3 killed in Alabama university shooting

Are you suggesting carrying around two kilograms of steel has a narcotic effect?

Or, OR, more logically, the original shooter doesn't have a gun in the first place. Keep missing the point if you want, but ineffective policing is not an excuse for widespread vigilantism.

Yes. Why did those happen? Was it to do with the gun laws? No. Was it to do with the relatively ineffective policing, weak judiciary, and economic policies pushing people into violence since the 70s? Yes. And your answer is to increase the availability of what causes the violence?

I think the primary reason gun nuts are restricted to the US is because the US's pathetic education system can't teach people how to think.

I don't understand how your mind can be so warped so that you can twist reality to suit your ridiculous argument. The reason Mexico has bad gun crime is because of the US's liberal gun laws. That is the major reason.

No. States with lower gun crime rates don't NEED stricter gun laws. Think straight, please.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

Also:
Kleck reported that in the U.S. guns are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to deter crimes than by criminals to commit crimes. Kleck found that defensive uses of firearms by citizens total two to 2.5 million times per year and that between 25 to 75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms.
http://www.haciendapub.com/article53.html



I didn't say that. I said there needs to be a chance that the victim is carrying a gun.

You miss the point. If the criminal did not have the gun, or a reason to commit the crime, nobody would have to resort to vigilantism. Instead of wasting money and lives arming the population and condoning a lynchmob attitude, it is much more sensibile to improve and economic conditions so that not only does nobody WANT to use his gun. And if he does, he won't posess one anyway, and will have to resort to another form of weapon, like a knife. You can run away from a knife. You can't run away from a pistol.

You can quote 'evidence' all you like. The simple fact of the matter is that Western Europe, which widely illegalizes firearm ownership, enjoys much lower rates of gun crime. And Western Europe, with equitable economic and social policies, enjoys much lower general rates of crime. And without having to give small town sherriffs the power of a fuedal lord with zero transparency.

It does not make sense that giving everybody weapons reduces gun crime. However, i do recognize that in a system like in the US where criminals CAN acquire any weapon they like and law abiding citizens cannot, the problems are likely to be exacerbated. The country must either go one way (making sure nobody except law enforcement and armed forces can use a gun) or the other (making sure literally everybody is armed to the teeth) for either ideology to be effective, but the middle road is the worst of both worlds.

And if he does, he won't posess one anyway

It does not make sense that giving everybody weapons reduces gun crime.

They do. Hence why cocaine / marijuana is not widely used, even though it isn't all that harmful (compared to alcohol), and alcohol is.

And no, a country's education system's effectiveness is (surprise surprise) directly related to how informed and rational its population is. Hence why half of voting americans consistently vote Republican.

They do. Hence why cocaine / marijuana is not widely used, even though it isn't all that harmful (compared to alcohol), and alcohol is.

You keep making this same point and i keep telling you you're missing the point of the argument. Whether or not the original shooter illegally posseses a firearm is irrelevant to the question of legal firearm ownership. They are separate arguments; one about the effectiveness of policing and one about gun ownership amongst the law abiding population. The two groups might interact but that doesn't change the fact that the law breaking illegal gun owners should be stopped by the police being more effective, not by everybody else being given a gun.

Oh ok. Here i was that all those things affected crime. My mistake?!

Stop sucking balls, that too over the internet. And no, a country's education system's effectiveness is (surprise surprise) directly related to how informed and rational its population is.

What do you not understand? Where are those guns sold? In the US. Where the states have liberal gun laws. If they didn't, those gangs wouldn't have guns to smuggle in. I find your attempt at patronizing humourously, self parodyingly ironic

You are mistaking causality for correlation. They have weaker gun laws because they don't NEED to have stronger gun laws. If their gun crime rate spiked to politically unacceptable levels, politicians would start introducing stronger gun laws.

Oh yeah, of course, it's all because their poor and oppressed. Funny that so many other people in the world are also poor and oppressed yet don't feel the need to go out killing and robbing people. Typical lefty rubbish. A nice example is the subject of this thread: the poor, oppressed woman with her Harvard education, nice job etc

I see...."Nearly 40% of teenagers in the UK said they had tried substances including cannabis and ecstasy"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/british-teenagers-more-likely-to-have-taken-illegal-drugs-692692.html

That clearly works well. 40% isn't "widely used"?



Oh dear lord! A person isn't a lefty, they must be uneducated, irrational and misinformed that's the only possible reason.

