Nebraska Mall Shootings

[Snorri1234]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

Ah yes it would be as easy to kill people when you bring a knife.

If you want me to get the statistics, i can prove to you that areas where guns are illegal in the US the crime rate went up, and where there is guns, crime went down.

Crime=!murder.

[comic boy]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

As Guiscard said, it's a terrible analogy.

'Getting rid of guns won't do any damn good' - look at the per capita figures for gun deaths - US vs UK - elsewhere on this page:- do they therefore mean that americans are simply more murderous?

Thats a nice catch 22
Americans dont kill because they have guns, its because they are madder than anybody else which is why they think guns are great

[Blastshot]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

Are pencils designed to misspell words? No.

Guns are designed to kill people. End of. How people can keep trotting out that ridiculous analogy is beyond my comprehension...

And no, if someone wants to kill someone they aren't necessarily going to. Coleman, who says he knew the guy, said that he had in the past been strangled by the kid. He didn't die. If that guy had had a gun, do you think Coleman would be with us now? I doubt it...

Stricter gun control laws, such as those we have in the UK, gradually reduces gun culture. None of my family own guns. As crazy as I was I could not get hold of a gun and slaughter nine people. As HARD as I tried. If I go into a mall with a knife how many people could I kill? One? two?

Well i am going to say that when i said "If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not"
I did not mean he/she would, but would try. Sorry, i said it wrong.

Yes the laws may work in the UK, but as much as i hate to say it, we have dumbasses in our country. We also elected a dumbass but im not going to go into that.

Guns are designed to kill people. End of. How people can keep trotting out that ridiculous analogy is beyond my comprehension...

And what are knifes designed to do? You may say that they are designed to cut, but what you use them for is the question.
Guns are made to blow holes in things, wether it be cans, deer, or men. It all depends on what you use guns for.

Stricter gun control laws, such as those we have in the UK, gradually reduces gun culture. None of my family own guns. As crazy as I was I could not get hold of a gun and slaughter nine people. As HARD as I tried. If I go into a mall with a knife how many people could I kill? One? two?

Well, maybe in the UK, but not here. I dug out this, check it out.

Less gun control, Less crime
Data released by the FBI in September showed that in 2006, the nation's total violent crime rate was 37.5 percent lower than in 1991, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Murder and robbery, the two tupes of violent crime most likely to involve firearms decreased the most between 1991-2006 dropping 42 percent and 45 percent respectively.
During the last five years, violent crime has been lower than any time since the mid-1970s. And during the last eight years, murder has fluctuated slightly, but remained lower than any time since the mid 1960s.
Surely that is good news, but in reporting on the FBI's release of the 2006 data, most media ignored the long-term trends and instead pointed out that violent crime rose 1.9 percent between 2005-2006. When the nation's ever-increasing population is taken into account, the violent crime rate increased only one percent. The media of course, went with the higher figure.
The FBI's report was bad news for anti-gun activists in several ways. First violent crime remains relatively low, while the numbers of guns, gun owners and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs, and gun control has been reduced significatly at the federal, state and local levels. Second the FBI once again stated that crime levels are determined by a variety of factors, ranging from economic conditions, to cultural factors, to climate, to citezens attitudes toward police, but not including gun control.
Third, in 2006 Right-To-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country. Total violent crime was 26 percent lower, murder 31 percent lower, and robbery 50 percent lower and aggrivated assault 15 percent lower. Thirteen of the 15 states with the lowest total violent crime rates and murder rates, and 14 of the 15 states with the lowest robbery rates, were Right-to-carry states.

