kenoki wrote:In lieu of the Virginia Tech killings, here's a separate place for the inevitable conversation...

I've made where I stand pretty clear on other threads... Strict gun control would take from the law abiding, safety oriented, shoot-for-sport/antique gun collectors/owners, more than 99% of which will never commit a homicide. Could we possibly remove all sidearms and rifles from circulation? I don't think so, and the people who will continue to have access are folks that have no problem breaking laws in the first place. Ridding our country of firearms entirely just seems impossible to me.

You?

MrFood wrote:

Skronk wrote:

MrFood wrote:It's this aspect where gun control will make a difference. The Crime Of Passion. If there is no gun to hand at that very moment, and no way of getting one without considerable hassle, it's highly likely that no-one will get shot. If there's a gun that's kept in the bedside in drawer 'for protection' then it could well be a different story, right?

What if someone tries to burglarize your home, and you're in it? Do we not get a chance to defend ourselves?

Use a fucking lead pipe! A baseball bat! Something whose sole purpose is not to mame and kill!

If someone were to burgle my house today - the chance that they would be carrying a gun would be so fucking tiny it's not even worth considering. Because guns are extremely hard to come by here. Because we're not allowed them. See?

Skronk wrote:

MrFood wrote:And I'll put money on it now that when the full story of this shooting is uncovered, the gunman will have been a law-abiding guy who never exhibited any outward sign of psychosis, for whom something went drastically wrong today. And he happened to own a gun.

I seriously doubt he never exhibited any outward sign of psychosis. We don't have the "full story" yet, but it's rash to say "oh, he was probably a normal guy, but he snapped." Shit like that doesn't happen. These people probably show some kind of psychosis from an earlier age.

So what do you propose? You have your kids psycho-analysed at the age of 7 to see if they'll be allowed to own a gun in the future? Is that it?

Of course not. My point exactly. This whole 'preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands' notion is impossible. Not 'difficult'. Not 'problematic'. Impossible.

Skronk wrote:

MrFood wrote:In Britain, we don't have guns. We're not allowed them. Because of this, far fewer people get shot in this manner. I'm not saying we don't have shootings - we do, but there's gang-warfare in Clapton, and then there's... this.

Listen to what you're saying, "we're not allowed". You sound like a child that wants cookies.

Oh my God. I was assuming the voice of a scolded child for the sake of humour. To lighten my argument a bit. But hey, if you wanna be a dick about it...

Skronk wrote:Who's to say a gun in a responsible persons hands is wrong?

Not me. But not all hands are responsible all the time are they?

Skronk wrote:You have gang-warfare, and the average citizen can't protect him/herself from this, because they have to wait for the almighty police.

The 'average citizen' doesn't have to protect himself from gang warfare. It's a war between the gangs. Do you see? Clue's in the term gang warfare.

And the gangsters are protected. They carry guns to protect them from the other gangsters. And they still get shot.

Skronk wrote:If a person wants a firearm bad enough, he'll always be able to get one, even psychos. That's what the prison industry prides itself on.

True, but if you can't get one while you're really really fuckin' mad - then you probably won't bother. And the person who made you really really fuckin' mad will go un-shot.