Loughner declined from the army, but passed a background check to buy a gun? - Page 2

Nocte · #11 01-10-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hand guns have very little purpose other than to kill humans.

If so many humans weren't so readily willing to invalidate their justification for being left alive (i.e. by raping and killing other humans, or talking at the theater), then others wouldn't have as much of a reason to need to kill them quickly and efficiently, using a tool that negates the advantages physical strength may normally have.

Jaxon · #12 01-10-2011, 03:39 PM

As long as legitimate reasons for humans killing each other exist, so too will legitimate reasons for having weapons exist.

Peatree · #13 01-10-2011, 03:54 PM

I carry simply to protect myself and my family. Been that way ever since my wife and I got mugged at knife point in the grocery store parking lot. I'll never make the mistake again of not being able to protect her / myself. I signed up for my CHL class the very next day. My wife and I both have our CHL now...yet I typically am the only one who carries...although she knows how to use one too!

I disagree with banning them -- but I do think it needs to be harder to obtain one...and if your caught with one w/ out a license then the penalty should be harsh.

Kassel · #14 01-10-2011, 03:58 PM

Its not a question about weapons "existing" it is about, does every tom dick and harry need to keep a hand gun on thier hip to feel "safe"? I am sure we can come up with better ways to achive the same peace of mind.

Slathar · #15 01-10-2011, 04:03 PM

this wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun

Trimm · #16 01-10-2011, 04:32 PM

Tucson AZ: 500,000+ firearms owned by citizens = 51 murders in 2010.
Chicago IL: Illegal to own a firearm for any reason = #1 city in gun violence in 2010.

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, regardless of laws. "Gun Control" (i.e. gun bannings) only hurts honest citizens who wish to protect themselves. I live in a house alone and have 4 loaded weapons for a reason.

Slathar · #17 01-10-2011, 04:45 PM

arm the homeless

Kassel · #18 01-10-2011, 04:53 PM

A chicken in every pot and a cap in every ass

Occam's Butter Knife · #19 01-10-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trimm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tucson AZ: 500,000+ firearms owned by citizens = 51 murders in 2010.
Chicago IL: Illegal to own a firearm for any reason = #1 city in gun violence in 2010.

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, regardless of laws. "Gun Control" (i.e. gun bannings) only hurts honest citizens who wish to protect themselves. I live in a house alone and have 4 loaded weapons for a reason.

Correlation does not equal causality.

Pop Chicago 2,853,114
Pop Tucson 543,910

Hmm so the other difference could be population. Maybe its the difference in population density in Chicago has 5x the pop per square mile. Maybe the murder rate is higher because they have White Castle in Chicago.

The UK has a lower murder rate than the US though it has a ban on hand guns. UK has .014/1,000 people while the US stands at .042/1,000. It may not be gun ownership or population density that drives the murder rates.

England does not have White Castle, so by comparison the White Castle theory holds up better that the number of registered guns owners.

Kassel · #20 01-10-2011, 05:10 PM

I think we can all agree that white castle and similar establishments cause more deaths then guns. I am interested in your theory that white castle increase the number of gun deaths. I did watch that Harold and Kumar go to White Castle movie and did feel the urge to kill so perhaps your theory has merit.