[AWB]Dems prep ground for 2014 Electoral Defeat

[regexcellent]

We have had someone shoot up a school like, what, twice?

The idea that you should base policy off of something like these school shootings is ridiculous.

[kentonio]

We have had someone shoot up a school like, what, twice?

No, not twice. As I said last time you claimed that..

Or to be more accurate 26. That's school shootings since Columbine where at least 2 people have died. Expand that to just shooting incidents and you're around the 80 mark.

[Robert]

I don't own either of my guns to kill or harm, although self defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun.

And how do you defend yourself? Indeed, by either scaring someone away, or by harming/killing him.
The main purpose of a gun is to harm or to intimidate. That isn't negative in itself. I'm glad that police men are carrying weapons. But they're not carrying it to scratch their backs.

regexcellent: Just as accidental death is a side effect (and an unusual one at that) with the vast majority of gun owners, who are law-abiding citizens.

Sure they are law-abiding. I'm absolutely not denying that.
Now we should compare the number of times that someone uses his/her car, and someone is being killed/harmed, to the number of times someone used his gun, and someone was killed/harmed.

Harming/killing is the main purpose of a gun. What else is the purpose?
Do you use it to cook? Do you transport your stuff in it?

People enjoy guns and need to protect themselves.

I can see guns being used as a sport, and then people are enjoying themselves.
Fine with me. Store the guns in the sports club in a safe room. No need for people to take their guns home.

Self protection with guns is a false thought.
When the strength of the defenders raises, the offenders will anticipate by bringing stronger weapons, and it'll make offenders more eager to shoot as well.

All you do is raise the strength on both sides, which only increases the number of deaths/wounded.

Banning guns won't stop any criminals who want them from getting them. What is it with Europeans and thinking that laws magically solve our problems?

What a silly kind of reasoning. "As long as it won't solve 100% of our problems, we won't look into it."
No, banning weapons won't solve 100% of your problems, but it will absolutely reduce a lot of your problems.

Not all criminals will be stopped getting guns, but some absolutely will be stopped.
Not to mention the casual killing lunatics who'll most certainly will be less harmful if they're less likely to be able to grab a gun from home.

In europe we have far less problems with gun-trigger-happy idiots who go on random killing rampage. We have some of them absolutely, but not by far as much as you guys have. In Belgium there was this guy recently who brought a knife to a kindergarten with the intention to kill as many as possible. He was able to kill 2.

We also have less victims by weapons in general.

No, it's not paradise overhere, and people still murder and kill. But every statistic shows that the odds of being killed/harmed by a gun are far far far lower in Europe then in the USA.

Anyway, you're not reasoning from reason but from desire to own a gun.
Apparently because you use your gun not to shoot but to slice your bread.

[DinoDoc]

Not to mention the casual killing lunatics who'll most certainly will be less harmful if they're less likely to be able to grab a gun from home.

The current record holder in the US for deaths during a school attack is the Bath School disaster in which the gun played a minimal role at best.

[kentonio]

I don't recall any of us suggesting that explosive materials should be legal and easy to get either.

[Robert]

The current record holder in the US for deaths during a school attack is the Bath School disaster in which the gun played a minimal role at best.

It's a very good idea to base laws on single non-regular non-typical incidents!
A couple of days ago my toddler fell of her bike. Now we should get rid of speed limits for cars and put speed limits on toddlers with bikes.

Something like that?

edit: after reading up on the Bath School disaster:
Now my official position is: "Pro Weapon" and not just hand guns and semi-automatic rifles. No, we must allow people to have tanks and apaches as well. Let's be honest, tanks, apaches and guided missiles didn't play a role at all in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[DinoDoc]

I don't recall any of us suggesting that explosive materials should be legal and easy to get either.

You can make explosives in your garage and Columbine happened during the last time period we had a ban on scary looking weapons. It also had no real effect on the crime rate.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think we're all really, really cool with keeping making bombs in your garage illegal, DD.

[DinoDoc]

I think we're all really, really cool with keeping making bombs in your garage illegal, DD.

The point is Bugs that basing policy on rare events as if you are going to make a meaningful impact isn't a worthwhile course of action. Banning things we find scary doesn't keep the monsters away.

[kentonio]

The point is Bugs that basing policy on rare events as if you are going to make a meaningful impact isn't a worthwhile course of action. Banning things we find scary doesn't keep the monsters away.

Except that is generally actually does. People can theoretically make bombs in their garage, but most people don't have bomb making experience, and its a rather unforgiving craft to teach yourself. There have been many instances of people trying to make homemade bombs and either blowing themselves up or the bombs just failing. We have people who handmake guns in the UK for criminals too, and those also have a much higher failure rate than the real thing. You're right that you'll never completely stop bad people doing bad things, but that doesn't mean that you should hand them the perfect tools for the job.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The point is Bugs that basing policy on rare events as if you are going to make a meaningful impact isn't a worthwhile course of action. Banning things we find scary doesn't keep the monsters away.

Are you actually in favour with making it completely legal to make bombs in your garage?

Or cultivating Anthrax spores? That's really rare.

[Guynemer]

Or cultivating Anthrax spores? That's really rare.

Maybe not as rare as you think. You should check the variety of spores that are growing in the back of my fridge.

[MrFun]

The point is Bugs that basing policy on rare events as if you are going to make a meaningful impact isn't a worthwhile course of action. Banning things we find scary doesn't keep the monsters away.

So why do countries that have far more broad and stricter gun laws such as European countries, have a much lower murder rate than America?

[Guynemer]

A long list of reasons, availability of guns being high on the list, but it is a LONG LIST.

Also on the list is four centuries worth of historic oppression, discrimination, and dehumanization creating a very large, semi-permanent underclass of racial minorities.

[Krill]

IOW what would happen if I bought 10 litres of toluene, and 4 litres of Nitric acid from an industrial chemist. It costs something like £150 but you'd end up with enough TNT to blow up a pretty big building (like 6+Kg of it if you were good).

First thing to happen is I'd get charged, second thing is I'd wake up in a dark room.

No surprise why people use fertiliser then.