If you don't blame guns...what do you blame?

Post Reply New Topic

A violent person, owning no gun, can hardly aim with that on me. ^^

Precisely.

Its as well precisely, that the reason why we use guns now, instead of guns and clubs, are because of them being more deadly. You might always find something, that can be used as a weapon, but if stones and scissors would be deadlier then guns, then the army-soldiers would wear those instead of guns. ^^

And if looks could kill, they probably will.

Sadly in my work, pictures are blocked, but you are free to imagine about the "Sheldon trying to produce deathrays by thought." picture as respond. ^^

"I think the gun helps... ...I mean just standing there shouting 'boom boom boom! Rat a tat tat! Thats not going to kill too many people, not unless they have a really dodgy ticker" - Eddie Izzard

The feds aren't coming to take your gun away. They never were and they never will. Only a few crackpots in government call for banning all guns, just as only a few believe that everyone should be required to. It is some BS propaganda designed to frighten you.

You didn't read my last post? I started this poll to ask about what people thought were the causes behind gun violence if it's not the gun itself. I would not have started this poll in the first place if it was already being discussed in the other threads. This wasn't even intended to be another gun control debate. That's why I asked for only pro-gun people to answer.



I may have made an error in my poll. When I was referring to other violence influences, I was referring influences that may not be media-related such as violent historical persons or role models with violence in their past, but that may have been similar to the parental upbringing choice. I also forgot to put a basic "other" option. If these still don't resonate with your "most reasonable answer" then I dont know what that is. The choices I selected for this poll were the ones I thought would most likely come up in discussion (or have been brought up in similar discussions).

No its because they are ignorant and sub human trash is why they loot. They don't understand or want understand that they live in country that is the least racist on the planet and generally the most JUST.

That's why no one is asking for background checks on guns. They're asking for background checks on people.

Games without frontiers, war without tears.

So instead we should have universal background check system that we would use everywhere for a multitude of different things?

Red, that's probably the first halfway decent point that I've seen you make so far. No, not everywhere. We limit the use of cars (and a multitude of other items; whether or not such limitations are self-enforced varies from area to area. Guns, pets, and even living situations are already prohibited to a lot of people, but in most places those limitations are self-enforced unless someone complains) based on a person's history; we can limit the use of guns likewise.

I would say having a universal type of check may or may not make any difference.

I've had to get an FBI background check for three jobs I've had so far in my life. Also before going to school and getting financial aid, I had to do FAFSA for financial aid. I've had to do a credit history check before taking my two student loans out, opening accounts with every bank I've banked with, and every apartment I've lived at. When getting auto insurance, my driving record got checked to see if I was a viable low-risk/no-risk customer. Every firearm I've purchased except one(purchase from a coworker who is a volunteer sheriffs deputy and federal employee), have required me to have the purchase called into NICS and have them verify my status.

I like to consider myself a responsible and dependable person. I haven't reneged on any of my loans, or chosen to screw up knowing I'd get in trouble. Extenuating circumstances aside, I know other people who went through the same checks I did, and they've screwed up royally with bad choices and irresponsibility on their part. They were entrusted and then for whatever reason, decided it was not important to keep their promises or contracts, or they broke the law, and they had background checks in those situations for whatever the risk was.

Background checks aren't perfect as a protection method for whatever requires them. What they do is weed out the high risks, but do not remove or prevent risks completely.

I say this to help others prevent any confusion as to what a background check can do. They can help greatly, but aren't a 100% risk preventative measure.

Personally I'm for background checks for a lot of things that don't have them yet, and for revamping how background checks work for various other things in life. I don't think having a universal system would work. Maybe going so far as to have a universal standard for how data is held and who is qualified to hold it, and stuff, may work for background checks and improve their use, but even that may not have any increased effect at reducing risks in society.

I love that selective time frame of that chart. Here is an idea. Since by your logic, a declining crime rate is a reason not to ban guns, lets all agree on this. By that same logic, a rising crime rate should be a reason to ban guns. So as soon as the rate starts going back up, we will ban and confiscate all guns in this country. Deal?

A longer chart for the homicide rate.

I see this chart (or one like it) pop up fairly often. I personally find it very interesting to compare the number of people who own those guns over the same time period, rather than just the number of guns. The % of the population owning those guns has gone down slightly (although not significantly), so I personally don't feel that comparing the number of guns to the crime rate really means anything.