world

3 dead in shooting near Texas university

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

guns dont kill people - its people with guns that kill people.... sorry, I meant Americans with guns that kill people....

9 ( +13 / -4 )

I appreciate if you could try the quiz listed below first and click on website for the answers. The ansers may surprise you. How many correct answers did you get?

That's the reason I am against Assualt Weapon sales.

Quiz - Texas Gun Laws

Q: Is there a waiting period on gun sales?

Yes No

Q: Are handgun buyers required to complete safety training?

Yes No

Q: Are handgun buyers required to complete safety training?

Yes No

Q: Are background checks required at gun shows?

Yes No

Q: Do state police and federal NICS perform a background check?

Yes No

Q: Is it mandatory that locking devices be sold with guns?

Yes No

Q: Is a license or permit required to buy handguns?

Yes No

Q: Are background checks required on 'private' gun sales?

Yes No

Q: Are there any restrictions regarding minors possessing guns?

Yes No

Q: May the police limit carrying concealed handguns?

Yes No

Cleck here for the answers. Thanks. http://crime.about.com/library/blgunquiz_tx.htm

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Ah the Texas Republic! Fool of guns, arming even your pets and kids to the teeth! And Americans complain that too many Mexicans cross into Texas illegally but guess what, tons and tons of GUNS, AMMO also get crossed into Mexico illegally, from Texas, USA making the Mexican police almost powerless against all the mafias supplied with guns and $$$$ from all of the drugs sold in the USA!!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The militarization of the police has been to separate the police from the people, whose motto used to be "to protect and serve". It has now become to seek and destroy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I appreciate if you could try the quiz listed below first and click on website for the answers. The ansers may surprise you. How many correct answers did you get? That's the reason I am against Assualt Weapon sales

You do realize that this quiz has two questions that are the same question, you also realize that the person who wrote this quiz also got the answer about gun shows wrong, Any FFL dealer at a gun show is required by law to do background checks and virtually all gun sellers at gun shows are FFL dealers. The so called gun show loop hole is entirely about private sales, people who do private sales will usually show up at a gun show because well there is where you are likely to meet a whole bunch of potential customers. Gun shows do not offer any type of legal loophole around background checks. The only thing that does is a private sale.

Your against "assault weapon sales" due to the answers but your perfectly fine with semi automatic/pump action/lever action/bolt action hunting rifles or hunting shotgun or hunting handgun sales?

Do you even know what a so called "assault weapon" is? Can you explain what makes them more lethal compared to a hunting firearm?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

interesting stats today: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/btn-guns-in-america/index.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No living,

You can reload an assault weapon much faster than a hunting rifle. Clips also hold far more rounds than hunting rifles. Ergo, you can kill a far larger number of people in less time. Obviously this makes them more "lethal."

Why do you think the army arms its soldiers with assault rifles and not hunting rifles?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I'm really sick of hearing shooting incidents. It seems as if it happens everyday and Americans don't care about it because they think that guns don't kill people but people kill them. And shooting incident might be just another incident in America.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You can reload an assault weapon much faster than a hunting rifle. Clips also hold far more rounds than hunting rifles. Ergo, you can kill a far larger number of people in less time. Obviously this makes them more "lethal."

Actually the legal definition of an assault weapon deals almost exclusively with weapon attachments, not with the feed system. I have hunting rifles with magazines comperable to military weapons that have never been illegal under any federal or state statute including the short lived 'assault weapons' ban. Trap door rifles can have a comperable number of rounds and a run of the mill pump action shotgun can hold several in the tube.

So no, magazine size has little to do with how an assault weapon is classified. The term 'assault weapon' is applied to weapons with rail attachments, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs. It has nothing to do with magazine size, reload speed, or lethality.

Why do you think the army arms its soldiers with assault rifles and not hunting rifles?

