Give teachers guns.

 

 

 

I doubt I'd want to shoot up a school if I knew my chemistry teacher was packing a 12-gauge under his desk.

 

obviously, that post was a joke.

 

 

 

and i would really like to see a complete report of the study you did comparing the injuries due to drunk driving and the injuries due to firearms before i take your words to be the complete truth.

 

Not injuries due to drunk driving. Frequency of injuries due to alcohol. Because guns are designed to hurt people but alcohol isn't, it's obvious that a person who picks up a gun will have a higher frequency of hurting others than a person who picks up a bottle of alcohol.

 

 

 

As for the issue of guns being used in self-defense:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... t=Abstract

 

From 1987 to 1990, 0.18% of a gun being fired in a crime situation was self-defense. That means 99.82% of gun fire was malicious. It's clear self-defense is extremely rare compared to malicious use.

 

 

 

 

i highly doubt that guns cause more human injury than alchohol does. in my 20 years on this earth i've been around guns and alchohol a LOT because they both run in my family, and i've known several people personally who were injured/killed by drunk drivers and only ONE injury with a firearm. my uncle was crossing a fence while rabbit hunting and his gun accidentally went off, clipping the end of his thumb.

 

You may have seen five people die from falling but only one die from bomb explosion, but that doesn't mean falling should be banned instead of bombs.

 

 

 

Your uncle may choose to shoot rabbits, but many of his fellow gun owners choose to shoot people. I'm sure he can forgo hunting for another hobby if it means that less people nationally will get hurt.

 

obviously, that post was a joke.

 

 

 

and i would really like to see a complete report of the study you did comparing the injuries due to drunk driving and the injuries due to firearms before i take your words to be the complete truth.

 

Not injuries due to drunk driving. Frequency of injuries due to alcohol. Because guns are designed to hurt people but alcohol isn't, it's obvious that a person who picks up a gun will have a higher frequency of hurting others than a person who picks up a bottle of alcohol.

 

 

 

 

this is just wrong...

 

 

 

1. you bolding out the worlds "frequency" and "alcohol" are only making my argument stronger, since i was comparing ONLY drunk driving to ALL gun injuries. either way you still haven't proven to me that guns are more deadly than alcohol. the article you quoted has nothing to do with what i was arguing, since i never argued that guns were only meant for self-defense. i'm not so naive to think that guns are the best method of defending oneself

 

 

 

2. "guns are designed to hurt people" - yes it's true that they were originally designed to kill people(and animals for food) in war-time, but they have been adapted to sports and recreational shooting. alcohol is basically just poison, so you can't even begin to argue that it isn't designed to hurt people.

 

 

 

3. you've obviously never been to a party with a bunch of drunk people. someone invaraibly trips and sprains an ankle, breaks a window and cuts themself, or snowboards down the driveway into the street, hitting a moving car(yes, i've seen this happen)

 

 

 

and your "death by falling vs. death by bomb" analogy is also flawed since falling deaths are accidental(the majority of the time) and bomb deaths are malicious(in the context you're using the example). also, i said the post that you originally quoted was a joke. i don't seriously believe that alcohol should be outlawed.

 

obviously, that post was a joke.

 

 

 

and i would really like to see a complete report of the study you did comparing the injuries due to drunk driving and the injuries due to firearms before i take your words to be the complete truth.

 

Not injuries due to drunk driving. Frequency of injuries due to alcohol. Because guns are designed to hurt people but alcohol isn't, it's obvious that a person who picks up a gun will have a higher frequency of hurting others than a person who picks up a bottle of alcohol.

 

 

 

 

this is just wrong...

 

 

 

1. you bolding out the worlds "frequency" and "alcohol" are only making my argument stronger, since i was comparing ONLY drunk driving to ALL gun injuries. either way you still haven't proven to me that guns are more deadly than alcohol. the article you quoted has nothing to do with what i was arguing, since i never argued that guns were only meant for self-defense. i'm not so naive to think that guns are the best method of defending oneself

 

 

 

2. "guns are designed to hurt people" - yes it's true that they were originally designed to kill people(and animals for food) in war-time, but they have been adapted to sports and recreational shooting. alcohol is basically just poison, so you can't even begin to argue that it isn't designed to hurt people.

