Monday, April 16, 2007

Yes that will do it.

Feck a ban on guns America needs a ban on Die Hard they don't get it is fiction. In response to one of the worst school shooting in American. The solution is that more people should be armed. Thinking that if they were armed this guy would have been shot.


Godwhacker said...

Hi Simon,
I just don't think gun control works. The boarders of my country are huge and notoriously porous. There are literally thousands of tons of contraband that comes in illegally. I like living in a free country. I don't want to live in a police state. I don't want to have to pass checkpoints and be searched constantly.

You have a great analytical mind. Check out a few facts about the effectiveness of gun control on violent crime. Here are a few of good links: papers...4_slideshow.ppt capitaand 000

The U.S. is a large country and gun laws vary state to state and city to city. Washington D.C. which has a full gun ban also has the highest murder rate.

But more importantly, I think every human being has an inherent right to self-defense. The idea the U.S. is some kind of "wild west" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In murders (per capita) we come in 24th, and many of the cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest murder rates.

Internationally, Switzerland (where every adult male must own a firearm) has one of the lowest rates of violent crime.

One honest person with a firearm, acting in self-defense, could have prevented this tragedy ~ not to mention the attack of 9/11, which began on an airplane, the ultimate gun controlled environment.

A gun is simply a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil.

Simon said...

Well first the 23 countries ahead of the US are not countries of the same standard of living as the US compared to the countries that would have decent standards. EU-15 Oz and New Zealand it is ahead of those in terms of murder. Countries with more violent histories, as ethical divided and no border controls.

What seems to have happen in Virgina is that the guy saw his ex and new boyfriend and got pissed off and went on a shooting spree. If the guy did not have access to the gun he would not have done it. This is a guy in college with a future. Probably not in or associated to any gang. If the gun was harder to get then no one would have had to be armed to shot him in the first place.

Also with Switzerland. Gun ownership comes from the fact that they are all in a militia and thus are trained under army conditions. I.e this is army personnel.

Also gun control is not all about check points. We have gun control I can't go in and buy and uzi. and I have never come across a check point

Godwhacker said...

Sorry, the links didn't post right. Still, this is Amendment 2 of our constitution. It was written in response to British occupation. The British banned firearms here when they were in charge, not because of crime, but because they new we would be vulnerable to domination.

The facts are still coming in on this specific case, but the vast majority of guns used in crime are not purchased legally.

Like Switzerland, the U.S. is also supposed to have a militia. We are not supposed to have a standing army, but that is another can of worms.

I'll try posting this link here again


It shows very clearly that gun control in nations like Ireland, England, and Australia have acted to increase violent crime.

Nothing you have said refutes the fact and an armed and honest individual could have stopped this murderer in his track.

Simon said...

I am not going to refute that someone with a gun would have stop him at some question but neither have you refuted that if guns were hard to get that this guy would have still been able to get a gun to do this.

AS for guns stopping domination. The king of England is not going to invade your house. AS for the 9/11 thing maybe it would have been stopped. But 1 bullet can puncture a fuselage of a plane and bring it down. How many times do you hear of someone on a plane drinking too much and getting violent. Quiet often. If they were all armed. How many of them would have pulled a trigger?

Gun crime in Ireland can be put down to far more reasons then guns. For instance the span in the powerpoint is I bet directly related to the rise of drug use. Also the later part of the grant conincides with increased wealth which feeds into robbery and drugs. Also don't disregard the input of the catholic church.

As for the general fall in USA compared to the rest. AMerica is falling from a far higher rate then the rest or climbing to. Also it doesn't include the facts on detection rates etc. Which have an influence on crime figures

Godwhacker said...

"The king of England is not going to invade your house."? Do you know nothing of the history of English imperialism?

As the facts in this case become clearer, it is obvious that this psychopath planned this massacre in great detail. If he was determined to obtain a gun, he would have gotten one, legally or illegally.

I've grown up with guns in my home, and I can personally cite numerous incidents were the presence of a gun has prevented violence. The authorities can not be everywhere all the time. Individuals should have the right to self-defense.

I'll agree to disagree, if that's ok with you Simon.

Simon said...

Fair enough. I agree with you on most stuff so wouldn't let this one stop that

Godwhacker said...


Godwhacker said...

Just a little update today.

It appears that this murderer had a history of psychiatric problems and was still able to buy a firearm legally. I don't think anyone should be so adamant in their interpretation of the Second Amendment so as to think that positive steps to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people should not be taken.