When it is normal, proper, and appropriate, as stated by the authorities in this nation, to perform a no-knock intrusion into any house, shoot the occupants if they react in a startled manner, and pat themselves on the back for a *good job*, well done, to prevent people from owning, using or selling the *bad* substances du jour (even when they got the wrong house), well yeah, we all become a bit more animalistic as a response.  Alcohol prohibition saw some of the greatest violence on the part of the citizenry in this nation, as well as some of the greatest violence on the part of the government agents themselves… and without the government creating that situation, that spike in violence would not have occurred.

Health care is a topic people and politicians still discuss, debate, write and pass laws about.  And given that the *cause* of these murder sprees is clearly not the guns themselves, but a mental health issue, that’s yet another good reason to aim there if your goal is preventing this kind of issue.  If your goal is more to do with guns themselves, then yes, ignore this line of thought entirely, please.

Well said.

At least that’s what it looks like watching the discussion from this side of the pond.

If someone’s goal is to ban guns, great, another round of murders can provide conversational fodder towards furthering that position.  If someone’s goal is to prevent mass murders, one must think clearly and honestly about how possible that is with any technology, and also one must think about preventing the underlying causes.

For example, I can’t fathom why this guy wanted to do this.  I don’t begin to have a clue.  Most people came up with an immediate analysis of the Columbine motive and could easily see there was a lot of missed prevention.  People need to talk and think about what the hell went wrong with this person’s mind, and look into addressing that kind of problem before such an individual takes guns, knives, cars, or his bare hands out on a mission to kill a lot of people.

Quite a fallacy there.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would do this, allowing each state to control guns as they see fit, without federal interference.

The problem with mandatory training and  licensing is that many US municipalities use these rules to discourage either all citizens or subsets of the population from exercising their constitutional right.  Chicago is a prime example of turning a registration law into a ban.

Back to your selective quoting (jerk!), my “track car” never had license plates or registration, I don’t pay taxes on the car or fuel for it, didn’t need a license or training to buy this car.

And if the appropriate process of constitutional amendment were followed, and my state took action to prohibit gun ownership, I would give up the two guns I own.  But not before.

A lot of what we’re seeing in this thread is that “crime” per se is not the issue.  I can’t imagine anyone seriously believing that those among us who steal for a living are going to give up the main tool of their trade.

Instead, what we desire (and what is debated here) is getting guns out of the hands of the man who “acted so normal” up until that one morning when he started spraying lead out of the blue.

And since every one of us who owns guns now and wants to keep them believes that we “act normal” every day, we see that desire as one day leading to our guns being confiscated.

Soc Sci Med. 2007 Feb;64(3):656-64. Epub 2006 Oct 27.
State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.
Miller M, Hemenway D, Azrael D.

J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;20(4):385-91.
Children and firearms in the home: a Southwestern Ohio Ambulatory Research Network (SOAR-Net) study.
Forbis SG, McAllister TR, Monk SM, Schlorman CA, Stolfi A, Pascoe JM.

LDI Issue Brief. 2003 May;8(8):1-4.
Guns in the home: risky business.
Wiebe DJ.

Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Jun;41(6):771-82.
Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study.
Wiebe DJ.

I don’t have the time or resources to make a systematic review, but since I’ve been looking at this subject for a while now, I’ll go out on a limb and state that gun ownership has been established as a risk factor for violent death.

That there are not enough examples of actual successful police that bears on that fact says more about the political climate in the US in the last decades than about the policies themselves.

Yours,
Ken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

If evil has a will, it will find a way.

If people were not allowed to drive to work in tanks, how could they protect themselves from traffic accidents involving tanks?

I mean, a good friend of mine was crushed when he forgot to put on the brakes, but still – tanks don’t crush people, people crush people. In China some bloke crushed people with a rock.

If people want to crush each other, they find a way to do it.

You say I could crush children with my tank? Well a child on the streets should be inside a tank anyhow, driven by a veteran – veterans are in need of jobs.

Yes you have fancy statistics that say less people are crushed when people are not allowed to drive tanks. But you will think otherwise when your car is crushed in an accident.

Besides, when tanks are not freely available, people will just build their own tanks. Tanks. Rattatatatata. I need my tank.

Because Zombies.

Disclaimer: a tank could actually transport people. Guns can only kill.

I think gun control will have limited effect in the U.S.A.. The perceived need to shoot other people is part of national culture.

http://www.toursupportuk.com/images/gallery/fullsize/a_tank_crush.jpg

But one or five, I don’t see it makes a lot of difference which one is taken to commit the deed.

You want your children and loved ones to risk to be suddenly shot for no reason at all.

That’s it. Really. If North Americans actually cared about each other, there would be no discussion. Playing the part of the action hero in your head is a goal in life just as respectable as protecting your neighbors: accepting the consequences is simply the right price.

However, I wouldn’t want to be there when the Continental Shootout begins, sooner or later.

But if you have a Romulan or Jedi batleth, go right ahead.

While many soldiers would refuse to attack their native brothers and sisters, a few would and that would certainly be enough to overthrow an unarmed uprising.

Another main reason is defense against invasion.  No country will ever try to invade the U.S.  It has an armed army in every city and on every farm.  It has more bullets than any army has soldiers.

And, of course the obvious, hunting and self-protection.  I will admit that there’s probably no reason to have automatic or three-round-burst weapons available to the public; except maybe to show our liberties