 

 

 

3. you've obviously never been to a party with a bunch of drunk people. someone invaraibly trips and sprains an ankle, breaks a window and cuts themself, or snowboards down the driveway into the street, hitting a moving car(yes, i've seen this happen)

 

 

 

and your "death by falling vs. death by bomb" analogy is also flawed since falling deaths are accidental(the majority of the time) and bomb deaths are malicious(in the context you're using the example). also, i said the post that you originally quoted was a joke. i don't seriously believe that alcohol should be outlawed.

 

 

 

please take the time to think through your arguments next time before posting.

 

1. you bolding out the worlds "frequency" and "alcohol" are only making my argument stronger, since i was comparing ONLY drunk driving to ALL gun injuries. either way you still haven't proven to me that guns are more deadly than alcohol. the article you quoted has nothing to do with what i was arguing, since i never argued that guns were only meant for self-defense. i'm not so naive to think that guns are the best method of defending oneself

 

Relative frequency means comparing two sets of causes and effects, not just two effects. If you only compare two effects, then there were 29569 deaths by firearms in 2004 and 16885 deaths by drunk driving in 2005. However, that is not why firearms should be regulated over alcohol. Once you consider relative frequency by inputing the cause: 24.2% of the population own guns compared to 80% that drink alcohol, the relative frequency of a gun user harming someone is much higher than the relative frequency of an alcohol user harming someone.

 

 

 

 

2. "guns are designed to hurt people" - yes it's true that they were originally designed to kill people(and animals for food) in war-time, but they have been adapted to sports and recreational shooting. alcohol is basically just poison, so you can't even begin to argue that it isn't designed to hurt people.

 

Alcohol is designed to hurt oneself, which is different from being designed to hurt others.

 

 

 

 

3. you've obviously never been to a party with a bunch of drunk people. someone invaraibly trips and sprains an ankle, breaks a window and cuts themself, or snowboards down the driveway into the street, hitting a moving car(yes, i've seen this happen)

 

Those incidents harm the alcohol drinkers themselves and are accidents performed in inebriation.

 

 

 

 

and your "death by falling vs. death by bomb" analogy is also flawed since falling deaths are accidental(the majority of the time) and bomb deaths are malicious(in the context you're using the example). also, i said the post that you originally quoted was a joke. i don't seriously believe that alcohol should be outlawed.

 

 

 

please take the time to think through your arguments next time before posting.

 

Majority of drunk drivings are accidental and majority of gun shootings are malicious.

Do anti-gun people really believe the US can regulate every firearm in the country?

 

 

 

I mean, drugs are already illegal and yet it's just a walk away if you need it.

 

 

 

The government can't regulate people (illegal immigrants), what makes you think it can regulate objects that are easier to smuggle?

 

1. you bolding out the worlds "frequency" and "alcohol" are only making my argument stronger, since i was comparing ONLY drunk driving to ALL gun injuries. either way you still haven't proven to me that guns are more deadly than alcohol. the article you quoted has nothing to do with what i was arguing, since i never argued that guns were only meant for self-defense. i'm not so naive to think that guns are the best method of defending oneself

 

Relative frequency means comparing two sets of causes and effects, not just two effects. If you only compare two effects, then there were 29569 deaths by firearms in 2004 and 16885 deaths by drunk driving in 2005. However, that is not why firearms should be regulated over alcohol. Once you consider relative frequency by inputing the cause: 24.2% of the population own guns compared to 80% that drink alcohol, the relative frequency of a gun user harming someone is much higher than the relative frequency of an alcohol user harming someone.

 

 

 

 

2. "guns are designed to hurt people" - yes it's true that they were originally designed to kill people(and animals for food) in war-time, but they have been adapted to sports and recreational shooting. alcohol is basically just poison, so you can't even begin to argue that it isn't designed to hurt people.

 

Alcohol is designed to hurt oneself, which is different from being designed to hurt others.

 

 

 

 

3. you've obviously never been to a party with a bunch of drunk people. someone invaraibly trips and sprains an ankle, breaks a window and cuts themself, or snowboards down the driveway into the street, hitting a moving car(yes, i've seen this happen)

 

Those incidents harm the alcohol drinkers themselves and are accidents performed in inebriation.

 

 

 

 

and your "death by falling vs. death by bomb" analogy is also flawed since falling deaths are accidental(the majority of the time) and bomb deaths are malicious(in the context you're using the example). also, i said the post that you originally quoted was a joke. i don't seriously believe that alcohol should be outlawed.