And to hit closer to home with you Europeans, or any other people

World Survey Shows few links between guna and crime
Amid international activists' ongoing push for U.N. gun control, the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey released a study that dramatically undercuts the activists' idea that guns cause violence. While media reports have focused on the study's claim that the U.S. holds nearly half the world's civilian gun supply, they've ignored the study's figures that suggest quite a different conclusion about guns and crime.
The publication, Small Arms Survey 2007:Guns and the City, includes estimates of civilian gun ownership for many of the world's countries. But as the program's director, Keith Krause, pointed out to reporters, "There is no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence".
The report includes a chart that lists the 30 countries with the largest number of civilian-owned firearms. Those with the largest rates of civilian gun ownership per 100 people include some of the worlds safest, most stable democracies, such as Finland, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany.
Krause himself noted that low gun ownership goes along with high crime rates in Latin America. Among the counties with the lowest rates of ownership were some recently racked with rising urban violence (Such as England and Brazil) and others that have been scenes of bloody drug crime and guerrilla warfare.
The study's figures also give a powerful hint about the relationship between the right to arms and other freedoms. Iran, China, and Russia-all known for long and violently political dissent- easily ranked in the study's bottom ten for rates of civilian gun ownership.

This is there internet page:
http://www.nrapublications.org/TAH/index.asp

Note: I did not copy and paste the articles, but typed them from the magazine to the computer. There may be typoes.

Also, if the government were to outlaw guns, and enforced it severely, they would be facing major riots from rural areas, hunters, and rednecks in general.

[Frigidus]

And what are knifes designed to do? You may say that they are designed to cut, but what you use them for is the question.
Guns are made to blow holes in things, wether it be cans, deer, or men. It all depends on what you use guns for.

Last time I checked you can use rifles to go hunting and shoot cans. Do you need semi-automatic pistols to do that? Hell, you can easily defend your home with a rifle and it would be too bulky for children to use. They're ideal. Semi-automatic pistols are designed to shoot an assload of bullets into something and reload quickly so you can do it again. What is their point other than killing people?

[Neutrino]

Yes the laws may work in the UK, but as much as i hate to say it, we have dumbasses in our country. We also elected a dumbass but im not going to go into that.

There's dumbassess in every country. It's the gun culture, not them preventing the US from having reasonably low gun fatalities.

And what are knifes designed to do? You may say that they are designed to cut, but what you use them for is the question.
Guns are made to blow holes in things, wether it be cans, deer, or men. It all depends on what you use guns for.

Knives have alternate uses. Guns have none.
As Frigidus said, if you want a hunting or home defence weapon, get a rifle. The only purpose for a semi-automatic pistol is to kill a lot of people. Unless you commonly deal with large, heavily armed and fearless robbers, stick with a rifle.

As for your articles: I don't think there is anyone here suggesting that guns cause violence. However, they do allow it to turn lethal very quickly. What might have ended with a black eye ends with a body bag in the presence of firearms and people with a lack of self control to deserve them.

[comic boy]

The Hunter and the NRA are not exactly unbiased are they

[Napoleon Ier]

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

[Guiscard]

And what are knifes designed to do? You may say that they are designed to cut, but what you use them for is the question..

You're not allowed to carry knives on the street in the UK either. Anyway, we need knives for everyday activities such as food preparation. I don't slice my sandwich in half with an AK47 do I... They should not, and indeed are not, allowed to be carried for self defense. Anyway, the point about knives is that yes they are readily available but a) unlike guns, that is something of a unnecessary evil (we don't need guns for any other purpose, or at least we don't need guns to be widely available for any other purpose) and b) I could kill with a knife, but I couldn't slaughter thirty people in a few minutes.

You're quotations at the end are pointless too. Yes, right to carry states have lower gun crime. But unfortunately the firearm homicide rates in those states are STILL twenty times those in the UK. Sure, concealed arms may make criminals think twice about using guns, but in the UK they just don't have the access to firearms because we have stricter legislation, less gun culture, less guns flooding the streets because the legal demand is tiny.

The gun homicides per head produced earlier should be more than enough evidence.

[muy_thaiguy]

And what are knifes designed to do? You may say that they are designed to cut, but what you use them for is the question..

You're not allowed to carry knives on the street in the UK either. Anyway, we need knives for everyday activities such as food preparation. I don't slice my sandwich in half with an AK47 do I... They should not, and indeed are not, allowed to be carried for self defense. Anyway, the point about knives is that yes they are readily available but a) unlike guns, that is something of a unnecessary evil (we don't need guns for any other purpose, or at least we don't need guns to be widely available for any other purpose) and b) I could kill with a knife, but I couldn't slaughter thirty people in a few minutes.

