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

[onodera]

In my Russian opinion, more guns = good. If you're worried about gun-toting amateurs, make everyone who wants to buy a piece undergo a training course, join NRA, whatever. You do that with cars (and I've heard a driving license is almost mandatory there), why not with guns?

[Theben]

Originally posted by onodera
If you're worried about gun-toting amateurs, make everyone who wants to buy a piece undergo a training course, join NRA, whatever. You do that with cars (and I've heard a driving license is almost mandatory there), why not with guns?

That's something a lot of us have been wondering for awhile. Unfortunately, training= restrictions= gun control, and the pro-gunners won't have any of that.

[Aeson]

Here I was thinking Blake was refering to "Long Rifle" as in muzzle loader used by Daniel Boone...

[Ben Kenobi]

I've not heard of any jurisdiction that doesn't require a license to buy a gun.

In any case we should ban guns from everybody

That way we will automatically be safer from the bad guys, especially the ones with knives.

[SlowwHand]

Laws will definitely stop people, especially criminals, from having guns. Now where did I leave my unicorn?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That way we will automatically be safer from the bad guys, especially the ones with knives.

Emo kids with knives just cut themselves though...

[Flubber]

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.

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.

While I understand that "people kill people" it is a fact that many many murders occur when people get mad at each other and use whatever comes at hand against other people. While they may kill the other person with a rock, knife, ashtray or wiffle bat the liklihood of a death occurring goes way up when a gun is present.

So to reduce the carnage in one mall by having armed people nearby that might stop the well armed nut job, you probably have dozen and dozens of other deaths arising from people having a very lethal tool readily at hand when they get mad

[Flubber]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Laws will definitely stop people, especially criminals, from having guns. Now where did I leave my unicorn?

He got killed-- Some gun-toting teenager got drunk and decided to shoot the " funny looking horse"

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Wezil
@ thread.

I Poly.

QFT

[Vesayen]

I'm back.

I still do not buy what was said about "crazy" people, we can't structure our laws around the insane and restrict the freedom of the rest of us based on that.

However I confess when I am clearly wrong about something, some of you did have some good points, what Flubber and Blake said have swayed me to a degree. Less guns means less crimes of passion, with guns which could be a good reason to restrict gun ownership heavily.

I do not however think that this is a good reason to try to effectively make us a gun free society.

Theben: Who said I opposed serious training and registration? I made numerous car analogies, of course we should force people to train, really train and take a test.

In the end, we have countries like swizterland where everyone has an uzi at home yet there is virtually no gun crime.
((First post to actually cite a source making a claim in this thread! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm ))

It is possible to have a society where citizens enjoy their right to own guns and not have lots of violent gun crime.


I still stand by my comments about defense from a tyrant however. If a president for life arose, he would require the support of the populace, at least some of it initially and of course, most of the armed forces.

It is alot easier to push around an unarmed population and force them to do things your way.

El Jefe would not send in the heavy hardware to massacre a civilization population because it would destroy any support he had in the populace and the army, effectively ending his rain. If he did do it, his reign would collapse so in the end it might of been worth it to arm the citizenry if it ultimately forced a tyrants hand, leading to their downfall.

However if the population is armed, they can't simply be pushed around as easily, it is a level of difficulty which would make El Presidentes job overall, more difficult and part of the civilian population resisting also encourages some of the army and the elites to resist as well.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Vesayen


However I confess when I am clearly wrong about something, some of you did have some good points, what Flubber and Blake said have swayed me to a degree. Less guns means less crimes of passion, with guns which could be a good reason to restrict gun ownership heavily.

But its not "gun" ownership itself that is the problem . . it is the ready accessibility of these weapons and the type of weapons . . .

Lots of people own rifles but they are rarely , rarely used in crimes of passion since most people have them stored fairly securely, unloaded and often behind at least one lock. By the time someone can get and load their weapon most of the "heat of the moment" stuff has passed.

Its the home defense type weapon that usually causes accidental deaths and very much regretted homocides. People have the gun loaded and available since it is not that useful against the "bad guy" if they cannot get to it . . . and in many towns and cities, I do not blame people from having a real fear of home invasion.

But many many assaults involve people using whatever is at hand and available guns do make such incidents lethal with a greater frequency.

I do believe that statistics would bear out that fewer guns will equal fewer deaths. There will be fewer accidental deaths or family shootings. UNless you assume that a less armed population would cause the "
bad guys" to go nuts shooting lots of people, it is probably hard to dispute that less guns will generally mean fewer deaths from violence.

BUt fewer guns does not mean "no guns". Some bad guys will always have them and I can easily see the logic that knowing a populace may be armed could potentially deter crime. I can also understand why some people would want to have a gun since they would then not be powerless if faced by an armed stranger. If I hear an intruder I know that in that moment I would probably wish for a gun. BUt the liklihood here in Canada is that the homebreaker is probably not armed. I am probably better off just calling the police and avoiding a confrontation -- "STUFF" can easily be replaced--


--------------------

Back to the mall shooting. I believe if there had been dozens of armed people there would likly be more dead. In the confusion I could see that whomever shot the initial shooter could themselves be shot. IN a scenario of panic I could see pretty much every armed person finding themselves as a target of some other armed person. Or do people think an armed person, hearing multiple shots is going to hold fire while someone else with a pistol is running towards them.

I think that the only way some sort of crazy multiple mistaken shooting does not happen is if someone with an incredibly clear head drops the initial bad guy and then immediately holsters/hides the weapon and then immdeiately drops to their knees with their hands up or assumes some other very non-threatening position

[Dis]

It's silly to arm the populace. They are simply not smart enough to identify the shooter and hit them without hitting innocents.

My solution? Armed robots patrolling every shopping mall and shopping district in the U.S. Designed to identify and kill any shooters.

I'm sure nothing can go wrong with that plan.

[Japher]

or a precog

[Vesayen]

Precogs are even more unconstitutional then restrictions on firearms.

[DirtyMartini]

A complete absurdity of an OP followed by four pages of debate dignfying the idea.