 

 

 

please take the time to think through your arguments next time before posting.

 

Majority of drunk drivings are accidental and majority of gun shootings are malicious.

 

 

 

don't think that we're done here. i don't have time to write a response yet, and i'm going to be gone to see my gf all weekend so i probably won't be able to reply until monday. gf >> arguing with idiots.

Guns don't kill people.

 

People kill people.

 

 

 

"ban guns, they kill people!"

 

 

 

well, in that case we should ban alcohol because it causes drunk driving and food because it causes obesity. #-o

 

 

 

Thats not what i was suggesting. I was suggesting that the gun isn't the one pulling the trigger, the person is. So, no matter how much the step up the law against the guns and knives, it doesn't mean that it will stop the shootings and killings. It probably won't even put a dent in it.

I was suggesting that the gun isn't the one pulling the trigger, the person is.

 

Guns are harmless if people don't use them. But, in the same logic, so are nuclear bombs, but those sure as hell aren't legal and no sane person would label them as "harmless" devices.

 

The issue lies in their potential danger. IMO, neither weapon should be legal to the average citizen.

 

 

 

So, no matter how much the step up the law against the guns and knives, it doesn't mean that it will stop the shootings and killings. It probably won't even put a dent in it.

 

Why? As I see it, strict gun laws would make a huge dent. It wouldn't prevent shootings completely, but it would certainly help minimize them.

 

The harder it is for a student to attain a gun, the less chance there will be of school shootings.

 

 

 

Alcohol is designed to hurt oneself, which is different from being designed to hurt others.

 

Alcohol isn't designed to hurt anyone. Guns are, though. ;)

 

 

 

Do anti-gun people really believe the US can regulate every firearm in the country?

 

No.

 

 

 

I believe the best way to prevent gun abuse is to change the public's opinion on guns. America (and other pro-gun nations) need to start seeing guns as what they are: machines designed to kill.

 

Only when demand is truly low will strict gun laws be able to work effectively.

Why? As I see it, strict gun laws would make a huge dent. It wouldn't prevent shootings completely, but it would certainly help minimize them.

 

The harder it is for a student to attain a gun, the less chance there will be of school shootings.

 

 

 

The people that are selling the guns usually atain them illegaly anyways, so they will just continue to attain them illegally and sell them to whoever wants to buy them at cheap prices.

The people that are selling the guns usually atain them illegaly anyways, so they will just continue to attain them illegally and sell them to whoever wants to buy them at cheap prices.

 

Not in the United States. Most gun sellers in America attain their firearms legally. They then sell them (legally) in their shops or at gun shows. A small percentage sell their firearms illegally to youth/criminals.

 

 

 

Citizens can legally buy guns from their local shops with just a bit of paperwork. That's the real issue here. If there were no gun shops it would be much more difficult to buy guns in America.

 

 

 

What's more, trafficking guns is very different from trafficking drugs. It's easy to get drugs because they are often things that can be farmed/grown in a house (marijuana, shrooms, etc). However, turning your house into a firearms factory is not easy and would surely cause a lot of suspicion.

 

 

 

If the laws are passed which restrict the manufacture of firearms for citizens in America, the "secondary" (black) market would be forced deep underground. The market, which once sold legally-bought guns, would be limited to selling (a) stolen guns or (B) imported guns. Both options would be expensive and risky. Prices would skyrocket.

 

 

 

The average student would no longer be able to simply "buy a gun". It would be an expensive, lengthy and very illegal process.

 

 

 

Sources: [1][2][3]

The people that are selling the guns usually atain them illegaly anyways, so they will just continue to attain them illegally and sell them to whoever wants to buy them at cheap prices.

 

Not in the United States. Most gun sellers in America attain their firearms legally. They then sell them (legally) in their shops or at gun shows. A small percentage sell their firearms illegally to youth/criminals.

 

 

 

Citizens can legally buy guns from their local shops with just a bit of paperwork. That's the real issue here. If there were no gun shops it would be much more difficult to buy guns in America.

 

 

 

What's more, trafficking guns is very different from trafficking drugs. It's easy to get drugs because they are often things that can be farmed/grown in a house (marijuana, shrooms, etc). However, turning your house into a firearms factory is not easy and would surely cause a lot of suspicion.

