Why more guns does not mean less violence
Guitar92player
Posts: 664
(For once I will use a Fox News source)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/09/ge ... -with-gun/
George Zimmerman threatened his ex wife and her father with a gun recently and ended up punching her father.
Many times on this forum I have seen "more guns means less crime/violence." What happened with Zimmerman is a perfect example why that phrase is bullshit.
See, if you're mad, upset, etc., and you have a gun, you will threaten someone with it and in some cases use it. It doesn't matter how good and responsible you are with a gun, when times are rough, you have a ticket out of your situation. He was upset, had a gun, used it as a threat. If he was more angry, he could have used it.
He opted to use a less-violent approach and punched her father.
Now imagine if everyone had a gun. Granted, crimes might go down, but when people are angry, scared etc., they have something to get rid of that feeling if needed, and it will be a foolish, not thought out decision.
Just to be clear, I am not saying "take away everyone's guns." But the idea that more means less violence is not the answer either. Kind of offtopic, but if the teachers at Sandy Hook had a gun, the outcome would have still been bad. If the shooter got into the school, he could have easily taken out the armed teacher, and then kill many kids. For mass killings like that, the shooter doesn't care if he kills 1, 10, or 100. He/she just want to kill, and eventually be killed. They have no plan to live. The element of surprise usually wins.
The answer to our gun problem is not as simple as "take away guns" or "buy more guns." A mature, thought out discussion is needed on this issue and sadly I don't see it happening anytime soon.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/09/ge ... -with-gun/
George Zimmerman threatened his ex wife and her father with a gun recently and ended up punching her father.
Many times on this forum I have seen "more guns means less crime/violence." What happened with Zimmerman is a perfect example why that phrase is bullshit.
See, if you're mad, upset, etc., and you have a gun, you will threaten someone with it and in some cases use it. It doesn't matter how good and responsible you are with a gun, when times are rough, you have a ticket out of your situation. He was upset, had a gun, used it as a threat. If he was more angry, he could have used it.
He opted to use a less-violent approach and punched her father.
Now imagine if everyone had a gun. Granted, crimes might go down, but when people are angry, scared etc., they have something to get rid of that feeling if needed, and it will be a foolish, not thought out decision.
Just to be clear, I am not saying "take away everyone's guns." But the idea that more means less violence is not the answer either. Kind of offtopic, but if the teachers at Sandy Hook had a gun, the outcome would have still been bad. If the shooter got into the school, he could have easily taken out the armed teacher, and then kill many kids. For mass killings like that, the shooter doesn't care if he kills 1, 10, or 100. He/she just want to kill, and eventually be killed. They have no plan to live. The element of surprise usually wins.
The answer to our gun problem is not as simple as "take away guns" or "buy more guns." A mature, thought out discussion is needed on this issue and sadly I don't see it happening anytime soon.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3898778? ... d%3D372127
Thank you, Paul Atriedes, for your prescient abilities. That's how you predict all gun owners act when we get angry, is it?
Ok, sure, fair enough, but that's not what you've initiated with this thread.
To say how "gun owners act" is misleading. It's how people are naturally. We get angry sometimes, and in extreme cases angry enough to do stupid shit. Gun owners are not special people. They are people, capable of getting angry like anyone else.
It seems like you guys on here think I am a gun hater. I am not. And yes, i don't have stats, but I dont need stats when it comes to a generally accepted notion that we, human beings, can get very, very angry and do dumb shit. Well, maybe i need stats to confirm if "more guns means less violence" works or not, but there are so many facts for both sides that one cannot come to a truthful conclusion.
Humans can do dumb shit while being angry. Being extremely angry with things like a gun, knife, or angry while driving a car, can have horrible consequences if taken to far extremes.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Well, good for him. But the point still stands.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I know! lol. It was the first article I saw so I was like, "Oh well."
True, and very sad about America.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense