Mass stabbing at Texas school results in... zero deaths

[Spider-Dan]

People aren't using Tommy guns because they don't need them. That's like saying no one is using a 1934 Ford Model 730 Sedan to rob banks any longer. There are better alternatives.

Please explain how legal semi-automatic guns are "better alternatives" than illegal fully-automatic guns (including, but not limited to, Tommy guns) when it comes to the task of killing as many people as fast as possible.  This would appear to be a point that the United States military (and pretty much every other modern military on the planet) has missed, as they continue to issue fully-automatic weapons to their soldiers.

If we just want to reference drugs then we can.

If you'd like to have a discussion solely about drug policy, I welcome it.  However, since the objection I made was that drugs are not a good analogy to guns, I think "OK, let's just talk about drugs instead" should involve you creating a new thread, instead of sidetracking this one.

[Dave Gray]

Could one of you please explain how taking guns from all law abiding citizens is going to be any more effective than taking marijuana from law abiding citizens.

Totally.  What you're asking is a fair question.

If your only goal is to get fewer people to use marijuana, prohibition has worked.  Fewer people use marijuana because it is against the law by considerable, considerable numbers.  Now, as a larger question of freedoms vs. expense vs. creating violent criminals by jailing people for its use, etc -- you can argue (and I would) that it hasn't worked.

For that same reason, a gun ban would "work" if your goal is to have fewer people own guns and for fewer shooting to happen.  The question is whether or not it would be worth it in other ways -- cost of loss of freedom, expense to mandate, money to gun traffickers, etc.

Another thing to point out is that marijuana crimes are non-violent and don't directly affect others.  Gun crimes do.  That's an important distinction, which makes for a poor comparison.

[bsfins]

I think,I would be fine with repealing the 2nd amendment,I can't see it ever happening....The more I think about it (repealing it) the more problems I could see with it,especially in the short term. Go Bow Hunting! woohoo!

(excuse me while my love for things old come out)
The old guns would be the hardest to get rid of for me...

F-it..Leave the 2nd ammendment,let everyone keep the guns..Outlaw all the Ammunition...

[bsmooth]

Completely false in most instances. Maybe if you add other factors such as two drunk men, two gangsters, etc.

 Even people who are not in gangs get murdered with this scenario. Anger is more than capable of pushing people to murder without needing alcohol, drugs, or criminal affiliations.

[Phishfan]

Even people who are not in gangs get murdered with this scenario. Anger is more than capable of pushing people to murder without needing alcohol, drugs, or criminal affiliations.

Rewriting what I said.

[Phishfan]

I can understand and appreciate your point, but feel neither of us is qualified to use the "in most instances" term, as neither of us has access to most instances.  If I replace "in most instances" with "in most instances involving respectable and responsible gun owners that I know" in your statement, I have no argument. I can only counter with the "respectable and responsible gun owners you know" doesn't totally match up with many of the private gun owners that I've been exposed to in my life.

Take it how you want but common sense tells you that most gun owners are not shooting each other over an argument. While gun violence and gun ownership are high numbers, the number of disagreements far outweighs them. Think about how many disagreements happen each and every day.

[Spider-Dan]

Two things on that point:

1) I think it is implied that we are talking about "arguments" that escalate to violence.
2) The vast majority of gun owners don't actually have their guns on them most of the time.

Put another way: what percentage of scuffles would you say involved armed civilians who honorably chose not to use their sidearm?  I can't imagine this is very high.

Furthermore, just as the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws has shown, when you make it easier for people to use lethal force, more deaths are the result.  As in the case of the schoolteacher gunned down over a noise complaint, people are emboldened to initiate altercations when they are armed and feel the law will protect them if they use their weapon.

[bsmooth]

Rewriting what I said.

No pointing out how factually wrong it is. A lot of people are murdered who are not in a drunken altercation, nor involved with crime.

[CF DolFan]

I'm still waiting for the one question to be answered which in my opinion nullifies every other talking point.

If we can't stop criminals from getting pot how can we stop them from getting guns? It doesnt matter how dangerpus it is the truth is only law abiding citizens arent getting it. The answer no one uses machine guns isn't an answer either as like I said no one uses opium as there are other alternatives.

Simple question with a rather difficult answer. How do you keep guns out of the hands of people who want them even if illegal? Since no one will answer it I will. You can't. Just like alcohol during prohibition, criminals and mentally ill will get it. So in the end banning guns, any type of gun, is useless except against the law abiding citizens.

[Landshark]

I'm still waiting for the one question to be answered which in my opinion nullifies every other talking point.

If we can't stop criminals from getting pot how can we stop them from getting guns? It doesnt matter how dangerpus it is the truth is only law abiding citizens arent getting it. The answer no one uses machine guns isn't an answer either as like I said no one uses opium as there are other alternatives.

Simple question with a rather difficult answer. How do you keep guns out of the hands of people who want them even if illegal? Since no one will answer it I will. You can't. Just like alcohol during prohibition, criminals and mentally ill will get it. So in the end banning guns, any type of gun, is useless except against the law abiding citizens.

And it makes law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves.

[Dave Gray]

I'm still waiting for the one question to be answered which in my opinion nullifies every other talking point.

I believe I did answer your question.

If we can't stop criminals from getting pot how can we stop them from getting guns? It doesnt matter how dangerpus it is the truth is only law abiding citizens arent getting it.

Gun prohibition would severely hurt the supply side and make it more difficult to obtain.  Yes, some criminals would seek out guns.  However, your average thug or lunatic probably wouldn't have the means or want the unnecessary risk of jumping through hoops to find one...much less ammunition, a place to practice their craft, etc.

Simple question with a rather difficult answer. How do you keep guns out of the hands of people who want them even if illegal? Since no one will answer it I will. You can't. Just like alcohol during prohibition, criminals and mentally ill will get it.

Alcohol prohibition was stupid, but it did mean that fewer people used alcohol.  What the hell are you talking about?  My Mom and Dad drink wine every night, but they aren't going to be sneaking kegs from the mob if it were made illegal.  The alcohol use in this country, percentagewise is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY up from the days of prohibition.  Your argument is completely factually incorrect.

[stinkyfish]

I believe I did answer your question.

Gun prohibition would severely hurt the supply side and make it more difficult to obtain.  Yes, some criminals would seek out guns.  However, your average thug or lunatic probably wouldn't have the means or want the unnecessary risk of jumping through hoops to find one...much less ammunition, a place to practice their craft, etc.

Alcohol prohibition was stupid, but it did mean that fewer people used alcohol.  What the hell are you talking about?  My Mom and Dad drink wine every night, but they aren't going to be sneaking kegs from the mob if it were made illegal.  The alcohol use in this country, percentagewise is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY up from the days of prohibition.  Your argument is completely factually incorrect.

Prohibition was a failure. The war on drugs is a failure. The majority of firearms laws on the books aren't enforced or prosecuted. This assumption that "fully automatic weapons are illegal and therefore they aren't used in crimes  is not really a good argument to prove that the law works. First off, fully automatic weapons are regulated, not illegal. Anyone who passes the background check and pays the $200 tax stamp can legally own a fully automatic weapon. Next, fully automatic weapons are not "the best for killing as fast as possible" as some of you claim, you watch too much TV. Fully automatic is best used for suppressive fire where accuracy is not the objective, to use if for anything else is a waste of ammunition. Furthermore, the recoil from fully automatic fire is makes accuracy rates very low. Take it from someone that has fired both. The truth be known, a shotgun would work the best for these type of crazy mass shootings. The question of firearm prohibition is preposterous at best, it simply won't happen in my lifetime. There is a slight chance something may get through the senate and almost zero chance anything passes the house. Nothing with a realistic chance of passing into law would have stopped any of the shootings that I can remember. On earth people have always killed each and always will, you can't stop crazy or evil, it will always be here.

[Dave Gray]

Prohibition was a failure. The war on drugs is a failure.

I agree that they were/are failures, but not because it was ineffective at making fewer people drink/use drugs.  Make no mistake: Prohibition lessens the amount of people that do something -- there are other trade-offs, but it does drastically cut down on the numbers of use.

[stinkyfish]

I agree that they were/are failures, but not because it was ineffective at making fewer people drink/use drugs.  Make no mistake: Prohibition lessens the amount of people that do something -- there are other trade-offs, but it does drastically cut down on the numbers of use.

The majority it lessens, is the law abiding citizen that would follow the law. If drug/drinking is illegal, then for the most part the law abiding citizen might not do it. If drugs/drinking is legal the law abiding citizen might choose to do it. The criminals are gonna do it either way. Same goes for gun restrictions. The law abiding citizens are going to follow the rules while the criminals are going to do whatever they want either way. Moot point anyhow, there will be no "gun prohibition" in the near future, if ever. Might as well talk about realistic solutions.

[Sunstroke]

I'm still waiting for the one question to be answered which in my opinion nullifies every other talking point.

If we can't stop criminals from getting pot how can we stop them from getting guns?

Seems like such a simple question for you to have waited so long for such an obvious answer. That answer is: "pot and guns aren't the same thing."  Any Joe Schmoe can grow pot in his basement. Are you arguing that every Joe Schmoe can manufacture guns in their basement with the same ease as he grows pot?

(Hint: If you answer "yes" to that question, you've either never grown pot, never manufactured a gun, or both)