Okay, now we're talking about assault 'rifles', totally different story. For it to actually be considered an assault rifle it needs to have selective fire capability, the ability to switch between semi-automatic and automatic fire. Such weapons are strictly illegal virtually everwhere in the US unless you are a licensed collector or have another type of highly restrictive permit such as my permit for my antique firearms.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You can reload an assault weapon much faster than a hunting rifle. Clips also hold far more rounds than hunting rifles. Ergo, you can kill a far larger number of people in less time. Obviously this makes them more "lethal." Why do you think the army arms its soldiers with assault rifles and not hunting rifles?

The correct term I believe you are looking for is Magazines not clips. What is the definition of a hunting rifle? You do realize that there are hundreds if not thousands hunting rifles designs and in production that accept detachable magazines. For example the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle accepts detachable magazines thus it can be reloaded just as fast as any other firearm. What is an assault weapon? You do realize that Assault Rifles and the so called Assault weapon are not the same thing.

The primary reason why they don't arm their soldiers with Hunting rifles is that they found the average soldier could not used the full powered cartridge to its full potential and that only highly skilled snipers would ever be able to use it to its full potential. The other issue is the range of combat. The average ranges for combat was 300 meters or less so using a hunting caliber is a waste, another reason is that the calibers of bullets that Assault rifles used are called intermediate cartridge, these are weaker than your average hunting rifle, the benefit is that they weigh less and because they weight less they can carry more ammunition with them into combat. For example the Kar98 uses an ammunition that is heavier than an M1 Garand thus US soldiers in WW carried more ammo into combat. German soldiers carried around 65 rounds on average into combat while US soldiers were carrying 80+ or more. The M16 round weighs about 1/4 that of the Kar98 round.

Militaries use Assault rifles instead of hunting rifles because they weigh less and because they weigh less they can carry more ammunition into combat, Assault rifles are designed for urban combat, hunting rifles during war are not, they are designed for combat across very long ranges. Seeing as the future of war was going to be urban the Assault rifle design makes perfect sense compared to the hunting rifle for today's combat.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm really sick of hearing shooting incidents. It seems as if it happens everyday and Americans don't care about it because they think that guns don't kill people but people kill them. And shooting incident might be just another incident in America.

That's because people are shot every day in the US, just like how people are stabbed every single day in every single country. Just like how people of both sexes are raped every single day in every single country around the world. Every single day in every single country there is at least one murder that happens.

The reason why Americans don't care is because Homicide in the US is not even in the top 15 causes of death in the US. Homicide including gun homicide has been on the way down for the past 19-20 years. In fact gun homicide and gun assaults according to the FBI has been cut in half since 1993.

That is because guns by themselves don't kill people, in order for a gun to kill it has to have someone touch it. A gun laying on a table with no one touching it is not going to harm anyone. Why should 3 people being shot to do death be treated any more special than 3 people stabbed to death? Or run over?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Noliving

I've ever heard (but I'm not sure) that all guns used by crimes are scrapped melted finally. Those guns are kept in police evidence storage for a while but they are going to be melted to scrap. I just wonder why do not they sell some guns to market again or are reused to other people again if guns don't kill people it means guns don't have any responsibility about crimes as you think. I surely think that guns have responsibility whatever. That's why those guns have to be scrapped melted to metal. finally.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Every single day in every single country there is at least one murder that happens.

Absolutely not true. In the whole of last year there was one murder in Iceland, 176 in Greece and 179 in Holland. I could go on....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I've ever heard (but I'm not sure) that all guns used by crimes are scrapped melted finally. Those guns are kept in police evidence storage for a while but they are going to be melted to scrap. I just wonder why do not they sell some guns to market again or are reused to other people again if guns don't kill people it means guns don't have any responsibility about crimes as you think. I surely think that guns have responsibility whatever. That's why those guns have to be scrapped melted to metal. finally.

If guns are no less instruments of peace in the right hands than knives, clubs and baseball bats, absolutely start openly advertising and selling them all in the same venues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Noliving, Wow you know a lot about guns. Any idea how to stop them being used by crazy people shooting innocent people?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@Elbuda Mexicano Your buddy Obama and his administration willingly walked guns across the southern border. Google: Fast & Furious.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Brother Tiger,

Any idea how to stop them being used by crazy people shooting innocent people?

