<p>Anyone find any interesting scientific studies for or against gun control?</p>
<p>I just posted this in another thread before I saw this one. It isn't a study, just my personal opinion...</p>
<p>How about banning handguns. NO ONE NEEDS A HANDGUN.
Why do people need guns? Let's run through the list:
-Hunting
-Law enforcement
-Committing crimes
-Home protection</p>
<p>-For hunting, you use a rifle or a shotgun. NOT A HANDGUN.
-For home protection, a shotgun is your best bet. The pellets don't penetrate walls, you don't have to have great aim, and their's less danger of a child accidentally killing himself with it.
-Outlawing handguns would get them out of the hands of average joe, but law enforcement officials would retain theirs for safety reasons.
-And, obviously, the needs of criminals shouldn't be considered here, should they?</p>
<p>I'm all for the second amendment. I'm not saying we don't have the right to bear arms. But restrictions people! I mean, we don't have the right to bear AK-47s or M-16s, and most people are ok with that. I think handguns meet similar criteria of a) not being necessary and b) being incredibly dangerous.</p>
<p>And when criminals realize that homeowners no longer have guns, what do you think they will do? Buy guns from the black market, like every other "illegal" item. Then they will be able to commit crimes with no fear of being stopped except by the police. The fear of being shot by a person defending his/her house is the only thing stopping complete chaos.</p>
<p>Guns don't kill people, hate kills people. Someone could easily read how to make a bomb online using legal chemicals, then place it in a lecture hall. People will find ways to mass murder others no matter what we do. The only way we can defend ourselves AFTER someone turns psycho is by HAVING CONCEALED WEAPONS. If a student had a gun concealed yesterday, he could have at least shot back at the murderer.</p>
<p>"The fear of being shot by a person defending his/her house is the only thing stopping complete chaos."
That's a rather bleak worldview.</p>
<p>mollypockets, that other thread got deleted but I think we can continue discussion in this one :)</p>
<p>I'll repeat myself. </p>
<p>Okay. Here we go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about banning handguns. NO ONE NEEDS A HANDGUN.
[/quote]
You do need a handgun. For example, when you are in Virginia Tech and there is a gunman shooting wildly. If you have a gun, you can shoot back. If you have 32 people with guns, they will overpower gunman easily. When you have 32 armless people and one armed criminal, criminal will win.</p>
<p>If university is a gun-free zone than everyone will have guns except for law-obeying citizens. Let's consider what happens:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Case A: There are no gun-free zones:
a) Law-obeying people have guns.
b) Criminals have guns.
c) Criminals try to attack law-obeying people; law-obeying people strike back.
d) There are more survivals, gunman easily gets disarmed.</p></li>
<li><p>Case B: There are gun-free zones:
a) Law-obeying citizens don't have guns.
b) Criminals have guns nevertheless -- they are criminals for a reason.
c) Criminals attack good people.
d) Since one gun is more powerful than many, many people -- criminals win.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I'll repeat my example. Most of the criminal situation in Russia is caused by philosophy of gun-less defenselessness (wow, what a word). To be frank, situation with criminals there is very sad.</p>
<p>The problem is an unforunate one...many people with guns do not know how to properly use them. In this country, there are no qualifications for gun ownership. If you're 18, you have the money, and you observe the brief waiting period, you can be a gun owner.
There is no licensing, unlike driving a car. Cars and guns have something in common - the potential to kill. The difference is, guns were DESIGNED to kill. With automobiles, the killing is accidental and incidental, an unfortunate byproduct of ill use.</p>
<p>I'm an advocate of a mandatory gun owner's course and licensing exam. It would be unpopular and costly to implement, but I think it is vital.
The accidental deaths caused by poor gun knowledge alone are shocking. Many people are killed or injured each year because they don't know how to properly clear the chamber or clean their gun. Those deaths are completely unnecessary!</p>
<p>And...a room full of frantic gunowners, many of whom would likely have very poor aim under the best of circumstances, is at least as dangerous as a one-shooter massacre.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- Case B: There are gun-free zones:
a) Law-obeying citizens don't have guns.
b) Criminals have guns nevertheless -- they are criminals for a reason.
c) Criminals attack good people.
d) Since one gun is more powerful than many, many people -- criminals win.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He wasn't a criminal! (at least not a professional). Nor do I think that he had link with professionals who could have given him arms. The reason this incident took place is because guns are available too easily.</p>
<p>I agree, abhi. Last I heard, the shooter owned the gun legally. People who snap like this and kill dozens of people are NOT usually career criminals, or otherwise. Granted, he was odd and probably ill, but that gun was legally purchased and registered. I doubt he would have pursued the illegal purchase of a gun, especially it that process was made difficult and expensive.</p>
<p>I mean, cocaine is illegal. Sure, some people get it anyway. But is that grounds for saying "ah, what the heck. they can get it anyway, might as well make it legal and keep track of who's got it!"
You could argue that, but it doesn't seem like the strongest point.</p>
<p>What I mean is, if I would plan on going to university and killing dozens of people, then suiciding I'd certainly not care about stuff like "gun-free zone."</p>
<p>Of course not, no argument there. Criminals will commit crimes regardless of any and all safeguards, if they are determined to do it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.</p>
<p>Well, ok. Let's try. Let's say I am a criminal who is about to kill 33 students.</p>
<p>Let's follow your advice and prohibit carriage of arms into the student zone. Do you really think poster "NO GUNS!" will keep me from carrying a gun? I'm about to kill and then kill myself, I couldn't care less about posters or restrictions.</p>
<p>More practical example is that people will kill me after I make first shot. But that couldn't happen with restriction.</p>
<p>But seriously, restrictions on guns is the good way. It's the ideal way. It's like communism: good and safe. But it is utopia.</p>
<p>Sorry if I misunderstood your suggestion :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's follow your advice and prohibit carriage of arms into the student zone. Do you really think poster "NO GUNS!" will keep me from carrying a gun? I'm about to kill and then kill myself, I couldn't care less about posters or restrictions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But how'll you get the arms, Mr Chipset?</p>
<p>Black market. I mean, it's not hard to get guns illegally.</p>
<p>Simple Solution: Stop the black marketers. That's much simpler than any other option.</p>
<p>It's not simple. That's why I said: gun restriction is utopia. Practice shows different ways to be good.</p>
<p>Much simpler than distributing guns to all. And it's certainly possible.</p>
<p>If it would be possible, it would be already taken care of :)</p>
<p>No offense, but it has been in many of the countries (I am not American so I am extra cautious).</p>
<p>Can you name one? If somewhere in an appropriate country (not like Vatican) there is no black market or way to get guns illegally I will cover my head with dust and admit loss in this intellectual duel :)</p>
<p><em>whistles</em> open fire on each weapons manufacturer, while he's giving head to some republican senator... </p>
<p>i think it's very sad when a tragedy turns into politics, although i suppose that's the way things always are.</p>