Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, Shot By Gunman

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-congress...5984408228

Lol, there goes the Aussies on and on about the gun laws in the US in the comments, which I am on the fence about.
But seriously, you can't really deny that it is part of the problem.

Yahh right, you don't get it. What I'm saying is that people should need to go through personality and background tests and so on.

We do this in Finland and it works quite well. There is about 0-2 shootings/year. This speaks for itself:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms
# 4 United States

Finland is not even listed (in the top 46+).

That would've been swell if it had been implemented hundreds of years ago (or just 50. Whenever they became commercially available). There's too many out there now to just say THAT'S IT, NO MORE GUNS because the bad guys can still get them with relative ease and the people who aren't going to be out there shooting people (or at least not good people) won't be able to have a gun to protect themselves in a worst case scenario event.

The solution to the gun issue is not to outlaw guns.

The solution is to make everyone walk around in cast iron armor. Guns will no longer be effective and thus the gun problem will be solved!

You also need to keep in mind that the United States has approximately 60 times the population of Finland, meaning there is that much more potential for criminal activity. Can't really compare your country's successes to the failures of the United States because it's two very different situations.

Yahh right, you don't get it. What I'm saying is that people should need to go through personality and background tests and so on.

We do this in Finland and it works quite well. There is about 0-2 shootings/year. This speaks for itself:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms
# 4 United States

Finland is not even listed (in the top 46+).

Personallity and Background checks will not stop criminals from obtaining guns. The criminals will just simply find another way to obtain a gun. These restrictions would only stop law abiding citizens that are unwilling to break these laws.

For your link, the United States as a whole should not be ranked in this manner. Our country is larger than most, and our laws vary greatly between states and even cities. I should also mention that our greatest centers of gun and gang violence are areas like Chicago that either have strong gun control laws.
Edit: You should also use the per capita rating. It gives the rating per person (pre 1000 people on that site) and shows the rate of gun violence instead of just how many occur. And of course, the US is knocked down to 8th when you use this comparison, but I maintain that it is not a fair comparision, because gun violence varies greatly across the US and our laws also greatly vary.

Interestingly enough, many students after the Virgina Tech shooting didnt want stronger gun control. They wanted to be able to carry guns on campus. Its quite simply why. If multiple law abiding students had guns, then they would be able to defend themselves from the random crazy people that attempt these school shootings. Of course, we all know how well things went when students where unable to carry guns, only the shooter had one.

Why do gun law arguments always come up in topics where someone shot someone using an illegally obtained weapon? Stricter gun laws accomplish two things. One : Illegal guns make bad guys more money. See the mafia in during prohibition for reference. Two : Good people can't get guns for whatever reason.

Anyway, regardless of your political affiliations, this is pretty terrible. Hopefully the news that she's expected to live is accurate.

Yahh right, you don't get it. What I'm saying is that people should need to go through personality and background tests and so on.

We do this in Finland and it works quite well. There is about 0-2 shootings/year. This speaks for itself:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms
# 4 United States

Finland is not even listed (in the top 46+).

Singapore isn't listed either!

Why do gun law arguments always come up in topics where someone shot someone using an illegally obtained weapon? Stricter gun laws accomplish two things. One : Illegal guns make bad guys more money. See the mafia in during prohibition for reference. Two : Good people can't get guns for whatever reason.

Anyway, regardless of your political affiliations, this is pretty terrible. Hopefully the news that she's expected to live is accurate.

She should recover and the doctors are optimistic about her, but apparently at least 6 people died.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2...z1ATh7qR3E

I have also been hearing that Laughner was shot by a man in the crowd, but so far I havent found any news reports to verify that claim I have been hearing.

Is this real or a joke?

Real as in?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=373854973434



And no, I'm not saying Sarah Palin is the reason this shooting occured - I am just saying that she did discreetly imply that these guys should be killed ("Don't retreat, reload" ?).

Why do gun law arguments always come up in topics where someone shot someone using an illegally obtained weapon?

Because left-leaning politicians like to take advantage of the situation to score points with left-leaning voters.

Because politicians like to take advantage of the situation to score points with voters.

Fixed -_-

Ditto to Erebus' fixing, as 99% of the posts I've read in this thread with regards to the politics of gun control laws have come from very right-wing perspectives.

I absolutely despise the prevalence of guns in the US, but changing the gun control laws will do absolutely nothing, especially to one similar to the system in Finland. Because the thing is, most guns are bought on the black market in the first place, and very cheaply. Criminals have no reason to purchase one legitimately.

Gun control laws could at least prevent some tragedies. I'm sure some shooting rampages have been done with guns that are currently considered legal.

Gun control laws could at least prevent some tragedies. I'm sure some shooting rampages have been done with guns that are currently considered legal.

Wrong. It's legal to own a gun but it isn't legal to kill anyone with it. Even people in self defense get a hard time.

Wrong. It's legal to own a gun but it isn't legal to kill anyone with it. Even people in self defense get a hard time.

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that not all shootings are done by people that have obtained guns illegally. Does every single school shooting event come frome an illegally obtained weapon? Where is the data to support that argument?

Wrong. It's legal to own a gun but it isn't legal to kill anyone with it. Even people in self defense get a hard time.

lol only in America can a criminal get hurt and sue the person they were attempting to rob.

Killing in self defense is necessary sometimes. Better to be alive and do some time rather than being dead. It is, after all, your word against theirs if the dude is dead.

I wonder if people were allowed to openly holster guns, would that change the minds of criminals? Would they themselves be terrified of taking a bullet and become discouraged?

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that not all shootings are done by people that have obtained guns illegally. Does every single school shooting event come frome an illegally obtained weapon? Where is the data to support that argument?

Not all, but if a criminal truely wish to commit the crime of a school shooting, but that doesnt mean gun control is the answer. The person that wanted to cause a shooting could always find alternative methods to obtain the gun. Then I just have to mention that most violent shootings occur where law abiding citizens normally would not be carring fire arms, like a school.

Also, what evidence supports the idea that limiting law abiding citizen's access to fire arms makes us safer? So far, I mostly see that gun control laws make the world more damgerious, because law abiding citizens dont have the fire arms to protect themselves while the criminals have them.

@Worthyness: Obviously criminals would be discouraged, but regardless of whether they are afraid or not, at least the citizens can protect themselves from the criminals.

Anonymous Moose, I'm going to throw your logic back at you, solely because I'm curious as to your response.

Your entire claim for relaxed gun control laws is that "if ordinary, law-abiding citizens carried guns, which they don't have because they can't carry them, less crime would be committed due to criminal 'fear' and the ability for individuals to protect themselves." You back this statement up with the rhetoric that there is "no evidence" that supports the idea that stricter gun control laws make us safer.

So, here are my questions for you:

1. Did you actually look up studies investigating the hypothetical world of stricter gun control, and what they concluded regarding public safety? I'm sure an issue as important as this has been researched extensively, and you didn't bother to provide one source backing up your claim, which leaves room for considerable suspicion of truth.
   
   
   
2. To turn your logic back on you, where is the evidence that supports the conclusion that relaxed gun control laws make a safer society? You also did not provide this, which, again, does not do much for your claims.
   
   
   
3. Finally, I ask you this: I looked up gun control laws in the United States, and discovered that the earliest age one can legally obtain a firearm is 18 (though not all until 21). That means that any college age student in the United States is legally able to own a gun and use it, we'll assume, as a measure of protection, when needed. Since that's the case, please tell me why every student in the massacred classroom at Virginia Tech during the school shooting a few years ago did not have a gun on their person to protect themselves. I suppose the logical answer would be school rules preventing bringing guns to class, which of course leads me to my follow-up question to you as to whether or not you believe college and university rules should be changed to allow students to bring loaded guns to class as a measure of protection. You know, "just in case."
   

You see, the bottom line is that you did not provide solid, conclusive evidence supporting any of your claims, but merely the logic that "by owning guns, law-abiding citizens can protect themselves, which reduces crime." To essentially sum up a few of my aforementioned points, a simple counterargument would then be is it also not possible that the rate of crime could increase proportionally to the amount of law-abiding citizens owning guns? In other words, if every 18+ year old in the United States legally owned a gun, can you confidently tell me that crime rates would be lower than they are now?

Saw a press conference with the UMC Arizona doctors treating her. She is expected to be in the ICU at least a week, and her condition could swing both ways.

If anything she's looking at massive rehab and the high possibility of some mental and physical disabilities.

And as for the gun control debate... criminals will always have gun no matter what laws says they can or can't have them. Disarming the population only places innocent people who have a chance at self-defense in a no-win situation to where they can be victimized even further. If anything, gun control laws like those that limit handgun sales and ban automatic weapons fail to prevent criminals from still obtaining handgun guns and automatic weapons they use to terrorize neighborhoods.

If you think gun control has any effect, go ask anyone living in Los Angeles's South Central area if gun control laws kept gangs like the Cripes and Bloods from getting their hands on guns?

At least, criminals who own guns no matter what don't go shooting up babies in a kindergarten just for teh lulz. I'd like to think that those sickos who do that were just like, "hey, dad has this fancy gun and I'm feeling pretty awesome being this high, why not go rape some asses?"
I wish to be proven wrong, though, that such maniac behaviors are mostly impulsive and can be prevented to some extent by limiting the availability of the tools of violence.