Yes. Because the poor and oppresed of most of the third world cannot afford weapons. Nor is inequality in their countries so great that they are inspired for violence, nor is the opportunity for theft off the rich widely present enough for gun crime to be widely viable.

If you want to talk about the woman in the OP, it is a perfect example of how GUNS kill people, not people. If it wasn't for the widespread legal proliferation of firearms, those 3 people would not have died, and the woman would not have been able to kill anyone.

No, no he can't. Maybe living in the most arrogant nation on earth clouds your mind to the fact that America has one of the least effective policing systems globally.

Because the policing system is not efficient. No matter the laws, if the police cannot deliver, then they're irrelevant. And no, you don't need to be in a socialist paradise to find countries where it is next to impossible to acquire a firearm. Go to Scandinavia (ironically as close to a paradise as you can get in Earth) or France or Germany or the Netherlands or Belgium.

I don't see any reasons why the first is happening. But it can be conclusively stated that giving the population widespread firearms can only have a negative effect, compared to banning them altogether. On the second, it's because Britain is a special example of ****. For your argument about guns saving lives, you're ignoring the point, time and again, that no lives, at all, would be lost, if neither the criminal nor the vigilante had a weapon. And it really does take an American to think this only happens in paradise.

I would go further and call him a ******* idiot.

That doesn't work though. Unless there's a reasonable chance that everybody has a gun, the criminal will still commit a crime. And this reasonable chance will only happen if a huge proportion of the population DOES have a gun and carries it around with them.

No, you are living in a dream world. Compare it to alcohol instead of misunderstanding every point i make.

As terrible as this would be for a feudal monarchy or absolute dictatorship, in a western democracy with widespread checks and balances (not Britain or the US, ironically) i think it's safe to assume that the state is, for the large part, not interested in repression.

In most shooting sprees the gunman has been 'clean' and mentally troubled in some way. How could you possibly twist a clear cut argument for restricting gun usage to one supporting letting more people have guns? Would it not be cheaper, in both lives and money, to stop that first person getting a gun, instead giving everybody else guns to shoot back at him?

No. The problem is guns. Because if they weren't available, the people who carry them would not be able to kill anyone.

So stop the smuggling. Simple answer. Put more money into confiscating and destroying firearms, not into flooding the population with more.

Look, i understand where you're coming from. But giving everybody a gun means that everybody can use lethal force. And not everybody (infact most people aren't) is a rational or selfless human being. When nobody or hardly anybody has a gun, the most they can do is use a knife or something alike. You can run away from a knife. You can fight back with a knife, on a personal level. But you can't do so to a firearm. And in the west where nobody is willing to help somebody else out (in general), i think it is neccessary that the individual is given the greatest chance to defend himself.

I think it's safe to suggest that Republican policies are, today, if not a long time ago, extremely repulsive to most thinking men and women. Also, a tidbit of info: it's estimated that roughly a third of americans are 'idiots'. Roughly a third of Americans vote Republican. Coincidence?

Hence why half of voting americans consistently vote Republican.

Right.

Please tell me you aren't picking apart such a simple distinction? The voting population is not identical to the actual population. In general, in US elections, only 2/3 of people vote. Hence, if half the voting population voted republican, a third of the overall population will vote republican.




We can conconclusively prove this. A polll came out from CNN showing that when asking Americans of Obama policies have made America less safe, 72% say they have not while 26% sides with Dick Cheney’s delusions.

This same 26-30% keeps cropping up in poll after poll, and they really believe some of the dumbest things in the world.

* They approve of the job George W. Bush did as president
* They support Sarah Palin, still
* A subset of them think that Barack Obama is either a Muslim, not American, or both
* They don’t think President Obama is doing a good job on the economy, or overall

It’s pretty clear that this is the same 26% or thereabouts, the people who would be against President Obama and Democrats if they descended from Heaven (“Trickery!” they would howl.) 26% of this country is clearly stupid.

You don't need a gun to commit a crime. You said yourself they'd just get a knife. Weird then that there are many poor people in Britain and the majority of them do not go out stabbing people every evening. So clearly there's more to it than poverty or oppression.

Aha, of course. People who aren't commies or socialists simply must be retards. I guess that fits well with British attitudes, so I can't really blame you. Only in favor of free speech if it agrees with you.

...after she'd already killed someone else. How effective. Not.

* They approve of the job George W. Bush did as president
* They support Sarah Palin, still
* A subset of them think that Barack Obama is either a Muslim, not American, or both
* They don’t think President Obama is doing a good job on the economy, or overall