Another gunman shooting! We need stricter gun control laws!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/03/news/companies/guns-children/index.html

Anyone can see that the laws regarding weapons need to change if Rifles designed for Children are sold at Markets like Wall Mart.

"

Sneakypaw wrote:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/03/news/companies/guns-children/index.html

Anyone can see that the laws regarding weapons need to change if Rifles designed for Children are sold at Markets like Wall Mart.

Tried to not be offensive to op but couldn't, sorry.

I find it very disturbing -12 people should get a notice on these threads while everyday a thousand people die without reason.

Must be some patriotic thing that makes those dead's weight more then the others.

Imagine the biggest idiot and troll you encountered on these forums.
Think about how you thought "how can somebody be so stupid"
Think about how you thought "how can someone have such an obscure point of view"

And then think about how he still can legally own a gun in America. Hey, maybe he goes and buys one for his kid. It's birthday is coming up. And I am sure he can find one with pokemon decals.

Any society is responsible for its inhabitants, therefore the shootings are mandatory and normal, since nobody prevented that person from committing them.

If anything society is to blame for the inhabitants it creates.

We had a shooting in my country 2 years ago, in a children's daycare, 3 children died and the rest where traumatized, including the person watching over them(anybody would be after seeing 3 children die that you are responsible for), i felt sorry for them. But mostly of all i felt sorry for the person that shot the children, not the children themselves. And i blamed society for being in-adept to change. To be so misunderstood that you have conceived yourself you have to kill children to get your voice heard? This is everybody's fault. And it's the same with every shooting so far. And still people pretend to blame others, just to ease there own minds of any wrongdoings.

Then again, i don't understand the current society, it has no purpose, no aim, no long-term vision. It's prone to destruction and any child could tell u this. a society based on exponential growth to ensure it's success is a wet dream from the 60's.

"

Imagine the biggest idiot and troll you encountered on these forums.
Think about how you thought "how can somebody be so stupid"
Think about how you thought "how can someone have such an obscure point of view"

This proves my point, you envision him as a problem, while at the same time you are not part of the solution, now ask yourself, who is better? The person being a troll having no knowledge of himself behaving like a troll? Ore the person watching the troll, inadequate to enlighten the trolls mind?

"

Do you have children of your own, or close, regular contact with children?

My sister had a son 7 months ago, so yes i do. I am a proud uncle atm. And i know what your point is, but it does not apply to me.

Sadly i hold no attachments to "family" as it is currently known in society, therefore people that do wrong are as much part of my family then victims of the wrong doing. And lives gone are gone, they should not be mourned rather celebrated.

Which would be the most harmful to the world? a child that died at the age of 2 ore a child misunderstood at the age of 25? Obviously there is no correct answer, but that is my point.

"

No offence but you can't claim how you'd feel unless it happened.

Some things cannot be anticipated or rationalised.

Obviously you are correct about this statement, if it where my mind doing the talking. I abandoned this practice a long time ago. It is my hart directing my tongue, and my mind is utterly stupid. I do understand your view, but imagine loving both persons in the story and you might understand how i would feel.

Believe me charan, everyday i cry and rejoice.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Not sure what you mean here.. the issue is that the constitution needs to be amended to disallow the personal ownership of weapons that have no business in the hands of citizens. You can't own a rocket launcher - but nobody is upset about that, because everyone realizes a rocket launcher is an absurd thing to allow people to own. Even if the person owning it is totally responsible in their rocket launching activities, the chance that someone else could obtain it means it's to risky to let ANYONE have it. Guns that can fire over 100 rounds in seconds are equally as absurd to allow into the hands of the general public, hell most of the general public shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Pretty sure that you can own a rocket launcher, not positive on that though. I do know that people can have tanks, so I don't know why we'd draw the line at rocket launchers but not tanks. Grenade launchers are also legal. But those things are heavily regulated like fully-automatic guns. And you know, the thing about fully-automatic guns being heavily regulated is that I don't know of a single person who was stopped from getting their own fully-automatic weapon. Similarly, I don't know of a single person who quit smoking marijuana because it is illegal. You cover this point later on, that the law is not so much a deterrent as it is to punish people who don't abide by it, which I will address then.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

2. Protection - you do not need such a weapon to protect your home. Having such a weapon will not deter the government from taking your house should they want to, or should our democracy be destroyed and some tyrant take power - they will roll over you in tanks as you fight in vain.

