five, authorities said.

The Shanghai Public Security Bureau said in a news release that a 28-year-old man with the surname Yang set a fire outside the building's gate and then rushed inside and began attacking officers.

Five officers died after being taken to a hospital, while four other police officers and a security guard were hurt, the statement said. Some had chest wounds and others had bloodied faces, the official Xinhua News Agency reported, citing a witness with the surname Yi.

Yang, who is from Beijing and unemployed, said he was seeking revenge after officers at the station in Shanghai's Zhabei district investigated him last year for allegedly stealing bicycles, police said.

Yang was taken into custody at the station.

It was not clear how the attacker managed to stab so many police officers and why he was not detained after setting a fire outside the building. Though Chinese police are permitted to carry guns, the attack took place in an office building and it was possible officers there were not armed.

A woman at the Zhabei district station referred questions to the Shanghai Public Security Bureau. Phones rang unanswered in the bureau's propaganda department.

Violent street crime is rare in China, where private gun ownership is virtually banned.
 
if every law-abiding citizen had a firearm, was allowed to carry, and had extensive training with it, what do you think the crime rate would look like?

on the other side, what if guns were completely outlawed and only police and criminals had them? cause i think it's true that gun control only stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns. not to say they should give every asshole that walks into a place a gun, there has to be some kind of background check. criminals will always be able to get illegal guns. i work in st. thomas and they have extremely strict gun control there and people are still shooting each other left and right there. there was just 2 shootings this past weekend. meanwhile i, even as law enforcement, want to bring my own personal firearm down there to carry and it is extremely difficult.
 
if every law-abiding citizen had a firearm, was allowed to carry, and had extensive training with it, what do you think the crime rate would look like?

About the same, probably slightly higher...

Crimes of passions and moments of weakness would go up.
on the other side, what if guns were completely outlawed and only police and criminals had them? cause i think it's true that gun control only stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns.

I agree that there is no way to take guns out of criminal's hands overnight. But I do think there are ways to eliminate certain guns and slowly get them out of the hands of criminals. The majority of black market guns are manufactured by legitimate manufacturers in the states, eventually this blackmarket can be controlled. A control on ammunition in the meantime can slow down gun related crimes. I think it has to be a combination of the two, and knowing that it will take time.

not to say they should give every asshole that walks into a place a gun, there has to be some kind of background check. criminals will always be able to get illegal guns.

Unfortunately these background checks don't check mental stability...
 
^Well said. I do believe that the Second Amendment does lend itself to say that American citizens have a right to own a firearm if they so choose. Personally, I don't see the necessity for it, unless one is in law enforcement or another profession where a gun would likely be required. This is a personal opinion. One of my closest friends owns multiple guns because he hunts and likes to go to the shooting range as a hobby. He knows how I feel about this, and he respects it. He like many people, is a responsible gun owner who keeps his guns locked up and unloaded except when they're being used. However, he also supports stricter gun control laws just as I do. He doesn't see a dichotomy between owning a gun(s) for sport and also supporting laws that will make it harder for people like gang members in Detroit, about 20 minutes from our safe suburb, to get an assault rifle and do a drive-by that kills an innocent 7 year old girl in her bedroom, or laws that would've made it more difficult for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to shoot up Columbine High School, Seung-Hui Cho to carry out the massacre at Virginia Tech, or Jiverly Wong to murder all those people in Binghamton, New York last week. Obviously, it's not right to take away every single responsible, stable, honest citizen's gun(s) because of these situations. These people and the countless others who have committed murder or caused injuries with a gun have deeper issues that needed to be addressed that could've prevented these tragedies. However, stricter gun control laws would've made it more difficult for these people to purchase the guns they used to commit the terrible crimes they did. It is partially the fault of organizations such as the NRA, one of the biggest lobbies in Washington D.C., that push for less government regulation and control of the gun industry that foster and indirectly help people like these carry out these terrible incidents. These same gun rights advocates in government often will blame violence in music, movies, TV, etc. for causing these situations. However, a gun from a scene in a movie can't bust through a screen and find it's way into someone's hand. Yet, a gun from a local store that these pro-gun individuals not only support but believe should make it easier for them to buy their guns,can sell a gun to a disturbed person who will take it into a mall and randomly shoot 30 people. The fault doesn't lie in "liberal" media, nor does it lie with responsible American citizens who follow every rule and precaution with the guns they own. However, much of the fault does lie with those American citizens and organizations who support making gun control laws more lax because they're more concerned with their own false idea of personal "rights" than they are with the common good.
 
Gun Violence in the USA, Obama needs to step up!

Five dead in US murder-suicide: reports

A gunman shot dead his wife, daughter and two other people before killing himself, reports said on Tuesday, the latest in a series of recent murder-suicides that have shocked America.

The body of Kevin Garner, 45, was found on Tuesday near the home he formerly shared with his estranged wife in Morgan County, Alabama.

Law enforcement agents said Garner had earlier gunned down his wife, his daughter, a sister and her nephew in the town of Greenhill, reports said.

The killings came ahead of a divorce hearing between Garner and his wife Tammy due to take place on Wednesday.

Garner's sister had been due to testify on behalf of his estranged wife at the hearing, the Times Daily newspaper reported on its website.

The United States has been rocked by several fatal mass shootings in the past three weeks.

Last weekend a man in Washington state shot dead his five children before killing himself after discovering his wife was leaving him.

On Saturday three police officers were killed by a 23-year-old man at his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The attack came a day after a recently unemployed man stormed an immigrant services centre where he had been learning English in Binghamton, New York state, and went on a murderous rampage, killing 13 people before taking his own life.

On March 29, a heavily armed gunman shot dead eight people at a North Carolina nursing home, days after six people were killed in a murder-suicide in an upscale neighbourhood in northern California's Silicon Valley.

And on March 10, an unemployed man killed his mother, grandmother and eight others on a vicious shooting rampage in Alabama.


Ok I'm back from me lovely 2 month jaunt around europe, and am catching up on all the news, and this story just really stood out to me.


My questions are this.

What do you think would happen to the United States if guns were banned and you had to hand them all in, or be fined if caught with one?

Do you honestly believe carrying a gun for protection makes for a safer society?

Because this problem is BULLSHIT. There wouldn't even BE a problem if there wasn't a gun involved. Of course you can kill someone in other ways but nothing is as easy as pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.

The biggest question of all.

Have you lost your respect for human life? Do you think anyone has the right to take another persons life? Because really, no one does. You don't get to decide.
 
i cant hold out any longer on this :lol:

My questions are this.

What do you think would happen to the United States if guns were banned and you had to hand them all in, or be fined if caught with one?

will never happen, but i imagine there might be civil war. if not, there would be lots of problems with people that refuse to give up their guns.

Do you honestly believe carrying a gun for protection makes for a safer society?

Yes, it makes me feel safer. Maybe if one of the 13 people at the immigration center had a gun they couldve stopped that nutcase from slaughtering everyone. Do you honestly believe law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have a gun to protect themselves and their family? And if so, why not?

Because this problem is BULLSHIT. There wouldn't even BE a problem if there wasn't a gun involved. Of course you can kill someone in other ways but nothing is as easy as pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.

Let me tell you a little secret: if somebody wants to kill somebody, they will find a way to do it. if that crazy Chinese guy couldn't get his hands on a gun, he could've just as easily walked into that immigration center with a machete or something and started hacking people up, either that or make a bomb and obliterate the place. Also, i work in St thomas virgin islands where they have probably the strictest gun control in the united states. yet, people still get ahold of illegal guns and are offing eachother left and right. there were 2 fatal shootings just this last weekend. and this is on an ISLAND were there arent even any gun stores. so there is a perfect example of how gun control is ineffective at stopping gun violence.

The biggest question of all.

Have you lost your respect for human life? Do you think anyone has the right to take another persons life? Because really, no one does. You don't get to decide.