Just not make them available.

Make it REALLY difficult to get a gun license.

Ban the sale of assault weapons.

Round up all the guns.

And keep gun killing scenes out of movies and TV programs.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The reason why Americans don't care is because Homicide in the US is not even in the top 15 causes of death in the US.

Well, airplane hijackings or terrorist acts doesn't happen in the U.S. a lot, but people care about it. Dying in an act of terrorism, was never in the top 20 causes of death, but they still felt it necessary to beef airport security to the point of madness.

That is because guns by themselves don't kill people, in order for a gun to kill it has to have someone touch it. A gun laying on a table with no one touching it is not going to harm anyone.

Noliving: Yes, a gun doesn't kill by itself, just as an atomic bomb or missile doesn't kill anyone if left alone. But, if someone were to get a hold of a gun and use it, like if a madman were to get hold of a nuclear weapon and use it, it would be very dangerous to a lot of people.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I surely think that guns have responsibility whatever. That's why those guns have to be scrapped melted to metal. finally.

Yes the illegal guns used in an illegal act are destroyed, actually any illegal gun will be destroyed when it is no longer needed for evidence. But any legal gun that is used in what is determined to be a legal act of defense, whether or not it resulted in a death will be returned to it's owner.

It's not much but at least the destruction of illegal weapons keeps the amount of them down in the criminal world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey SOURPUSS: No, in fact there is no difference in the speed of reloading between an assault rifle and a regular hunting rifle. None whatsoever. In fact, many use the exact same mechanism. By definition an assault rifle is a semi automatic rifle (pull the trigger once and one bullet is fired) capable of either bust fire or fully automatic fire (burst means fires 2-5 rounds each trigger pull. Full auto means it keeps firing until the trigger is released) and chambered for an intermediate round. (ie bigger than a pistol calibre, but smaller than a full sized rifle calibre). So most hunting rifles are much more powerful than an assault rifle. Also you can't own any weapon capable of full auto in the US w/o a special class three permit from the BATF which among other things requires that you give up your 4th amendment rights and allow them to search your home at any time with or with any actual reason.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

NoLiving: "That's because people are shot every day in the US, just like how people are stabbed every single day in every single country. Just like how people of both sexes are raped every single day in every single country around the world."

Stats, please. Stop trying to justify your nation's absolutely pathetic gun laws by suggesting rapes and stabbings happen EVERY DAY (in your words) in every single country in the world. Even if your gross exaggerations were correct, imagine if they had guns to boot! It would be x10 the amount of damage and life lost. Unlike your false claims, though, one thing IS true -- this is about the third mass slaughter this month using guns in the US. Had they been only knives, a tool meant for the kitchen while guns serve no purpose but to kill, might be no one died at all.

But hey, let's hear the nutters' usual justification about how guns are only used for 'defense' or how everyone should be armed to avoid this kind of thing.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Elbuda MexicanoAUG. 14, 2012 - 08:51AM JST Ah the Texas Republic! Fool of guns, arming even your pets and kids to the teeth! And Americans complain that too many Mexicans cross into Texas illegally but guess what, tons and tons of GUNS, AMMO also get crossed into Mexico illegally, from Texas, USA making the Mexican police almost powerless against all the mafias supplied with guns and $$$$ from all of the drugs sold in the USA!!<

Actually most of the guns used by the drug gangs in Mexico come either from South and Central America or from the armouries of the Mexican police and military. This has already been proven. They don't want to buy the semi- auto American versions when they can get the full-auto versions from down south for the same price. We fund it with drug money, but you guys do you shopping elsewhere.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

David43515,

statistics show that where there are more legal guns in the US there is much less violent crime, and where there are much stricter gun laws in the US there is much more violent crime

When is the gun lobby going to admit that the 'stricter (local) gun laws' are in reaction to the 'much more violent crime' in the first place?

These valiant efforts fail in their objectives because the of the arms manufacturers' veto on national legislative initiatives through their political wing, the NRA.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Shooting became a daily business...how tragic is America!

