guns and bullets

(I posted this in the other thread too about the 9 year old and the shooting, but I thought it was important about the psyche of a person capable of a mass shooting..)

From what I've read and heard, a lot of these 'crazy people' who go on mass shootings are often commiting suicide by police.

If the Az shooter (or many like him -- columbine, Virginai tech, etc) had a harder time getting a gun, its not likely they would've used a car or a bomb. They would've used a knife or a machete or a blowtorch and killed less people. And often times, if they arent killed by the police, they kill themselves, so a gun is their best choice.

The point is, the perpetrators in these mass shootings choose a gun because it is easiests and it will often bring return gunfire.

So, if their main goal is to get a gun, a few stricter laws do actually target them rather than the law abiding 'resposible' gun owners. With that I mean magazine limits, longer waiting periods/background checks, saftey classes, etc.. many of these could delay their ability to get a gun, or raise awarness of their 'craziness' before they are able to carry out their death sentences on the innocent.

I wonder if the kid in Az was expecting the police to take him down or if he would've ended it himself after another magazine was emptied.

Just a thought.

it is illegal for a minor in Manitoba to buy spraypaint. SPRAYPAINT. You know what? Graffiti issues have DECLINED. Why? Cause they can't spraypaint WITHOUT THE SPRAYPAINT. Same applies to guns. You can't shoot someone without a gun. If you can, I'd love to hear how. And no, the kids aren't using other tools like Crayons or markers to mark up our town.

Spraypaint. And you think letting any old person walk into a wal mart to buy a gun is sensible.

usamamasan1 wrote:

I use my rifle to harvest deer in the fall. Should we also make it illegal to purchase long arms?

I think rifles and handguns are slightly different. Rifles are designed to hunt, hand guns are specifically designed to kill other humans

dunkman wrote:

heidijam wrote:

MYTH: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society.

FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.

* United Nations data


Therefore, if all of the firearms in the U.S. could magically be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of Japan.

this is interesting.. its basically an admission of a highly criminalised society you live in.

you are basically saying that if all guns were made to vanish... the US would be three times more murderous than Japan.... add to that figure the actual number of murders BY A FIREARM and the figure is about 15 times higher than that of Japan.

you have proved how easy it is to kill using a gun. the argument that people will still find a way is moot... they don't find another way in Japan do they? or in the UK? France?

thanks.

In japan they slap each other with big tuna fish.
WHAM.

Did you know that lawyers are big things in Japan? Cause no one sues each other, so when they meet an American lawyer... It's like huge news.

mikepegg44 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

And good point at where do we limit things.. how bout a Howitzer? or a genade launcher? I should be able to own a bazooka if I want to, even if others cant handle it responsibly. I might be a responsible bazooka lover or a responsbile tank lover, but those arent OK to own.

can anyone tell me why its not ok to own those? cos they'd be mighty fucking handy in the inevitable and glorious uprising of the future militia? I don't think the US Army is scared of citizens with a handgun... but they might be concerned if Chubby Brookstein from Oklahama has 24 surface to air missiles in his garage... legally obtained of course.

if you follow that beloved line of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...

arent howitzers arms? tanks? grenades?

i also like the use of the word 'regulated'... it implies some form of regulation...

I should let you know that you are talking to a libertarian, so it shouldn't surprise you that I would say until someone/something else's rights are violated, I should be allowed to own just about anything I want. howitzer, big giant vats of acid, thousands of drums of oil, whatever I want to spend my money on I should be able to do it, again as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights what is the problem?

and your stance on North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?