Gun Control Debate

[bleeding_angelgirl]

Originally Posted by xperiment67

Banning guns will do absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. If someone really wanted to get their hands on a gun, they can. It's NOT hard. Removing the legal right to have guns only takes guns out of the hands of people who abide by the law. The people who could put a stop to a criminal with a gun are no longer able to because the government says it's illegal.

You think if someone wants to go on a shooting spree, that they are going to be deterred by the fact that it's illegal to have a gun? I'm sure he'd have much larger legal matters on his hands than whether or not he had an illegal weapon in his posession. 32 dead by his hand? Wow, if only someone had been legally empowered to have a gun in that situation, the situation might've been a lot less severe.

Making certain things illegal only increases crime. No contest. Drugs? They're illegal but they're still around, and quite easily obtained. The drug dealing occupation is not a non-violent one in most situations. One bad deal can get you bashed, or even killed. People will always find a way to get their hands on what they want, whether its illegal or not. That's the criminal state of mind. If they want something bad enough, rules are damned. Same with guns as it is with drugs. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they drop a few words with a few people, and all of a sudden they're in a back alley dealing with auto's and glocks with some colombian guy who doesnt give half a FUCK what your mental health or background is. All he knows is you've got the green and the time.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need to have the right to bare arms. Do you think some criminal is likely to go on a shooting spree if he knows that any number of people might have a .38 special concealed under their coat? That's not a risk they would want to play with. Gun sprees are made possible by fear and a lack of other weapons in the equation.

Gun control disarms the wrong people.

i like your point of view and oppinion its a good one, it might be difrent then mine but i can agree with it some what.

[stubbornforgey]

what does one do .?
This has nothing to do with the rights to own a gun..however it has more to do with ..how easy it is to obtain one,whether it be legally or illegally.
These students who have been on killing sprees all had 2 things in common..
they were upset by something on thier campuses and easy access to weapons.
I want to also point out..that these students came from good..law abiding homes.
So where does that leave this issue..?

[bleeding_angelgirl]

Originally Posted by xperiment67

There's been nothing to indicate that Cho came from a good home, Stubborn. If you read his screenplay "Richard McBeef" (yes, that's the name..) you can probably deduct that he had very severe father issues. The screenplay is about a kids inability to accept his stepfather. It's a VERY POORLY written screenplay, almost like a middle schooler wrote it, but the message is still there. In it, the kid lashes out at his stepfather, who is presumably presented as a pedophilic bisexual pervert, and eventually the father kills the kid. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but I think the kids home life should be explored.

Law abiding or not, that's not to say he wasn't beaten and oppressed at home. His father, or even some other adult figure in his life, could've been a dominating factor in his mental health.

once again abuse causes vilolence.

[bleeding_angelgirl]

i had a friend who tried to kill them selfs and was in critical condition in the hospital, i went to go see there mother and i asked her why he wasent seeing a theripist she said (my child dose not need counseling, those are for phycopaths and insane people) i looked at her and said (are you serious your son was abused by his father sience he was 5 and you stood by and did nothing until two years ago, then because he fails school you ship him back to the fucker who abused him which resulted in him wanting to kill him self. he told me this. and you ddont think he needs help. why?" she said back "last time i checked it was none of your business what are family situation is like" i said "it is if my firend tells me and then almost sucedes in killing him self" i left the house after that and never went back

two weeks later the boy was locked up on the phyc ward of a state hospital because he told the theripist if he went back to his dads house he would either succed in killing him self or if his dad beat him up again he was going to poisen him. he was in the hospital for 1 year and he lives by him self know im not sure were but he wont go near his father becasue of what he is scared to do, so you see my point in abuse causes vilence and peoples ignorace on thereapy is having an effect. you also dont need a gun to kill some one. you can use just about any thing

[bleeding_angelgirl]

im not saying there all going to kill. i was abused, you dont see me beating people up, but most people who haved killed abused or not have mental health issues that have mostlikly not been dealt with enough for some reson im a true believer in therapy and meds if need. i think alote of murders should have been in thereapy all along you never now mabe some of the most famous murders would have never had a chance to commit a crime

[bleeding_angelgirl]

Originally Posted by xperiment67

I think you're missing what I'm saying.

I'm saying that abuse could have been ONE of MANY factors that caused Cho to do what he did.

I don't think it would've been one little thing that caused him to explode on the level he did. It was the single largest shooting spree one person has ever gone on. He racked up more kills than the Columbine kids. It would be a hard thing to believe that just any one event or factor could've caused this.

oh yeah it never is one factor i agree im not saying that its just abuse sorry i think i was being missunderstood and then i missunderstood you. but i definatly agree that it never is one reson and how many was it with the columbine shooting? i forgot

[bleeding_angelgirl]

for some reson i thought they killed more people then that

[bleeding_angelgirl]

so he just went and killed people alwasy a nice thing to do you know not be racist in killing (being sarcastic)

[bleeding_angelgirl]

lol no its good i find things funny

[PR3SSUR3]

Banning guns will do absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. If someone really wanted to get their hands on a gun, they can. It's NOT hard. Removing the legal right to have guns only takes guns out of the hands of people who abide by the law. The people who could put a stop to a criminal with a gun are no longer able to because the government says it's illegal.

You think if someone wants to go on a shooting spree, that they are going to be deterred by the fact that it's illegal to have a gun? I'm sure he'd have much larger legal matters on his hands than whether or not he had an illegal weapon in his posession. 32 dead by his hand? Wow, if only someone had been legally empowered to have a gun in that situation, the situation might've been a lot less severe.

Making certain things illegal only increases crime. No contest. Drugs? They're illegal but they're still around, and quite easily obtained. The drug dealing occupation is not a non-violent one in most situations. One bad deal can get you bashed, or even killed. People will always find a way to get their hands on what they want, whether its illegal or not. That's the criminal state of mind. If they want something bad enough, rules are damned. Same with guns as it is with drugs. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they drop a few words with a few people, and all of a sudden they're in a back alley dealing with auto's and glocks with some colombian guy who doesnt give half a FUCK what your mental health or background is. All he knows is you've got the green and the time.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need to have the right to bare arms. Do you think some criminal is likely to go on a shooting spree if he knows that any number of people might have a .38 special concealed under their coat? That's not a risk they would want to play with. Gun sprees are made possible by fear and a lack of other weapons in the equation.

Gun control disarms the wrong people.

This is completely wrong, given that the majority of illegal firearms in America come from legal sources.

Therefore if guns are harder to obtain, there is far less chance of casual shootings like at Virgina Tech - the fewer illegal guns that would remain in the system after amnesty may be available to determined killers, but through much more effort and at a higher cost.

Using the drugs comparison again, if they were legal we would have a lot more addicts harming society.