Dont blame the NRA, they have nothing to do with these domestic terrorisms but US economy is too woes that people were desperated to express their frustrations! Blame the two parties, they were crooks!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Sure! Guatemala etc...now make guns?? Sorry but all guns are made in rich countries and then Russia and China are also not shy about dumping guns and ammo in the USA for $$$$$$$!!! Do they care about American lives?? Deaths?? I really doubt they do so RIP Texans.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Laws- and why stacking laws is never a solution-

Gun laws, at the center of every violent crime discussion involving a firearm, and yet the arguments made by either side (pro or against) never addresses the glaring problem with the debate. That is- HOW WOULD GUN LAWS MAKE AN IMPACT WHERE CURRENT LAWS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIMES FAIL? In other words why would a criminal be more likely to adhere to a ban on firearms than he is to murder. Forgetting for a second that a gun was used in this case, would it really matter how people were killed? What if instead his violent rampage was carried out with an SUV? Would we then seek to ban large vehicles because of their ability to kill more people? I could probably make the argument that this criminal would have turned to violence in order to obtain a firearm- because lets face reality here, there is no way to get rid of all firearms. Just as there is no way to get rid of drugs- and yet the failed drug war marches on with its 25-50 billion dollar budget. More people die enforcing and breaking those laws a year than the cumulative amount of deaths caused by illegal drugs...

No laws are not the answer. The fact is its hard to argue with a statement such as - more laws more violence. That is to say that growing violence could be in direct correlation to more laws being passed. The focus of everyone should be at the fact that government regulation is so very quick to act in stripping rights- while the true criminals, the ones that have cause a worldwide financial crisis have been given all the freedom and rights the money stolen from you could buy.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Libretarian: Ah, the age old apologist defense that 'criminals would use other means if not guns'. You seem to forget that the majority of people who commit murder using guns were not criminals until they did so. THAT is the problem -- to suggest they could have done the same amount of damage with a water noodle if they had the intent is ridiculous.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

David,

Actually most of the guns used by the drug gangs in Mexico come either from South and Central America or from the armouries of the Mexican police and military.

You mean the ones that were caught, right?

How about the others?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes the illegal guns used in an illegal act are destroyed, actually any illegal gun will be destroyed when it is no longer needed for evidence. But any legal gun that is used in what is determined to be a legal act of defense, whether or not it resulted in a death will be returned to it's owner.

@Frank

Understood very well, but I'm talking about legal guns in an illegal act, not illegal ones. If those psychos used very legal guns to kill people, these legal guns will be destroyed? or returned to those owners? when those are no longer needed for evidence. Maybe legal guns might be returned to psychos again when they are out of jail? because of America.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Thats right SmithinJapan, lets make a perfectly logical argument and turn it on its head...I suppose you are able to tell me that the gun is the deciding factor in whether or not someone will kill in the heat of the moment or in a planned out cold blooded style. Because somehow those evil guns have some sort of magical influence on otherwise sane people? Well if magic exists then why are you so sure a wet noodle isnt killing someone?

Oh that is right because you like to make things up in order to back your emotionally charged claims. Or you could point out where I said "wet noodle"...because otherwise you are using grade school debate tactics in order to make me look foolish (which as shown above I can do as well) and thus wrong.

You cant just toss out my logic because a wet noodle isnt a weapon, otherwise youre going to have to defend that a bear trap is really the weapon that talks people into killing.

I will however do you a favor and point out that the VAST majority of gun owners have never committed murder and never will. Also your argument it flawed in that a person with a violent past can not purchase a gun legally...this would skew the numbers...like all the way in your favor

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is not very complicated.

No one has guns - no one gets shot.

No shooting in movies or on TV - nobody gets to have a mass murderer as a role model.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wild West mentality strikes again. Destroy all guns in private hands everywhere. They are not needed.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

mmm hmm so we just make a deal that everyone can agree with then? No guns, then no knives, bats, HARPOON GUNS, forks, sporks, rocks, piano wire.....

Listen I agree lets create a Utopian society....although I disagree when you say its not very complicated. Because not only is it complicated....its F'n impossible. Back to the drawing board.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

the deciding factor in whether or not someone will kill in the heat of the moment or in a planned out cold blooded style

The gun may not make someone kill in the heat of the moment, but it sure makes it a lot more effective and easier in killing a large number of people indiscriminantly.

the VAST majority of gun owners have never committed murder and never will.

Yes, but a vast majority of people don't own a gun, and never felt the need to and have lived happy safe lives. Which leads to the point that a gun is not necessary for the average citizen. I too have never felt like I had to own a gun when living in America, but always felt sad hearing of innocent people suffering at the hands of people who used a gun on them, and knowing that they had the freedom to wield a gun in the first place. Fact is, that most Americans hate guns and wish they went away, and don't feel that there is a need for a civilian to own one.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Really? Most hate guns? Hmm...

You see this is another argument that makes things up to back their own feelings, and is made out of pure emotion.

"knowing that they had the freedom to wield a gun in the first place"- And yet they didnt have the freedom to take someones life, so you tell me why they would respond to one law and not another?

a vast majority of people don't own a gun, and never felt the need to and have lived happy safe lives. Which leads to the point that a gun is not necessary for the average citizen- This is an argument? Based on what evidence can you make the statement that because most people are safe and happy- it has anything to do with guns? If not what right do you have to tell the people that do use and enjoy them- providing happy and safe lives they can no longer enjoy that right?

Focus on some facts, but barring that, at least ask questions to help form your argument. This is really eye opening...to see just how many people need that fuzzy feeling of laws and rules to live their lives. Take a look around....laws and rules being broken everywhere....they dont keep you safe. They have in many cases made things far more dangerous...and again I will point to the war on drugs as a primary example of what I am talking about. Although I suppose you will point to the fact that youre not a drug addict as evidence for its success.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

A man in his mid-30s who lived there opened fire from inside

yes yes, you don't need to use a weapon to kill someone. But that 30-somehting nutter would have had a much, much harder job killing the cop standing outside the house if he'd been in his kitchen armed with a wet noodle.

The arguments of the gun-lovers just get more and more pathetic.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Sure...except I dont own and may never own a gun.

But youre right and I was wrong to make the argument that he could have done that....wait WTF! I didnt say that....at all. SO youre statement about the arguments of gun lovers as it pertains to something I nor anyone else said, is really weird. Its amazing that someone can create something from thin air like this and imagine that someone else said it- then form any negative opinion at all about the real person's imaginary argument. I mean just...WOW

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

kwatt

From my step-daughter a several year veteran of a major U.S. city PD. I hope this helps some.

An illegal gun is destroyed period.

A legal gun used in an illegal act, Destroyed. The legal owner was careless by allowing it to fall into the wrong hands or the legal owner used it improperly so they lose their right to own it.

A legal gun used in what is determined to be a legal manner will be returned to it's registered owner if said owner wishes it returned.

This policy is removing hundreds of illegal weapons out of this city every year as the legal gun, legal use only accounts for 1-3% of the guns confiscated. She was not allowed to say the exact number, but it is scary and I for one am glad to see the illegal guns gone.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Frank

A legal gun used in an illegal act, Destroyed.

Why do such good legal guns must be destroyed? Is it necessary or important for such legal guns to be destroyed? Americans insist that "guns don't kill people but people kill", and guns don't have responsibility of crimes, don't they? then Why such good legal guns must be destroyed? Maybe better sell them to market. Because gun fires have as the same responsibility as humans did. That's why the human will be convicted and the gun also will be destroyed. It really proves that guns kill people as well as people kill simultaneously. Therefore it should be wrong that "guns don't kill people".

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Noliving, Wow you know a lot about guns. Any idea how to stop them being used by crazy people shooting innocent people?

There isn't any. That is like saying how do you stop a crazy person from run-over innocent people with a car.

