If we had more guns, the Omaha mall shooting may not have happened

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen
You are taking two seperate measurments and combining them.

This is a mistake.

X = have gun(1) or not have a gun(0)
Y = willingess for an individual to fire a gun
Z = odds of a person shooting a gun

The equation then is X * Y = Z

If you do not have a gun then the equation is, for most people: 0 * 0 = 0.

If you do have a gun then the equation is, for most people:

1 * 0 = 0.

The odds of anyone shooting anyone unjustly is still, 0.

The difference between the two however is that you can be protected from criminals and the odd lunatic, while also enjoying a society with less crime.

You are being silly.

I have no gun right now. If I snap, I can't go shoot somebody.

If everyone had a gun, and they snap, they can shoot somebody.

[Vesayen]

Why not Sandman? Are you saying a large portion of our society is so nuts they will shoot someone if they have a gun?

[Asher]

Ves, where are your figures that show the dramatic rise in accidental shootings?

[Aeson]

The odds of anyone shooting anyone unjustly is still, 0.

Around a 1000 deaths occur each year in the US due to accidents involving firearms. If you want to increase the proliferation of firearms, you're going to increase the number of accidental shootings as well.

[Vesayen]

So your saying Asher, that because people can have fits of rage, we should not let people have guns? People can do kill all the time in fits of rage, without guns.

By that argument, should we ban cars because in a fit of rage, you can kill someone with a car? I think I could do a hell of a lot more damage with a car then a handgun, myself. Plow it through a sidewalk at lunch time etc.

I never said anything about a rise in accidental shootings.

A car can be just as lethal or more lethal then a firearm, yet we liscence people to get those all the time with a basic test in saftey.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen
So your saying Asher, that because people can have fits of rage, we should not let people have guns? People can do kill all the time in fits of rage, without guns.

By that argument, should we ban cars because in a fit of rage, you can kill someone with a car? I think I could do a hell of a lot more damage with a car then a handgun, myself. Plow it through a sidewalk at lunch time etc.

Cars serve a purpose, guns don't.

I never said anything about a rise in accidental shootings.

The point is you aren't thinking through this.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Aeson


Around a 1000 deaths occur each year in the US due to accidents involving firearms. If you want to increase the proliferation of firearms, you're going to increase the number of accidental shootings as well.

A valid point, one of the only ones raised so far heh .

That is true.

However we can't make laws on the basis of accidental behavior and ban things broadly accordingly, if we did, where would it end? Again, cars.

[Asher]

Cars --> use
Guns --> no use
Argument of comparing guns/cars --> retarded
Person making argument is --> ?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Asher

Cars serve a purpose, guns don't.

The hell they don't.

Guns can

A. Protect you from criminals

B. A militia being essential to freedom etc-see the 2nd amendment.

I won't bother to raise hunting.

Guns protect you from criminals and discourage a tyranical govmt, two very useful functions.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen


The hell they don't.

Guns can

A. Protect you from criminals

B. A militia being essential to freedom etc-see the 2nd amendment.

You don't need guns to protect you from criminals. Conversely, criminals can use guns to kill you.

The 2nd point is so desperate so as to not reply to.

[Vesayen]

So now we will regulate our laws based on what an arbitrary individual decides "we need" or don't need? Arbitrary intrusion into our lives which is again, a violation of the constitution. We don't structure the law to ban things decided that they "do not need".

As a free individual of a free society, I am entitled to do whatever I want and have whatever I want, providing my freedom does not infringe the freedom of another. Guns can protect you from criminals and while you do not "need" them, you don't need fatty foods either, so should we ban fast food resteraunts for your own good?

The 2nd point is not desperate at all. People want to pretend that a private citizen having guns is not at useful to defend their liberty.

How many despots in the last 60 years, when coming to power immediatly banned private possesion of firearms?

[Asher]

Wow.

I can't continue this thread without lashing out at the stupidity.

If I had a gun right now and you'd be next to me, who knows what'd happen. GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!!

[Vesayen]

On behalf of it's authors, I accept your surrender to the constitution of the United States of America.

[Wezil]

@ thread.

I Poly.

[Elok]

This is 2007. Guns don't discourage a tyrannical government half so much as a politically active populace does. If a bunch of old-fashioned minutemen took to the streets to fight the power, it wouldn't be their handheld rifles that saved them from being run over by tanks, shot full of holes by helicopter-mounted miniguns or simply tear-gassed to drive them away. It would be the genuine patriotism or goodwill of the people charged with firing the guns or driving the tanks or releasing the gas.