The argument is that this kind of incidents is not something that the guy decided lightly. These are often premeditated far in advance.

So if the guy has a motive, any gun regulation would not stop him. Look at Japan or Taiwan where gun has been outlawed, crazy people still find way to kill and/or hurt other people. Sure you can argue that without a gun, the number of death would be lower. But does the number really matters? What's important is how to prevent this kind of tragedy happening in the first place. That is the answer we should be looking at rather than "oh, gun kills, gun's bad" mentality.

Absolutely yes.

What in the mother fuck? OF COURSE THE NUMBER MATTERS! these are people's LIVES not just a fucking STATISTIC you read on a piece of paper.

Jesus man, you are really fucking twisted with a retarded thought process. I cannot believe what I just read.

Yeah the numbers fucking matter, because the 12xxx people killed by gun violence last year in America is 12xxx lives lost, not a fucking algebra equation.
Just because people acknowledge that guns are a big problem doesn't mean they don't understand there is more to the gun violence problem.

I think you guys missed the point - whether it's 12,000 or just 12, the number is still too high.

First off, that's not so much an argument as a fact, I can't think of anything in that can kill as many people as quickly and easily as a gun. Second, of course the number matters, if you ignore quantity then killing one person becomes the same as killing every person on earth.

Remember a while back when someone in Asia went nuts with a knife and injured 11 people or something like that? Put that same person in the US and I'd bet they would've been able to legally purchase a gun and kill more people than they originally injured.

But then you get the lazy fucks who say "if we can't stop them all, why bother trying?"

The US is a violent nation as history has shown us so naturally the actions of the Government and the Elite that control them would trickle down to Joe and Jane Smith. To them, that way of life just becomes natural. It's not even an addiction, it's way beyond that.

I've been a member of car forums that had their own gun specific threads or sub-forums.

Violence begets violence.

Look what happened in Afghanistan today

Could the money spent on killing innocent outsiders instead be spent on keeping one's own citizens safe from themselves?

It seems like every time something like this happens, one group argues for gun control, another group argues against gun control, and, despite both sides acknowledging that these events are tragedies and becoming more common, the status quo remains.

Eventually something needs to change.

banning guns won't work

its the FA problem that's causing this

So you are suggesting that it is better for a psycho to use knife to slain 2~3 people than the same psycho gunning down 10 with a firearm?

I fail to see the difference. The problem is how to actually stop the psycho to plan this shit out or want to plan such a thing in the first place (mental health, social support... etc) and not how many he/she succeeded on killing.

Until you solve the underlying problem, there would always be innocent live lost. Be it 1 or 100... it makes no difference to the fact that eliminating the problem is what we need to do. If you simply made the problem more difficult to solve, it would simply take a smarter guy to do it and not stopping it.

The one thing you wrote that we agree on 4Head

Hehe I see what you are trying to do, and as I already said, those of us that have the logic to actually want to see some gun control also have the logic to understand that violence is caused by those that want to commit violence. No one with a shred of common sense things gun control will end all forms of violence. No one also with a shred of common sense believes that we will magically cure all forms of violent behaviour and mental illness. Steps need to be taken for all of the above.
Don't you think maybe, just maybe it makes some sense that less people dying is better than more people dying?
The numbers fucking matter, and they matter a lot.

"We have this new cure for some types of cancer."
"But its not for every cancer?"
"No only some."
"Well fuck it lets just scrap the medication then. Back to the drawing board."

This is essentially how your posts would pertain to a real world conversation.

Using your same illustration, I think gun control is like this:

"We have this new med to limit the symptoms for some"
"But it would still kill"
"Yes"

By limiting guns, you take away the power of psychopaths killing more than they could otherwise, but not reducing/eliminating the amount of future psychopaths. Furthermore, by gun control, we are suggesting a gun registration system more in line like Canada rather than outlaw guns completely (which would be impossible). If that's the case, instead of getting the gun in 24hrs, they now get it in 3mth and have to go through a few tests and pay $75 for a license. That would stop the psychopath? :rukidding:

It's like saying it's ok for terrorists to bomb 10 public market per year than one 9-11 scale event once every 10years. No. They work their way to take out the terrorists completely.

In order to have social support programs to eliminate or at least improve the mental health of those in need would take a long time. So people would prefer the likely short term answer; *let's get the gun under control and this would stop them having access to gun that easily!*

But this is not a solution. Heck, I don't even think it's the problem to begin with (the guy got his guns "legally". Whatever new regulation they introduce, he'd likely comply). Think it thoroughly and you'd realize that we accomplish nothing by making it harder to obtain guns. Because as I said, they plan it ahead and whatever obstacle in their way, they would fix it. A knife can a killer weapon in the wrong hands. So if you want to address the problem, you get to the root... and not some superficial fixes.

The frequency of violent attacks doesn't go up by reducing the efficiency of some of the attacks.

edit. I'll try to play nicely.

Hehe: I don't get your point. Your saying since some people die in car accidents, why bother trying to improve tire and air bag technology since incidents still may occur, even if deaths go down.

Seriously bro. You brain dun werk too whell

I'm not sure how my point is not clear.

I'm not against measurements that would really target the problem. But gun control is not the problem. Because again, these events are premeditated long in advance, and not something that the guy sees a gun on sale at Walmart and decide to do it the next day.

So, if a guy has planned it all along, how would a few registration and licensing fee stop this person? He will comply with the law and get it "legally" and still use the gun to kill. See what I'm getting to? It's not the GUN where the problem is. It's the fuck'd up mind that these people have. Heck, with enough planning, you don't even need guns to kill a lot of people. You drive a car into a dense pedestrian area and you can still wreck havoc. If something like this scenario happens, do we move to setup a system to control cars so they can't be operated in certain areas? Does that seem logical? No, because most cars owners/drivers don't use their vehicle that way. Same goes with guns owners.

So by targeting guns (*a* tool) and not the fuck'd up mind (the problem), we solve nothing. If you fail to see where the true problem lies, your brain doesn't work that well either bruh.

Edit: And to address your airbag example... airbag was introduced for a very specific problem; the impact of human body against the car surface. It was not designed to stop car accidents. If you could design a way so that guns can't target human, I'm all in for it. But it's not the same thing.

No doubt targeting the guns would not fix the problem, but you also have to take account what is more feasible, at the moment. Fixing up a fuck'd up mind, OR tightening gun control?

I am almost certain that people who vouch for tighter gun controls aren't saying it will solve the problem, but it will definitely help control it.

Like, seriously, who doesn't know the problem lies with the mental health of these people? But where do you start, what do you do, how much time do you need, resources, etc.?

edit:

If the we haven't figured out why the country is bleeding (or don't care to find out why), well, at least slap a band-aid on it for the time being, instead of bleeding to death.

Then, why doesn't anyone come up with at least saying, ok, it's a mental problem... we should look into ways to improve the mental health of our citizens?

Because no one would understand it and no one would care. Gun control has always been a popular topic with almost bi-polar support from both sides; you either support it or you don't, with arguments of either side being ridiculous.

In events like this, people and the media want an easy way out... they want an easy target to blame all this onto. But with a bit of critical thinking, I don't think we need to support the fucking propaganda. Rather, we should concentrate and really voice our support to find a direction that would ultimately lead to a solution. And not this gun regulation crap that makes one think that they actually did something to the cause.

Like I said, I don't know people haven't looked into it yet (or they don't care, they haven't started, or they have but haven't it yet), but DO something in the mean time. Advocating for gun control isn't about solving the problem, it's about controlling the problem.

My grandmother started having intestinal bleeding couple months ago, and I could tell you, there was no way she would have made it, if they have decided to focus ALL their attention on finding out why and not stopping her bleeding at the same time.

Again, feasibility. IF (exaggerated example) it costs 1 billion to fix up mental issue, resulting in 0 death per year vs, 1 million to implement gun control, resulting in 10 death per year, what should we choose?

I certainly would have chosen to have the problem solved. But for someone (people) who run an entire country, the choice is not simple as it seems.

There's an interesting graphic in the following Guardian article:

994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian

994 mass shootings (defined as four or more people shot) in 1004 days.

While I'm sure there's a chunk there that can be associated with gang wars, it would be interesting to see what percentage of the rest of those shootings are either premeditated or spur of the moment. This also doesn't account of incidents that involve less than four people; so domestic and small scale gun violence isn't tracked in that graph. While finding stats on premeditated vs impulse violence involving guns seems impossible to source, I find it hard to believe that making all states at least require all purchases to be rung through a background check wouldn't help alleviate at least a good chunk of gun violence (at least involving people who don't currently own a gun).

Thanked and failed your point HEHE, as I don't agree with it but appreciate you elaborating more in a clear manor

One key thing that you're missing, is that gun control would also help with any other non-mass deaths at the end of a firearm. Per wikipedia:

One other interesting fact that I stumbled upon (as I never would have thought it was tracked by anyone) is that in 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs. I dunno about you, but that sounds like a pretty poor use of funds just so some morons can think they're actually going to protect themselves.

I havent read the thread but here are some points for you guys on the roots of Americas gun violence.

Video cliffs
- 1960's & 70's sexual and drug revolution... altering the family structure
- High illegitimate pregnancy rates
- Traditional family structures broken down
- Shadow government deprogramming of religious and moral training
- An ever increasing violent and sexual degenerate society
- Traditional ideas about right and wrong, respect for other humans and family in free-fall decline
- Increase in atrocities despite reduced gun ownership
- The cheating culture and greed

Stats mean nothing.

The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

Researches showed that in many places where gun *bans* actually increased the homicide rate as compared to pre-ban stats. So, banning of guns doesn't make the society any safer.

Also, I want to emphasize that I'm neither a gun supporter/hater. I'm just saying that to avoid this kind of event happening in the future, we should concentrate on the mental health issue rather than gun control. It does nothing to the cause. We can argue all we want about the effect of gun control, but it's irrelevant to this kind of event.