Well, airplane hijackings or terrorist acts doesn't happen in the U.S. a lot, but people care about it. Dying in an act of terrorism, was never in the top 20 causes of death, but they still felt it necessary to beef airport security to the point of madness.

And they were fools to do it, they were wrong to do it. They way overreacted to the terrorism. Look at what the Patriot Act has done to american liberties. Those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

Yes, a gun doesn't kill by itself, just as an atomic bomb or missile doesn't kill anyone if left alone. But, if someone were to get a hold of a gun and use it, like if a madman were to get hold of a nuclear weapon and use it, it would be very dangerous to a lot of people.

Agreed, so the issue isn't the object its the person. For example if a madman was to get a hold of a car they would be very dangerous to a lot of people.

Stop trying to justify your nation's absolutely pathetic gun laws by suggesting rapes and stabbings happen EVERY DAY (in your words) in every single country in the world. Even if your gross exaggerations were correct

Stop trying to deny that there isn't at least one sexual assault in every single nation every single day or that there isn't at least one non-sexual physical assault that takes place in every single day in every single nation. Take Japan for example, one of the safest nations on the planet but you know as well as I do there is at least one stabbing every single day somewhere in that country. You know as well as I do there is at least one rape in the nation of Japan every single day. Ya gross exaggeration you honestly think that is a gross exaggeration.

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html

imagine if they had guns to boot! It would be x10 the amount of damage and life lost.

Your going to complain about me using gross exaggerations? Stats please that using a gun automatically increases damage by 10 times every time.

Unlike your false claims, though, one thing IS true -- this is about the third mass slaughter this month using guns in the US. Had they been only knives, a tool meant for the kitchen while guns serve no purpose but to kill, might be no one died at all.

You really think there is a single nation out there in which there isn't a sexual assault that doesn't occur? You honestly think there is a single nation in which there isn't a single stabbing that doesn't occur? Two(third was the gunman) people isn't a mass slaughter smith, by that argument two people that die in a car accident is a mass tragedy. Please.....Heck even the FBI classifies a mass slaughter/murder as four or more murders. Yes if only it had been knives Smith I mean he wouldn't have known to just gain the evictors trust and then just stab or cut their jugular vein using a knife. Also Smith can you justify why you need a metal knife? I mean plastic knives cut just fine. Do you agree with metal knives being banned except for professional chefs and butchers having access to them? Do you agree that Plastic knives should only be available for private ownership?

Why don't you tell that to the NYPD who just killed a man because he had a knife, I'm sure they will be relieved to know that since he was only using a knife no one was really ever in danger.

There are knives that are designed to kill, don't fool yourself into believing that there are not knives that are designed to kill that are legal to own. Would you like for me to get you a YouTube video of a police officer being killed in a single stab to the chest?

yes yes, you don't need to use a weapon to kill someone. But that 30-something nutter would have had a much, much harder job killing the cop standing outside the house if he'd been in his kitchen armed with a wet noodle.

What if he had a supersoaker filled with gasoline and a lighter attached to the end?

How about a bottlebomb filled with nails and ball bearings?

The arguments of the gun-lovers just get more and more pathetic.

No they are not....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What if he had a supersoaker filled with gasoline and a lighter attached to the end?

How about a bottlebomb filled with nails and ball bearings?

Not sure I get your point. Lethal weapons are more dangerous than wet noodles? Yes, you are correct.

The arguments of the gun-lovers just get more and more pathetic.

No they are not....

Wow. No answer to that incisive argument.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The thing that most people do not seem to take into account is that 99% of the time that we read about someone committing mass murder with a firearm, the person is nuts. You can’t really predict crazy (well, sort of but a good 70% of the US population seems to be sort of nuts and not in therapy or institutionalized). Yes, true if they did not have firearms it would be much more difficult to kill a larger number of people. But they aren’t getting squad automatic weapons and mowing down dozens, it’s usually in the double digits in the worst case. I’m not saying that’s a good thing by any stretch, but I truly could probably sharpen a length of thin steel that I can buy and Home Depot into a fantastically sharp blade and behead maybe a dozen or so in a busy shopping mall before being capped by the cops.