Again, implying that the military will destroy their own people. Just because some police departments are willing to pepper spray some students doesn't mean they're willing to escalate to bullet spray.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

4. The argument that states "making guns illegal wont prevent criminals from having them" - this is true, making a law does not deter criminals, if laws did we wouldn't need prisons any longer. However, we do not make laws to prevent crime, we make them to punish those who do not conduct themselves in the manner to which our society has deemed acceptable. If the argument that people will still get guns IS valid, then that same argument could be made to try and justify the illumination of ALL laws, or to prevent ANY further/additional laws to ever be added "why outlaw rape? people will still rape".

So you want to punish people who have not caused any harm to any person, simply because of their capacity to harm? So it's back to drugs and alcohol. Someone who drinks alcohol regularly is more likely to commit crime by a massive margin(and not just a petty crime like drunk and disorderly), so we should prevent citizens from having access to alcohol? Already tried that, and we're already regulating alcohol, and both have been pretty much completely ineffective

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

5. A blind thumping of the constitution is not an argument, its acting like a child. The constitution is not some hallowed commandment from the All Mighty. It was written by men over 100 years ago who had no inkling of what the world would be like today. They had just won a revolution, and feared that revolution collapsing from within or from abroad and so naturally they deemed it a right for every (white) man to own a gun. However, our democracy is not at risk of collapse, no tyrants threaten us from within or from abroad. Also, when times got rough (See the Civil War) the government suspended due process and restricted any rights they saw fit - they did this because it was necessary to do this due to the circumstances they were in. likewise, here and now, we should recognize the situation we are in and do something about it. No other country has this issue that America has, and until we can find the cause of that issue and rectify it, we should take steps to limit the horrific consequences of it.

Yes, I agree that constitution thumping is childish, which is exactly why I never bring it up in any of my arguments until someone else brings it up.
No other country has this issue that America has, yes, but guns, and primarily their violent usage, are a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. There are significantly more guns than there are violent acts with guns. If we start making laws off of anomaly events then we get the PATRIOT act and the TSA, both an embarrassment not only due to their gross privacy invasion of the lives of ordinary citizens but also their utter ineffectiveness at preventing the very thing they were implemented for. I am not interested, nor will I ever be interested, in people making laws off of events that happen extremely rarely. If I was, then I'd be interested in outlawing cars, I'd be interested in outlawing alcohol, I'd be interested in the continued legal assault on illicit drug users. But I'm not, because I understand that the people who inflict harm with those things are very few compared to the amount who safely use them.

Regulating and outlawing the things people use and indulge in has been show to be completely ineffective in so many cases that I am extremely unlikely to be convinced that it is the solution, better education, better quality of life, better healthcare so people with psychological issues can be taken care of rather than left to their own devices, those are solutions. But they're much harder, and people would rather go for the quick and easy.

you never let the slaves own weapons

Septile -

the issue is the amount of harm one can do. You can go nuts and stab someone, I am not saying they should ban knives. But you can't go into a school and knife 20 people to death in a matter of seconds. That is the issue, the amount of harm, not the fact that harm is done. If you smoke a cigarette/shoot heroin/drink yourself to death - be my guest, I am not saying we need to try and prevent any bad thing from happening ever, or that we can somehow prevent every murder from taking place. However, we can certainly outlaw the weapons whose only purpose is massive slaughter.

No law abiding person is being 'punished' nobody is being punished by not allowing us to have rocket launchers, and while you may be able to own a tank you certainly cannot own the ammo to fire from it.

I was not implying what the army/police would do, I was bringing it up because typically people who are against gun restrictions start talking about our right to defend ourselves from the government. We can and certainly do have the right to defend ourselves, but there is no way we could hope to beat back the army IF they decided to attack us - that was my point, to show that the 'defense' rebuttal isn't viable as an argument against gun restrictions.

I agree that better education and law enforcement, better services to help those with mental issues, is what we need. However, in the mean time, I see no reason why someone needs a gun that can kill 20 people in seconds. Also, I am not so sure how 'rare' these events are currently, seem to be happening pretty consistently.