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

[Henini]

BAN_White_Castle

[Henini]

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

BAN_White_Castle

ohh yay I'm so mart!

[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?

[Henini]

I live in Canada, I'm happy I don't carry, otherwise I would have killed people by now. and be in jail for life getting rapped because in jail guns aren't allowed and the guy with the physical advantage wins.

[Ihealyou]

Why not just start with banning dumb shit like 33 round clips for handguns? No one is going to need 33 bullets to defend themselves against a robber, and I don't think people hunt elephants with handguns. Obviously banning them wouldn't have stopped this from happening, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to need a clip that large. Why make it easier for the crazy people?

[Trimm]

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

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?

I don't disagree. I more was talking about citizens in states such as Illinois or New York where it takes an act of congress to carry a gun legally. To follow the rules and do things right, you have to jump through hoops and wait month after month to be considered. Whereas criminals will skip the process and always find ways to obtain weapons if that is what they want to do.

I don't think "Get rid of all guns" is an answer. I think steps need to be made to ensure that mentally sound and responsive individuals are allowed to own guns, and the penalty for abusing that right should be harsh. If A husband and father of four wants to buy a shotgun to keep for home protection, he should be able to do so.

[Trimm]

Also, there's going to be nuts like this regardless if guns are legal or not. Whats stopping this guy from plowing through the crowd of media and onlookers in a SUV doing 120 mph? Do we then ban all vehicles because they hurt people? I know its an old argument, but it holds some validity.

[Stibe]

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

I carry simply to protect myself and my family. Been that way ever since my wife and I got mugged at knife point in the grocery store parking lot. I'll never make the mistake again of not being able to protect her / myself. I signed up for my CHL class the very next day. My wife and I both have our CHL now...yet I typically am the only one who carries...although she knows how to use one too!

I disagree with banning them -- but I do think it needs to be harder to obtain one...and if your caught with one w/ out a license then the penalty should be harsh.

Just hope him/they arent close enough to stab one of you when he sees you going for a weapon.

[Fern]

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

I was going to write something intelligent and pithy, but, somehow, I just can't stop watching Peachtree's avatar....

haha same!

[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