Of course that sounds crazy – but that is the point; they are crazy. The loon at the movie theater had his apartment rigged. With a modicum of smarts and a mind crazy enough to do it, he could just have easily made some sort of fragmentation bomb, placed it under a seat, lit the fuse and fled.

The better argument for gun control is not the flashpoint lunatic in a movie theater or this guy in Texas, but rather if you want to argue for it, use the average criminal in the average crime – which in this country is more than likely a shooting that occurs when a drug deal goes wrong. For example, I lived in DC when it was deemed the ‘murder capital of the world’ and just about all of the killings were black on black drug related shooting within the District.

So the point? The point is that rather than grab on to the media-sensationalized wacko in a shopping mall, if you want to argue gun control center your argument around the everyday occurrences and not the lunatic aberrations; the law of percentages would dictate this.

So the real gun problem (and its true here where I live now) is the teenaged punk who is selling a bag of heroin, the junkie rips him off and he pops him. Well, even though the anti-gun folks say ‘poppycock’ to the argument, it is true that these teenage punks with guns aren’t getting them at the local sporting goods shop (unless the local shop is robbed). There exists a sea of illegal weapons that can be had for not a lot of cash. After you get rid of the legal ones, how do you propose to get of all the illegal ones? Some can be seized in crimes, many cannot. They will re-circulate and they will keep coming into the country one way or another.

I guess my real point is that the issue of gun control gets over-dramatized by media hype when a crazy loses it and kills a bunch of people – and yes that is usually with a legally purchased firearm. Gun control could keep this from happening from the firearms perspective, but likely the true deviant could find other methods. In the main, this would stop infrequent violence. The main problem with guns involves the street thug indiscriminately shooting up neighborhoods in deals gone wrong, turf disputes, etc. These are rarely committed with legally purchased weapons. So in theory your thought process of making guns illegal is going to stop the dramatics that have unfolded recently, but not the mainstream problem. It would likely make it more difficult – or at least more expensive to buy said illegal guns – but it’s not going to make them disappear. I do realize that the anti-gun advocate just want to do away with them period. There are a myriad of problems with that – but in a country this invested I don’t think that’s an easy goal to obtain. Those against think that the ‘then only criminals will have guns’ is a ridiculous statement by the gun lobby, but isn’t it fundamentally true?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wow. No answer to that incisive argument.

Well lets see here the arguments they make haven't really changed for the past several decades and gun crime from homicides to assaults have been cut in half in the US in the past 20 years. So how can their arguments get more pathetic when the arguments have not changed and total gun violence in the US has been cut in half over 20 years?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, but a vast majority of people don't own a gun, and never felt the need to and have lived happy safe lives. Which leads to the point that a gun is not necessary for the average citizen.

Debatable. Some figures put the gun ownership rates in the US at 50% others say as low as 33%. At the very least there is a very sizable minority and that minority make up over 100 million people in the US and that itself is no small figure.

Outside of a shelter, food and water that is true with everything not being necessary for the average person. Electricity is not needed, cars are not needed, alcohol, recreational sex, telephones, internet., utensils, etc. are not needed for the average person to live safe happy lives.

Just because you don't find it to be necessary doesn't mean you ban it.

Fact is, that most Americans hate guns and wish they went away, and don't feel that there is a need for a civilian to own one.

I would like to see that fact cited. I didn't realize that Americans had such strong feelings against guns, perhaps you could show us the survey that proves that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

gun crime from homicides to assaults have been cut in half in the US in the past 20 years. So how can their arguments get more pathetic when the arguments have not changed and total gun violence in the US has been cut in half over 20 years?

When people (try to) argue that a bottlebomb filled with nails and ball bearings can also kill so what's wrong with guns? Sorry, but if you genuinely don't see how pathetic that is, then you're simply proving my point.