 

 

 

If the laws are passed which restrict the manufacture of firearms for citizens in America, the "secondary" (black) market would be forced deep underground. The market, which once sold legally-bought guns, would be limited to selling (a) stolen guns or (B) imported guns. Both options would be expensive and risky. Prices would skyrocket.

 

 

 

The average student would no longer be able to simply "buy a gun". It would be an expensive, lengthy and very illegal process.

 

 

 

Sources: [1][2][3]

 

 

 

Good Point.

 

 

 

But i just thought of something, I don't think America is about to put all gunstores out of business. So, adults could buy guns for hunting, target practice, etc. And someday their kid could just simply take the gun out of the closet and shoot somebody. I think thats how alot of kids attain their guns.

The people that are selling the guns usually atain them illegaly anyways, so they will just continue to attain them illegally and sell them to whoever wants to buy them at cheap prices.

 

Not in the United States. Most gun sellers in America attain their firearms legally. They then sell them (legally) in their shops or at gun shows. A small percentage sell their firearms illegally to youth/criminals.

 

 

 

Citizens can legally buy guns from their local shops with just a bit of paperwork. That's the real issue here. If there were no gun shops it would be much more difficult to buy guns in America.

 

 

 

What's more, trafficking guns is very different from trafficking drugs. It's easy to get drugs because they are often things that can be farmed/grown in a house (marijuana, shrooms, etc). However, turning your house into a firearms factory is not easy and would surely cause a lot of suspicion.

 

 

 

If the laws are passed which restrict the manufacture of firearms for citizens in America, the "secondary" (black) market would be forced deep underground. The market, which once sold legally-bought guns, would be limited to selling (a) stolen guns or (B) imported guns. Both options would be expensive and risky. Prices would skyrocket.

 

 

 

The average student would no longer be able to simply "buy a gun". It would be an expensive, lengthy and very illegal process.

 

 

 

Sources: [1][2][3]

 

the gun laws in america where made when people actually needed guns, guns should be banned in america now to stop angry nerds shooting up schools with their dad's gun, there would be a riot though. notice how in the UK guns are banned and if someone gets shot or something its a huge deal but in america if people get shot its just a normal event?

But i just thought of something, I don't think America is about to put all gunstores out of business. So, adults could buy guns for hunting, target practice, etc. And someday their kid could just simply take the gun out of the closet and shoot somebody. I think thats how alot of kids attain their guns.

 

Yep, unfortunately lots of guns are stolen in the U.S. One source claims that "Cook et al. (1995) estimated that some 500,000 guns are stolen each year."[1]

 

 

 

Like I said in my earlier posts, gun laws alone wouldn't do much.

 

In my opinion the best way to minimize violence is to really change the public's opinion on firearms. Currently, a lot of American citizens see guns as items for protection or sport. If the public saw them purely as "killing machines" then there would be no demand for them.

 

When citizens stop demanding firearms, implementing gun laws will be a piece of cake.

laws alone wouldn't do much.

 

 

 

your right. im pretty sure shooting up schools is illegal too but that alone wasnt enough to stop it.

About school shootings. There wouldn't be any angry nerds shooting people if they weren't any bullies who isolated, laughed at, and picked on them. As a child all they experienced of the world was cruel, with no compassion, so they learned to adapt and became cruel and heartless as well. Nobody realises it but they are just deeply troubled and saddened people. It would be disrespectful to put to blame on either the bullies, or the shooters, this is a social problem.

Every week you hear about some school shooting/scabbing or about a kid eho brought a weapon to school. At my school last year, over 6 people were stabbed/seriously injured. I know places where i can get a .44 or a 9mm for less than 50 dollars in my hood. I think they need to step up the law about that stuff.

 

 

 

anyone else ae an opinion?

sorry to be blunt but that's life. Through history people have been fighting/killing themselves all the time, doesn't make it right but its a fact of life.

 

 

 

not as bad then as it is now.. over 70% more violence in teens+

 

It's also worse now because back then most of the fighting and killing was over land and money, now it's just because some people are crazy and can't control themselves. Even wars now are for stupid reasons.

http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1007/465601.html

 

 

 

Seems relevant enough to this topic...