Not too sure what this means. Anyone who has a gun or is pro-gun is for killing people?
 
Seems like a lot of people would feel better if people were slaughtered with knives instead of guns. lol Maybe it feels better to ignore the human factor. :huh:
 
Seems like a lot of people would feel better if people were slaughtered with knives instead of guns. lol Maybe it feels better to ignore the human factor. :huh:

Yeah, I bet all those drive-by knife crimes in inner cities would really go up.:huh: You can't go into a classroom full of college students and stab 30-odd people in a matter of seconds. Terrible argument.:down:
 
Those guns are legally owned anyway. People seem to forget that criminals don't mind laws.


But yeah, I was referring to the dead families.

My point was, it's a lot harder to kill someone, say, with a knife, than it is with a gun. It's a hell of a lot harder to kill multiple people with a knife, a club, etc, than it is with a gun. Of course murder will never disappear completely from our society, but stricter gun control laws will make the murder and/or other violent crime in the U.S. go way down.
 
Those guns are legally owned anyway. People seem to forget that criminals don't mind laws.

With time don't you think the supply of black market guns would diminish? I mean the supply of black market guns right now is supplied by legally made guns, most in the US, if the manufacturing of such guns in the US would cease, don't you think it would be much harder to get access?
 
My point was, it's a lot harder to kill someone, say, with a knife, than it is with a gun. It's a hell of a lot harder to kill multiple people with a knife, a club, etc, than it is with a gun. Of course murder will never disappear completely from our society, but stricter gun control laws will make the murder and/or other violent crime in the U.S. go way down.

We already have gun control laws. Even if you disarmed the law abiding gun owners the flow of illegal arms into the US from Mexico would allow our gang bangers to plod on. There is a reason that there are still gun crimes in the UK.
 
We already have gun control laws. Even if you disarmed the law abiding gun owners the flow of illegal arms into the US from Mexico would allow our gang bangers to plod on. There is a reason that there are still gun crimes in the UK.

I didn't say gun crimes would ever go away. I'm saying strict gun controls laws will make it more difficult for violent people to get their hands on guns, which would make gun crimes diminish. The grand majority of violent crimes in the U.S. are caused by firearms.
 
I didn't say gun crimes would ever go away. I'm saying strict gun controls laws will make it more difficult for violent people to get their hands on guns, which would make gun crimes diminish. The grand majority of violent crimes in the U.S. are caused by firearms.


They're not the root of the crime, it's just ok to fear objects instead of people.


Not many at all now that Bush lifted the assault rifle ban...


Great law. Columbine happened before that ban ended. Cho used pistols.
 
They're not the root of the crime, it's just ok to fear objects instead of people.

You're correct in saying that guns aren't the cause of violence. But, yes, it is wise to have a healthy fear and disrespect for guns. To use my prior example a person alone can't kill a room full of people in under 5 minutes. They need a gun (or another weapon of choice) for that. So, yes, I do feel it's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to suggest that we don't need stricter gun control laws (and for the record, stricter laws on personal weapons, in general).
 
You're correct in saying that guns aren't the cause of violence. But, yes, it is wise to have a healthy fear and disrespect for guns. To use my prior example a person alone can't kill a room full of people in under 5 minutes. They need a gun (or another weapon of choice) for that. So, yes, I do feel it's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to suggest that we don't need stricter gun control laws (and for the record, stricter laws on personal weapons, in general).


That sort of reasoning is why the UK wants to ban long pointy objects.

BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors' kitchen knives ban call


Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
Knife
Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

Knife wound
Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
 
If more legally owned guns were the ones being used in crimes even I might be in support of stricter laws. They aren't though, the numbers don't support that gun laws are failing.
 
Great law. Columbine happened before that ban ended. Cho used pistols.

Great examples, now trying giving me one logical example of why a regular law abiding citizen would need any of the following:

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:


A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


The only people I can of are people who want to kill many people at a time, or people who are such shitty hunters they don't have any right using a gun. But I would love to hear just one example.
 
Back
Top Bottom