[©allum]

Oh so Baghdad parliament is not part of Iraq, or is it just exempt from the war?

[Atilla]

The sarcasm isn't necessary.

And, read my edit.

[©allum]

Ok, fair enough.

[Nuu™™]

This incident was in no way preventable. This guy would have gone on a shooting rampage regardless of anti-videogaming laws, gun control or anything.

Again, this was not something that can be effectively prevented by passing laws. Any such laws would only destroy more of our freedoms, and in no way save us from these mad people.

So, you are saying that even if he didn't have a gun, he still would have gone on a shooting rampage? How? The last time we had a 'shooting' in this country was when some guy somehow managed to get hold of a crossbow in Queensland and attempted to murder two people with it. He failed, of course, because he was using a crossbow ffs, but if he could have easily bought a gun it wouldn't be an attempted murder.

Any law destroys a freedom. There's a law where I'm from that makes it illegal to sleep ontop of a refridgerator. Despite the fact I wouldn't chose to exercise this freedom, I still have had it taken from me.

Life is more important than freedom. 'Nuf said.

In any case, killing someone means you go to jail (I shan't go into a death penalty debate). Jailing someone is taking away their freedom more than not giving them a gun is.

Gun control laws are useless and take power from the people. (think... holocaust)

If im going to kill someone... I'm not going to care about a stupid law.

What? The Holocaust? O.o

Er...if the Jews in the Holocaust had guns they'd only have died a few hours earlier.

And yes, if you are going to kill someone you would care about a 'stupid law', considering stupid laws stop you from getting things which enable you to kill someone. Also, stupid laws give an unpleasant consequence to killing someone, thus making you care, even a little bit.

On a side note, 3 Iraqi lawmakers died and a few dozen others were wounded in a suicide bombing last week.

And nine Afghans were killed by bombs this morning according to CNN's website.

But that's just a side note, as Americans are better and more important humans than Iraqis and Afghans, apparently.

Woah, an American actually saying something negative about Americans! You see something new every day...

[San Dani L]

So..Bespetna tell me where and when something like this has happened in europe.

[Neraphym]

This incident was in no way preventable. This guy would have gone on a shooting rampage regardless of anti-videogaming laws, gun control or anything.

Again, this was not something that can be effectively prevented by passing laws. Any such laws would only destroy more of our freedoms, and in no way save us from these mad people.

So, you are saying that even if he didn't have a gun, he still would have gone on a shooting rampage? How? The last time we had a 'shooting' in this country was when some guy somehow managed to get hold of a crossbow in Queensland and attempted to murder two people with it. He failed, of course, because he was using a crossbow ffs, but if he could have easily bought a gun it wouldn't be an attempted murder.

In America, you can't make owning guns illegal. It's possible to regulate the distribution and registraton of guns, but you can't deny anyone the right to own a gun (without due process). As such, there are lots of guns out there. There are also a lot of guns out there that have fallen through the cracks in the system and are illegally owned and unregistered. The penalties for illegally possessing a firearm are inferior to the penalties for murder (with the exception of automatic weapons), thus someone who is going to kill a person will worry moreso about the murder charge than the possession charge.

Alternatively, we can go with a system where guns are 100% illegal, period. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think many European countries and Austrilia have such laws. There are some great benefits and some nasty consequences of this. While shootings are drastically reduced, when one does occur, people must rely on authorities to protect themselves. This isn't always plausible. Also, having a country full of gun-owning citizens keeps would-be facist politicians in their place. For instance, if Bush were to try and stay in office past the expiration of his term in '08, I can guarentee to you he'd be assassinated. Guns keep power in the hands of the people.

You say that life is more important than freedom. In America, we tend to believe the opposite. We value freedom so much, many of us are willing to die for it. Freedom more than anything is the foundation of our lives. If any freedom is to be taken away, there needs to be a pretty damn good reason for it.

