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

[Peatree]

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

i dont know a single civilian person in europe owning a gun nor do i know anyone whos ever been shot here

ban them guns in america, noone needs them except to invade iraq or any other 3rd world country

Gun crime is ever where bub...just look it up...even in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-crime+uk/uk

I'd rather be legally armed and trained to use it...than caught in a situation wishing I had it...whether someone had a knife, gun, bat, etc.... Hell -- if I, my wife and/or my children are ever in danger w/out a way to get out, then I will shoot first (double tap) and then deal with any type trial afterwards.

[Seeatee]

what happened in AZ is terrible and a huge tragedy and unimaginable loss, that being said you can not take away peoples rights to own guns because of the few whackos on the fringe who can not play nice - if this guy didnt have access to a gun maybe he would have built a bomb, or drove a car into the crowd if he was so motived and wanted to hurt this person he would have found a way gun or no gun.

what we do need is deeper background checks and stricter screening processes saying who can and can not get a gun.

as it is right now, not so many people carry guns.

lets say you are a robber, you are walking down the street and find a nice juicy victim, as it is right now, the odds are a solid 99% chance they do not have a gun, you will rob them and get away no problem.

now lets say half of all people had guns - not just the bad guys but half of all people own a gun and carry it.

again you are a robber and your walking down the street and see a guy leaving the ATM, you still going to rob him knowing there is a 50% chance if you do, you are going to get shot in the face?

how many guys would rape women if they know there is a 50% chance if they do, they are getting a hot lead injection to the dome?

and to end my thoughts, one of my all time favorite quotes.

"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns"

[Occam's Butter Knife]

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

what happened in AZ is terrible and a huge tragedy and unimaginable loss, that being said you can not take away peoples rights to own guns because of the few whackos on the fringe who can not play nice - if this guy didnt have access to a gun maybe he would have built a bomb, or drove a car into the crowd if he was so motived and wanted to hurt this person he would have found a way gun or no gun.

what we do need is deeper background checks and stricter screening processes saying who can and can not get a gun.

as it is right now, not so many people carry guns.

lets say you are a robber, you are walking down the street and find a nice juicy victim, as it is right now, the odds are a solid 99% chance they do not have a gun, you will rob them and get away no problem.

now lets say half of all people had guns - not just the bad guys but half of all people own a gun and carry it.

again you are a robber and your walking down the street and see a guy leaving the ATM, you still going to rob him knowing there is a 50% chance if you do, you are going to get shot in the face?

how many guys would rape women if they know there is a 50% chance if they do, they are getting a hot lead injection to the dome?

and to end my thoughts, one of my all time favorite quotes.

"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns"

That's the fantasy the reality is that most gun owners who shoot someone do so in a fit of anger (pick your own volatile emotion) not self defense. Accidents make up another good portion. Found this article while looking for the FBI pie chart but this shows the same point more starkly.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...H_GRAPHIC.html

The percentage of people owning guns has declined since the 1980's yet so has the number of violent crimes. Gun ownership in Columbia is higher than in the US, yet the number of deaths due to violent crimes is much higher. This does not support the current NRA talking points tossed into this thread.

[Kassel]

Its not a question about weapons "existing" it is about, does every tom dick and harry need to keep a hand gun on thier hip to feel "safe"? I am sure we can come up with better ways to achive the same peace of mind.

[Slathar]

this wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun

[Trimm]

Tucson AZ: 500,000+ firearms owned by citizens = 51 murders in 2010.
Chicago IL: Illegal to own a firearm for any reason = #1 city in gun violence in 2010.

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, regardless of laws. "Gun Control" (i.e. gun bannings) only hurts honest citizens who wish to protect themselves. I live in a house alone and have 4 loaded weapons for a reason.

[Slathar]

arm the homeless

[Occam's Butter Knife]

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

Tucson AZ: 500,000+ firearms owned by citizens = 51 murders in 2010.
Chicago IL: Illegal to own a firearm for any reason = #1 city in gun violence in 2010.

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, regardless of laws. "Gun Control" (i.e. gun bannings) only hurts honest citizens who wish to protect themselves. I live in a house alone and have 4 loaded weapons for a reason.

Correlation does not equal causality.

Pop Chicago 2,853,114
Pop Tucson 543,910

Hmm so the other difference could be population. Maybe its the difference in population density in Chicago has 5x the pop per square mile. Maybe the murder rate is higher because they have White Castle in Chicago.

The UK has a lower murder rate than the US though it has a ban on hand guns. UK has .014/1,000 people while the US stands at .042/1,000. It may not be gun ownership or population density that drives the murder rates.

England does not have White Castle, so by comparison the White Castle theory holds up better that the number of registered guns owners.

[Nocte]

Originally Posted by Occam's Butter Knife [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Correlation does not equal causality.

Pop Chicago 2,853,114
Pop Tucson 543,910

Hmm so the other difference could be population. Maybe its the difference in population density in Chicago has 5x the pop per square mile. Maybe the murder rate is higher because they have White Castle in Chicago.

The UK has a lower murder rate than the US though it has a ban on hand guns. UK has .014/1,000 people while the US stands at .042/1,000. It may not be gun ownership or population density that drives the murder rates.

England does not have White Castle, so by comparison the White Castle theory holds up better that the number of registered guns owners.

I'll agree that this was a bad example, and I was waiting for someone to point out exactly what you just did (except for the White Castle thing).

Let's try another: The United Kingdom's violent crime rates went UP when gun bans were enacted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

[purist]

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

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, regardless of laws. "Gun Control" (i.e. gun bannings) only hurts honest citizens who wish to protect themselves.

In Arizona, you can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Two years ago, our dumbfuck Governor also signed a law permitting guns to be carried into bars and restaurants that sell alcohol.

Carrying a gun in public here is legally sanctioned in every which way you could possibly think of. At least 20 percent of households here own a gun.

In no conceivable way, were any "honest citizens" being deterred from bringing a concealed gun to Gabrielle Giffords event to "protect themselves."

And it looks like it didn't fucking matter, now did it?