Gun control

Not open for further replies.

Digital Doctor

Well-known member
Disclaimer: Please note this thread was forked from another thread and named by a moderator.
I'd never start a thread called gun control. I just made this post because I was so saddened by "yet another" slaughter of innocent people in America.

The death toll — 26 victims plus the gunman — was given to The Associated Press by an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still underway.

Can anyone guess which country on this list has lax gun laws ?


Well-known member
They reduce gun-related homicide.

Wait. I know what you are going to say next.
Guns don't kill people, people do.
You can create all the laws you want...marijuana is illegal in most states, cocaine is illegal everywhere, shrooms are illegal everywhere, etc., etc.,etc. The truth is, people still find a way to get them. And that will be the same with guns. All these idiots can ***** and moan about guns and gun laws, but until we start attacking the problem - which is the unstable person with the gun - we will get exactly nowhere.

BTW, you never answered my original question !
And? I didn't feel like answering it.

Brandon Sheley

Well-known member
Gun laws have nothing to do with what happen today...
The only thing any of us should be thinking about is our kids and thoughts going out to all the parents who lost their child today. Not to mention that trama those surviving kids have gone through today seeing their friends DIE.

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
Now is not the time to enter a circlejerk about gun laws.

Digital Doctor

Well-known member
DD, you are always the tool :rolleyes:.
I did get suckered into this by jmurray's Pro Gun comment. Rookie mistake.
Thanks for your kind words anyway. You are always an uplifting person. So positive.

While on the topic, are you back with Xenforo now ... or still gone ... or ...
John: Moving on from XF back to IPB. Can't deal with a dying platform and ecosystem any longer. :( Good luck, all!


Well-known member
First of all...I live here in Connecticut and guns had nothing to do with what is the point of this could have been a knife, a pencil, a broken ruler ect.....the problem is an unstable person acted out his emotion in a way that caused (many) others severe and permanent mental and phsyical damage.

@DD you posted a picture and said guess which country has lax laws...inspiring the comment from Jm. So technically you fueled the fire this time. Personally, I support owning guns....and as a person who doesn't run around going on shooting rampages I too would have said the same thing...if you take away guns from people who own them responsibly, the only ones who will have them are criminals and trust me they will get them...and now that they know you don't have are an even easier and more likely target.

I feel like people lose site of the problem, it is an unsolvable never know when a person will snap and there is little to nothing you can do to protect yourself nor is their anything that can prevent things like this occurring.

In this case, unless you subject children to going to school in a jail like setting which will change the way their brain develops you can never stop the unpredictable.

In situations like these everyone looks for something to blame and wants to be the person who has the better answer or explanation but the truth is your cashier at a grocery store could just have gotten denied a promotion earlier in the day and turn around and stab you in the face with the pen off of his/her register...unless you are always ready to are probably not going to see it in time to stop it... nor did it take a gun though a gun would be quicker and less painful.

In short the problem EVERY SINGLE TIME when a person gets shot is the person behind the trigger, there is plenty of cases when and where a gun can be discharged...this situation was obviously not and responsibility falls completely on the kid who snapped, I hope you can understand why it is important to not try and correlate it to a statistical figure here against gun laws , all you are doing is providing criminals a crutch, you have people focus on the gun not the shooter...first rule of a fight...if you want to their eyes not their hands.

There was not 20 something victims either...think about the mental trauma an elementary student may go through for the rest of their life because they may have witnessed this act of rage or had to see the bodies and the blood as they were being evacuated from the building.

Everything aside, I truly am enraged with the idea that I can lose a member of my family or a friend's simply by them being in the wrong place at the wrong time (and in this case a place where they should be safe) and my deepest sympathies go out to the folks who lost a family member in this tragic event but mostly my heart goes out to all of the innocent children here who never even had a fair chance to make a mark on life's notebook longer than a few brief chapters. I really am sorry for everyones losses.


Well-known member
I have to say that whatever end of the gun thing a person abides on, the "people shoot guns" talking point is insulting to me. I pretty much think it is common sense that people do just about everything that we do.....and therefore not relevant in the discussion.

People blow up bombs on planes - and fly planes into buildings. Does that mean we should do away with all airline security? One guy tries to light a shoe bomb and billions of people have to take their shoes off for a decade.

No one said then "well, its not the's the person".

When medicine bottles were given heavier seals because of tampering, no one said "hey, you shouldn't do that because it's only people who tamper with medicine".

Events such as this should be looked at calmly and logically and if they fall into the realm of public health or public safety, every possible thing should be done to cut down on the incidence. The problem is that any such conversation gets shut down before it even starts. That's plain stupid.


Well-known member
I live in Connecticut, only about 10 miles from the Sandy Hook Elementary school, folks around are in a state of stunned disbelief.

Anyway, to those who are calling for more gun control laws Connecticut already has some of strictest gun control laws -- including an a "assault weapons" ban in the country on the books... They didn't stop this shooter, and no so-called gun control law has ever prevented a single shooting.

Europe's strict gun laws didn't stop Anders Breivik from killing dozens of people in Norway.

The sad reality no law can stop a person who is hell bent on killing. As Plato said "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Simply put: laws only apply to those who are willing to abide by them.

Even if by some miracle we could remove all the guns from the planet it wouldn't end violent crime... people would just back to using sticks and stones or swords and knives. Laws can't stop a deranged, murderous, anti-social moron from committing a violent act.
The only thing that can, is people who are willing and able to protect themselves.

If you think otherwise you're in denial.

If we're going to place blame or point fingers, point them at the shooter, he's the one responsible.


Well-known member
There was a madman in China today that attacked a school with a knife. He was completely nutso and cut 22 kids. None died and two are considered serious stabbings.

Big difference.

Crazy people are opportunists. They might just jump off a bridge or kill a family members if they are not armed to the teeth.

I'm not commenting on this tragedy since we don't know the story yet. However, I think sane people understand that results vary depending on opportunity. That is, if we sold missile batteries, folks would be shooting those off when they got angry. It's a heck of a lot easier to kill a lot of people better with tumbing bullets from Bushmasters and Glocks with lots of capacity, etc.


Well-known member
They reduce gun-related homicide.

Wait. I know what you are going to say next.
Guns don't kill people, people do.

BTW, you never answered my original question !
Oh really?

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).

After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

by doug from upland from


Well-known member
Oh really?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
All this stuff proves nothing at all.

We are discussing the results over a population of 310 million people. I lived in a town of 25,000 for 25 years and there was not a single murder there.....other than a family affair. The lack of guns....had absolutely nothing to do with the safety, as would arming up have had nothing to do with it.

When you want to work out stats like this, you'd have to compare to entire other countries or populations where gun ownership and gun culture was less crazy - for instance, Canada or Germany or even Europe as a whole. My guess, off the cuff, is that their lack of arms results in a reduction of more than 90% in the murder rates.....

Check it and see what you find.

"In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year"

So, 15,000 to 350......even adjusting for population, that seems as if it is a rate well over 10X higher.

So, give me the summary. Which is safer, an armed society or an lesser armed one?
Not open for further replies.