[Aaron]

There is no foolproof way to keep safe from gun violence. I personally advocate the Second Amendment, but with limitations like gun registration, restrictions for convicted criminals, etc. I maintain rather Libertarian views, but I would not oppose restrictions of all firearms to citizens. If no one has a gun, then only the police can kill you (which is a good thing). The only problem with that is, as Alpha pointed out, a madman with one gun can take out many before the police can stop him (similar to what we saw at VT). I think gun laws as they are now (in America) are fine.

As for the life being more important than freedom issue, I must disagree. In a world where your freedoms are taken away, your mental health goes down the drain. You become so depressed that your everyday life is suffering. I've read enough novels and history to know that a totalitarian government is NOT a good thing. I also have read enough to know that anarchy isn't the best policy, either. My perfect world would be a middle-ground Libertarian direct democracy.

[Jake]

The reason I made the holocaust reference was because it represents how a dictatorship was able to completely disarm (politically and physically) an entire race... then exterminate them. It's a little extreme, I know, but it was one of the best examples I could think of without typing out a large post (which I'm not going to do with an xbox controller).

Also, one of the reasons that we were given the "right to bear arms" by the "founding fathers" was to ensure that the government doesn't degenerate into a corrupt dictatorship. That gave us the option of keeping our government in check... by threat of armed revolt, or actual revolution if need be.

Woah, an American actually saying something negative about Americans! You see something new every day...

You haven't been around (or even seen) americans that don't have their heads planted firmlt up their *** lately have you?
Come to think of it... I haven't either.


I realize this dosen't apply to all countries but I couldn't resist.

(Warning: this argument is not intended for the intelligence-impaired. If you find you just don't get it, think some more. If you still don't get it, I suggest you give up on public policy and go watch Melrose Place or something.)

If you disagree with everything I have said on this site and are gung-ho for gun control, I suggest you live up to your convictions by posting a big sign on your front lawn that reads:

CODE

THIS HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE

I wish you joy of all the delightful visitors you will attract.

No? Sound like a bad idea to you? Then perhaps you should consider how dependent you are on the kindness of ‘gun nuts’ and rethink your position...

[©allum]

Good to see this debate got Godwin's slapped on it.

[Jake]

STFU Hitler

[©allum]

THAT'S WHAT HITLER WOULD HAVE SAID

[Jake]

* At 91-100%, the thing you said is indeed deemed to be Just What Hitler Would Have Said. You lose your argument. Try again. Examples: 'I think that invading Poland would be just tops!', 'Let's slaughter as many Jews as possible!'
* At 71-90%, you have said something similar to what Hitler would have said, but not quite as bad. You will probably lose your argument, but you are entitled to do so in bad grace. Example: 'Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein careful series of governmental checks and balances!'
* At 51-70%, you have said something that Hitler might have said, but so would most other people. Examples: 'Is it just me, or could the French do with a solid kicking?', 'My moustache really itches!'
* At 26-50% is the smartass band; things that Hitler would have said, but which are so banal as to make the comparison worthless. Examples: 'Good morning,' 'I don't think much of Communism,' or 'Where did I leave the keys to my Mercedes?'
* At 25% or less are remarks that the experts agree that Hitler almost certainly never would have made. Examples: 'Give peace a chance,' 'All you need is love,' or 'Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai elohaynu Adonai echad!'

[©allum]

[Bespetna]

I don't see how tightening gun control laws would destroy your freedoms.

I support gun control laws to an extent.
The guy that was shooting the Ver Tech students and died was known to have many guns at his disposal.

[Neraphym]

What happens is legislators pass laws in response to these tragedies, and these laws are pretty much ineffective. It's not going to prevent the next tragedy, and that one will bring about more useless laws. The laws accomplish little, but they do a lot to diminish freedoms, especially when compounded over time. This is what I'm talking about.

I do not oppose all gun control. I believe it is important to have some laws out there to protect us from people who use firearms irresponsibly. However, there are laws out there right now that accomplish this just perfectly, without unreasonable violation of rights. Adding more would simply be abridging on our rights, and this is unnecessary and immoral.