Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs everywhere saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. DanH 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--Aschlafly 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --TrueGrit 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

NO I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. Flippin 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. DanH 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. Timppeli 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. DanH 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. Timppeli 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--Elamdri 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. Timppeli 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--Elamdri 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

"In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. CPWebmaster 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

PS: Timppeli, your statistics here are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? CPWebmaster 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [1] Timppeli 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

No - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --Abrown 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Pornography's Role!?

This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-AmesG_yo! 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--Aschlafly 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-AmesG_yo! 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--Elamdri 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. Czolgolz 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT) Um...might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only leathal when used for their intended purpose. Czolgolz 23:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--Aschlafly 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--Elamdri 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

nobody is born a sociopath.Jaques 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--Elamdri 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -AmesG_yo! 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. Czolgolz 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What about car violence? Jaques 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?Bohdan 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! Tsumetai 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:

1. Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
2. So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
3. That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
4. Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and they don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. Myk 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.Bohdan

I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. AKjeldsen 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads Playboy is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. DanH 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--Elamdri 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. DanH 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.

And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. Jrssr5 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. Sterile 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Is this a Joke?

Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. Flippin 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

This user wishes guns would be illegal.

Flippin 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!

                         --thebigjimmer

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. Not that I agree with the previous poster. Czolgolz 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Really

It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --TrueGrit 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. Jaques 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)