You're quotations at the end are pointless too. Yes, right to carry states have lower gun crime. But unfortunately the firearm homicide rates in those states are STILL twenty times those in the UK. Sure, concealed arms may make criminals think twice about using guns, but in the UK they just don't have the access to firearms because we have stricter legislation, less gun culture, less guns flooding the streets because the legal demand is tiny.

The gun homicides per head produced earlier should be more than enough evidence.

Not even pocket knives?

[Guiscard]

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

Unless the non-existence of catapult culture promoted by strict legislation creates an environment in which catapults are not in every home, the catapult companies do not see it as worth their while to flood the market with catapults and, subsequently, catapults are both unavailable to the mentally unstable wanting to use them on the spur of the moment and furthermore the black market is unable to supply a large number of catapults to criminals who, indeed, do not see the catapult as a necessity in carrying out their banditry because there is no chance of the victims also possessing catapults.

[Napoleon Ier]

Victims don't have guns, so criminals don't risk carrying them, they just knive victims with 4 inch blades.
This argument doesn't work. Look at Israel, or Switzerland, where every male is requires (more or less) to own an automatic weapon. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

[Dancing Mustard]

Victims don't have guns, so criminals don't risk carrying them, they just knive victims with 4 inch blades.
This argument doesn't work. Look at Israel, or Switzerland, where every male is requires (more or less) to own an automatic weapon. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

So you're saying that Americans are simply prone to being more homicidal and bloodthirsty than other human beings?

[muy_thaiguy]

And what are knifes designed to do? You may say that they are designed to cut, but what you use them for is the question..

You're not allowed to carry knives on the street in the UK either. Anyway, we need knives for everyday activities such as food preparation. I don't slice my sandwich in half with an AK47 do I... They should not, and indeed are not, allowed to be carried for self defense. Anyway, the point about knives is that yes they are readily available but a) unlike guns, that is something of a unnecessary evil (we don't need guns for any other purpose, or at least we don't need guns to be widely available for any other purpose) and b) I could kill with a knife, but I couldn't slaughter thirty people in a few minutes.

You're quotations at the end are pointless too. Yes, right to carry states have lower gun crime. But unfortunately the firearm homicide rates in those states are STILL twenty times those in the UK. Sure, concealed arms may make criminals think twice about using guns, but in the UK they just don't have the access to firearms because we have stricter legislation, less gun culture, less guns flooding the streets because the legal demand is tiny.

The gun homicides per head produced earlier should be more than enough evidence.

Not even pocket knives?

[Dancing Mustard]

No. Not even pocket knives.

(Contradiction in terms if you think about it...)

Here's the statute's wording:

Prevention of Crime Act 1953:
1 (1). [If] Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon [he] shall be guilty of an offence.

[Napoleon Ier]

Victims don't have guns, so criminals don't risk carrying them, they just knive victims with 4 inch blades.
This argument doesn't work. Look at Israel, or Switzerland, where every male is requires (more or less) to own an automatic weapon. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

So you're saying that Americans are simply prone to being more homicidal and bloodthirsty than other human beings?

Look at the statistics: gun control has only an adverse effect in the US, and in many places outside it.
So yes, that is what I am saying. Is it a cultural phenomenum, is it psychologically induced by the environment produced in the US, I don't know. What I do know is, you have produced a poorly constructed rhetorical question to cloud up the issue and hide from the hard evidence.

[Dancing Mustard]

What hard evidence and facts? You've proved nothing, you've pointed out one nation that's very different from the USA because it is in a constant state of war, and another state which has always been regarded as unusually pacifist in its leanings; you provided no hard evidence of crime rates in either, then you've tried to use your bald assertsions about the unproven crime ratesas arguments. To cap that off you went and admitted that the homicide rate in the USA was bizarely high.

Either you're saying American citizens are simply more prone to homicide than citizens of other western nations, or you're going to have to admit that they are able to be so because they have easy access to military-standard firearms. There's no rhetoric at all here my friend, there's just you drowning in your own blathering idiocy.

