@ Itisamuh - I agree with you and will take it a step further - we wouldn't be who we are today (in every aspect) if not for those murders throughout history. But I disagree with you that it does not matter who gets murdered. I have to believe when the defenseless are murdered it is more heinious of an offense then if an adult is murdered and especially if the adult was a criminal. It's why society is in place, the strong don't need any help from society - sure they will take it and even thrive from it - but it's really there to protect the weak.. even give them a chance in this murder-filled dog-eat-dog world.
What I don't get, is how so many Americans be so stupid, as to belive that GUNS are the solution. Without the amount of weapons in circulation, it would be harder for anyone, even criminals to get their hands on them, thus reducing the amount of kills going on. Yes, there will obviously be people that manages to get guns anyway, but isn't 50 kills better then 500 kills? I personally wouldn't choose anything that made 450 more people getting killed, if there was an option that would save 450 people.
I mean... really. just look at the rest of the world. Scandinavia for example, there are VERY little murders going on on a daily basis then in America, why? because guns aren't "allowed". Note that I don't mean murders in just pure numbers, as obviously there are more people in America, so they would naturally have a larger amount of kills. But murders per inhabitant is much higher in America then any of the scandinavian countries etc.
Also, the harming of law abiding citizens is a catch 22. These mass shootings were committed by law biding citizens. They were not criminals until they killed people. If these guns were illigal, they would be criminals prior to actually committing the mass murders. It would have made it possible to stop or arrest these folks while they were in the process of committing a crime of buying the weapon. It's also only movie logic, that leads people to believe buying guns illigally is easy. Unlike a plot device in movies, it's not easy to buy a gun from a criminal who can use the gun you are buying to just take your money.
What I really wonder is.... Why do we have another thread now about guns.. Don't we have already enough, especially even one with/about Piers Morgan and the topic?
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 05:12 PM ----------
"If you must mount the gallows, give a jest to the crowd, a coin to the hangman, and make the drop with a smile on your lips"
Compared to the guy doing a fake British accent, calling him a redcoat, shouting over him and saying he should be deported in order to mock his opposition 0oSee above reply. I also don't really see how he was "louder", but Piers pretty much lost any hope of trying to have a real discussion when he had to resort to things like "you can sit there and smirk all you want" without STILL answering his original question.
I hate Piers Morgan, but to say he was the worse of two evils is like saying Iran supports gay marriage :S
I really didn't see anyone (again, in the video I watched) trying to shout over each other?
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:05 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:07 PM ----------
I'm thinking you guys might not have watched the video and think I'm referring to the video with the gun fanatic guy or something, because none of the things you are talking about happened by either person in the video I linked.
Last edited by alturic; 2013-01-13 at 07:08 PM.
This argument by the OP alone should be enough to bad assault weapons....sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons,
In the context of reducing these random mass shootings banning the assault weapons would be a great start.
And if people really want to go on a killing spree with a gun or a knife then at least we know that throwing something at that persons head will be enough and doable.
It's equivalent (in terms of occurance) to airplanes being unsafe because they have accidents. Cars are still far more dangerous in terms of accidents happening more frequently with cars.
Last edited by alturic; 2013-01-13 at 07:18 PM.
On mental health, some of the "problem" is patients rights advocacy groups. I'm not saying they're wrong, but they want records sealed, they want things kept private, because the patient has rights. Your medical records are your business and no one elses. Most of those same people are anti-gun, but in a more general sense of wanting no one to have guns rather than restricting it from mental problems.
There was also some issues with ex-soldiers that had sought treatment for depression or whatnot and not being able to get guns, folks on either side didn't want to come out and say "take guns away from our ex-soldiers!" and it was a sticking point.
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:25 PM ----------
And these threads are opened by both sides of the debate, so I don't think it's a partisan thing.
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:26 PM ----------
Sound logic, that.
Don't worry, if you say it LOUD ENOUGH it'll be true and you can win any argument.
The only reason a person would need a gun for is to protect himself against another person having a gun.
-"Blizz could send every subscriber a check for $100 and people would complain that it wasn't $150"