Gun-lovers crow about the so-called fall in gun crime over the past 20 years without accepting the fact that it's still way, way higher than more sensible countries that don't allow any nutter with money in his pocket to buy a lethal weapon. They also overlook the fact that 20 years ago gun deaths in America were at a peak, after rising steadily over the previous decade. Compared to 35 years ago, gun-related deaths remain constant: the argument that 'gun crime has fallen so we must be doing it right' simply doesn't hold up.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Noliving, look up on Youtube gangs in the USA, from Latino gangs, to white, to black to Asian, etc..and guess what, they are armed to the teeth! Why?? Because GUNS KILL, and they are in the business of KILLING OFF their rivals, so keep on dreaming that guns are just lifeless inanimate objects, you mess with these gangs and bang, bang, their guns etc..will make you like Swiss cheese, and oh guns do not kill, so why are the American police armed to the teeth, because gangs and nutters are and it is a WIN WIN situation for the at the end of the day, instead of respecting human life. Very, very sad indeed. When will America wake up and understand that human life is the most important thing in our lives?? Not $$$, not drugs, not violence,not crappy sports on ESPN 24/7....

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

When people (try to) argue that a bottlebomb filled with nails and ball bearings can also kill so what's wrong with guns? Sorry, but if you genuinely don't see how pathetic that is, then you're simply proving my point.

That is not at all what the argument is being made there but nice try. Read it again and if you still can't get it than I will explain clearer what the point being made is.

Gun-lovers crow about the so-called fall in gun crime over the past 20 years without accepting the fact that it's still way, way higher than more sensible countries that don't allow any nutter with money in his pocket to buy a lethal weapon. They also overlook the fact that 20 years ago gun deaths in America were at a peak, after rising steadily over the previous decade. Compared to 35 years ago, gun-related deaths remain constant: the argument that 'gun crime has fallen so we must be doing it right' simply doesn't hold up.

That is like saying car crime is higher than other nations where cars are essentially banned. Or there are more electrocutions in the US compared to poor nations that have little to no electrical infrastructure. How am I overlooking the fact that gun deaths were at their peak 20 years ago? Whenever a crime trend goes down the the year preceding the down trend year is almost always the peak year, and yet the trend of falling gun crime has fallen below previous decade of the 80's even the 70's and were now looking at gun crime that is set to match the mid 1950's. Actually it not a steady constant, in your example there were over 11k gun homicides that number is now just below 10,000k.

Actually anything that shows crime falling over a period of 20 years would mean your doing something right. For example if test scores increase over a period of 20 years but were not as high as they were 50 years ago means you're doing something right, it means you have reversed the downward spiral and it means you have been able to maintain the gains from the previous years and not only that but also be able to build off of them consistently and it is really only a matter of time before your test scores are as high as they were 50 years ago.

So yes the argument that the total number of gun crime has been cut in half over a period of 20 years a time that saw the total number of legally owned firearms in the US go from 200 million to just over 300 million in which its population also increased by a grand total of just over 60 million people does in fact hold up and this is a really long run on sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving, look up on Youtube gangs in the USA, from Latino gangs, to white, to black to Asian, etc..and guess what, they are armed to the teeth! Why?? Because GUNS KILL, and they are in the business of KILLING OFF their rivals, so keep on dreaming that guns are just lifeless inanimate objects, you mess with these gangs and bang, bang, their guns etc..will make you like Swiss cheese, and oh guns do not kill, so why are the American police armed to the teeth, because gangs and nutters are and it is a WIN WIN situation for the at the end of the day, instead of respecting human life. Very, very sad indeed. When will America wake up and understand that human life is the most important thing in our lives?? Not $$$, not drugs, not violence,not crappy sports on ESPN 24/7...

Have I ever said that guns can't kill?

And why are they in the business of killing? I'm willing to be that anything that deals with the motivation for why they are killing will have a greater impact on reducing gang related violence than any guns law ever will. Again have I ever said guns can't kill?

So really what your saying the issue is cultural and not guns. Owning a firearm doesn't mean you don't respect or value human life, the vast and I mean vast majority of the 100+ million legal gun owners in the US value human life, that is why the the combined gun crime: Homicide, Suicide, Injuries make up less than .001% of the US population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites