Loughner declined from the army, but passed a background check to buy a gun?

[purist]

Originally Posted by Nocte [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty sure that's not what happened. Go read it again.

It's pretty simple, dude. You tried to posit a relationship between gun ownership and crime ("If I was a robber and I felt that everyone around me was carrying a firearm and there was a 50% chance of getting shot, I probably wouldn't want to be a robber anymore"). When I posted why I think that argument was a canard, you proceeded to insert disqualifiers ("not mentally ill individuals who may be drawn to commit violent acts") and qualifiers ("opportunistic criminals who prey on those weaker than them").

Btw, and I'm all for gun ownership, I just think the arguments that crime can be reduced by (a) restricting access to guns; or (b) making them more available are equally spurious. You only seem to think that (a) first one is.

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Btw, and I'm all for gun ownership, I just think the arguments that crime can be reduced by (a) restricting access to guns; or (b) making them more available are equally spurious. You only seem to think that (a) first one is.

I don't have time to research, but I'm pretty sure that crime is generally higher in areas where gun laws are more restrictive, and that crime statistically rises when new gun laws are imposed. Someone claimed earlier that it happened in the UK.

[purist]

There is no causal relationship.

Don't posit a claim if you're too lazy to do the research.

[Occam's Butter Knife]

Originally Posted by Hoggen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't have time to research, but I'm pretty sure that crime is generally higher in areas where gun laws are more restrictive, and that crime statistically rises when new gun laws are imposed. Someone claimed earlier that it happened in the UK.

There's a better relationship between White Castle and violent crime than between gun bans and violent crime.

[boboo]

I think some americans lack the detachment needed to approach this question. As a montrealer, i dont need a gun to defend myself because its a pretty safe city. I dont live in a society where guns are omnipresent and some loony takes out 10 people once every few months (it happened in 1989 though).

Dont you think that maybe, just maybe if guns werent so omnipresent as they are in american society and without gun companies wanting to make money off that then defending yourself wouldnt be a problem youd have to think as long and hard about?

[Ihealyou]

I didn't actually read this, but since everyone here is making up facts and using hypotheticals, I thought it might help.

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Mea...e_Research.pdf

[DaBlitz]

Guns as with any tool can be misused by People, but they dont use themselves ergo the problem is People. Our problem is the way we deal with the People who commit such acts. I still see Loughner being labeled as "alleged" shooter or "accused" shooter. He DID IT, plenty of people witnessed the crime. So why wasted years and years of time and money in the Justice System. Don't care about any of the "why" he did it. he just did it. Now why waste years and money on him (even giving him a chance to some day do it again, ever how remote that is). We need a hanging Judge court for the obviously guilty and just have them taken out back and show them they same courtesy they have shown others. Spend a decade with this type court and you can bet the US numbers will drop as low as those countries proud of the fact they restrict and indivdual's right to bear arms.

[boboo]

Originally Posted by DaBlitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guns as with any tool can be misused by People, but they dont use themselves ergo the problem is People. Our problem is the way we deal with the People who commit such acts. I still see Loughner being labeled as "alleged" shooter or "accused" shooter. He DID IT, plenty of people witnessed the crime. So why wasted years and years of time and money in the Justice System. Don't care about any of the "why" he did it. he just did it. Now why waste years and money on him (even giving him a chance to some day do it again, ever how remote that is). We need a hanging Judge court for the obviously guilty and just have them taken out back and show them they same courtesy they have shown others. Spend a decade with this type court and you can bet the US numbers will drop as low as those countries proud of the fact they restrict and indivdual's right to bear arms.

Im sure that would have stopped someone like Jared Loughner, right?

[moklianne]

We live in a not so great community. With that said, having a gun in the house would make me more worried for the wellbeing of the children in the house than the rare chance an invader would break in. Like someone said earlier, its whatever makes you feel safer, I just know that guns in the house wouldn't make me feel any safer.

Thankfully, we are moving out soon to a much nicer neighborhood, a bit more rural. It'll be nice to let the kids play outside and not have to be on top of them.

Perhaps those of you who live in fear should do the same? I don't understand why anyone would go through that fear everyday.

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by DaBlitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guns as with any tool can be misused by People, but they dont use themselves ergo the problem is People. Our problem is the way we deal with the People who commit such acts. I still see Loughner being labeled as "alleged" shooter or "accused" shooter. He DID IT, plenty of people witnessed the crime. So why wasted years and years of time and money in the Justice System. Don't care about any of the "why" he did it. he just did it. Now why waste years and money on him (even giving him a chance to some day do it again, ever how remote that is). We need a hanging Judge court for the obviously guilty and just have them taken out back and show them they same courtesy they have shown others. Spend a decade with this type court and you can bet the US numbers will drop as low as those countries proud of the fact they restrict and indivdual's right to bear arms.

Slippery slope. Everyone is supposed to get a fair trial. Regardless of the crime. Its kind of in the Constitution and all...

This is done because the system does make mistakes. There have been quite a few people that were mistakenly put on death row, just to be exonerated due to 'new' evidence.

Finding out why they do these things is to try to understand them to try to prevent them in the future.