[Napoleon Ier]

No. Not even pocket knives.

(Contradiction in terms if you think about it...)

Dancing Mustard the condescending arrogance with which you treat other forumers in debate is pathetic. You seem to think that your proclamations carry a huge intellectual weight, which makes the way you declaim your absurdities all the more farcical. In this case, you make a particularly flagrantly idiotic declaration, taking advantage of the ignorance of others concerning the matter to try and twist reality to your own advantage.

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

[Dancing Mustard]

Dancing Mustard the condescending arrogance with which you treat other forumers in debate is pathetic. You seem to think that your proclamations carry a huge intellectual weight, which makes the way you declaim your absurdities all the more farcical. In this case, you make a particularly flagrantly idiotic declaration, taking advantage of the ignorance of others concerning the matter to try and twist reality to your own advantage.

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

That's complete bollocks.

I made a perfectly polite statement to Muy, and you've gone and wet your pants over it. Furthermore I backed up everything I said with hard evidence... something which you appear to have failed to do.

In other words: Go get shagged you imbecile. Come back when you've learnt to do something other than insult other posters and make up bollocks to prop up your crazy bigoted opinions. You are a blight on this forum, and have yet to contribute anything of any value here.

[Frigidus]

Victims don't have guns, so criminals don't risk carrying them, they just knive victims with 4 inch blades.
This argument doesn't work. Look at Israel, or Switzerland, where every male is requires (more or less) to own an automatic weapon. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

So you're saying that Americans are simply prone to being more homicidal and bloodthirsty than other human beings?

Look at the statistics: gun control has only an adverse effect in the US, and in many places outside it.
So yes, that is what I am saying. Is it a cultural phenomenum, is it psychologically induced by the environment produced in the US, I don't know. What I do know is, you have produced a poorly constructed rhetorical question to cloud up the issue and hide from the hard evidence.

When it comes to banning guns it's going to get worse before it gets better. But when it does get better it would get much, much better. Here's a fact: when it comes to gun ownership it is more likely that death and injury will strike the owner and his family than an intruder. Suicide rates are higher for those with gun ownership than those without.

Seriously though, why should semi-automatic weapons be allowed? I'll quote myself:

Last time I checked you can use rifles to go hunting and shoot cans. Do you need semi-automatic pistols to do that? Hell, you can easily defend your home with a rifle and it would be too bulky for children to use. They're ideal. Semi-automatic pistols are designed to shoot an assload of bullets into something and reload quickly so you can do it again. What is their point other than killing people?

[muy_thaiguy]

No. Not even pocket knives.

(Contradiction in terms if you think about it...)

Here's the statute's wording:

Prevention of Crime Act 1953:
1 (1). [If] Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon [he] shall be guilty of an offence.

hmmm, well, here in the Mid West at least (can't really speak for Eastern States and Pacific States), you would be hard pressed to find someone without a pocket knife. I for one, carry one with me pretty much where ever I go, as do teachers, coaches, managers, students, you name it, they most likely have one. It is considered a norm out here.

[Napoleon Ier]

Dancing Mustard the condescending arrogance with which you treat other forumers in debate is pathetic. You seem to think that your proclamations carry a huge intellectual weight, which makes the way you declaim your absurdities all the more farcical. In this case, you make a particularly flagrantly idiotic declaration, taking advantage of the ignorance of others concerning the matter to try and twist reality to your own advantage.

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

That's complete bollocks.

It is also current UK legislation. I quoted section 139, I wasn't making a positive statement.

[Dancing Mustard]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; you can tell because it's written in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings 2008', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

While carrying a pocket-knife may not be something you would end up being charged for, and which you might be able to find some defence against; the fact is that it's regarded (strictly speaking) as a crime in the UK.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum again. Good day to you.

[Napoleon Ier]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving fuck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

[comic boy]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Your views frankly deserve no respect !

[Napoleon Ier]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Your views frankly deserve no respect !

My views deserve no respect?

Who is being intolerant now?

How dare you call me an intolerant bigot then simply make that assertion without bothering to contribute to the debate?