But i just thought of something, I don't think America is about to put all gunstores out of business. So, adults could buy guns for hunting, target practice, etc. And someday their kid could just simply take the gun out of the closet and shoot somebody. I think thats how alot of kids attain their guns.

 

Yep, unfortunately lots of guns are stolen in the U.S. One source claims that "Cook et al. (1995) estimated that some 500,000 guns are stolen each year."[1]

 

 

 

Like I said in my earlier posts, gun laws alone wouldn't do much.

 

In my opinion the best way to minimize violence is to really change the public's opinion on firearms. Currently, a lot of American citizens see guns as items for protection or sport. If the public saw them purely as "killing machines" then there would be no demand for them.

 

When citizens stop demanding firearms, implementing gun laws will be a piece of cake.

 

 

 

you can't just go around changing people's opinions on things like that...

 

people are too stubborn. just like most of the people here are too stubborn to believe that there are thousands of people who actually are responsible with guns, teach gun saftey to kids, and use guns for something OTHER than killing other humans.

 

 

 

I'm not here to change your opinion. If you want to know my opinion on the matter, I posted it about 2 pages ago. But until there is some sort of compromise, I'm going to keep voting against gun control laws, and I'm going to continue using my firearms safely and responsibly.

 

 

 

but know this: IF by some crazy turn of events guns actually DO become outlawed, then true criminals will not be affected, but thousands of "good" people, such as myself my friends, and my family, will become outlaws.

It's sad even an underage kid without a license can go to 'certain parts' of the town in the US and get a cheap 9mm gun (which was probably stolen/smuggled by the mafia) with ammo for about $100 bucks, less than an iPod...

 

 

 

I don't think this problem exists in Europe.. When was the last time a school massacre or killing happened in an european country?

 

 

 

There are too many violent tools in the USA and there's nothing the government can do to stop their proliferation. If I had a kid I wouldn't really consider putting him/her into a public american school...

 

the gun laws in america where made when people actually needed guns, guns should be banned in america now to stop angry nerds shooting up schools with their dad's gun, there would be a riot though. notice how in the UK guns are banned and if someone gets shot or something its a huge deal but in america if people get shot its just a normal event?

 

 

 

After reading this post I really wish people would learn to use "I think" more often.. Now let's dissect this..

 

 

 

1. You think guns should be banned in America..

 

 

 

-Well that's great. But I disagree. How are we supposed to hunt without guns? How are we supposed to protect ourselves from criminals who have illegally obtained guns without guns of our own? Are we just supposed to talk them out of shooting us and our families?

 

 

 

2. You think it's only nerds who can get mad and go on a shooting spree..

 

 

 

-I'm pretty sure anyone with a bad home life and has been raised poorly could get fed up with it all and go on a shooting spree. Let's not degrade ourselves to throwing out stereotypes every chance we get.

 

 

 

3. You think there would be a riot..

 

 

 

-You're damn right there would be. How would you feel to be told you have to turn in your guns to the gov't? What if you had one hell of a collection? Thousands of dollars worth of guns proudly displayed on shelves and hanging from walls. Then they gov't says they're taking them so that you can't shoot anyone. What if you live in a terrible neighborhood and a lot of the guns there aren't registered? The gov't takes your registered gun you only use for protection and your neighbor gets to keep his because he got it from some guy who got it from a guy who got it from a guy .... Not everyone with a gun is planning on shooting up their local high school.

 

 

 

4. You think shootings in America are normal event..

 

 

 

-Ok, so we don't go into a national panic every time someone is shot. Maybe you do. Maybe everyone in your country locks their doors and closes the blinds to be sure nobody knows their home and won't come after them next. That doesn't happen here. It's big news on a local scale, but not national. There's probably more important things we need to know about than how some kid, thousands of miles away, decided to take out a few friends and teachers before offing himself.

About guns...

 

 

 

I think they should change the gun policy to 25 years or older to own or to purchase a gun. The reason why I think that is because there are still some 21 year olds that are very immature. The responsibility is to much for them to handle. However if a student whats to get hold of a gun there are still ways, but it will be harder. This way they will at least think about what they are doing.

no offense but i think the american gover people thingie mabobs have crap in there heads dont u think if they stopped selling guns people wouldnt need them to protect themselves

 

 

 

i mean come on

Doctors are more dangerous than guns -.-

There are around 3 people in my school/ high school close to mine having court hearings for violent crime that happened the past two weeks :o