Originally Posted by dankoni
Woah. You mean they give firearms away as presents in the UK? That's much worse than the States! =P
Yeah, I meant presence, sorry. Had been awake for 30 some hours when I wrote that post
Originally Posted by Elyaas
Banning guns or tightening restrictions won't do anything...period... Someone brought up the cliche statement earlier: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"--this is just it...if someone wants to kill another person, lacking a gun won't stop them. A freaking steak knife can be used to take someones life and is just about as freaking effective on an unsuspecting target.
Don't take this post in the wrong way, though...I would rather have every gun on the face of this planet vanish. But try to ban them and people will get their hands on them anyways...or just use another weapon.
Yeah, the problem is, that it is far, far easier to kill somebody with a gun, than it is with a knife, or by hand, for the average person. Point a gun at somebody's head and pull a trigger. It's that easy. To kill with a knife is a lot harder.
Hollywood makes it look like killing somebody with a knife is easy, just thrust a knife into them and they're dead. It's not like that. Stabbing somebody in the chest requires a lot of force, much more than is needed to pull a trigger and it's no guarantee that a stab wound will be fatal. It's so much easier to kill with firearms than with a knife or by hand, it's even comparably sanitary as well, in that, you can stand a distance away with a gun, you're not up close, seeing the damage you're inflicting in detail. It's so quick, easy and relatively clean for a shooter to kill, compared to a knife, or by hand.
Originally Posted by niteshade
I agree banning guns won't help.Someone can kill with a pen if they want to really want to kill someone.Banning usually doesn't work, illegal drugs are banned and yet they're still here.I think teaching people,in this case a child, the value of a human life is what is necessary , and that nothing on this planet , except for self defense, should be a just cause for ending it.
Again, I have to point out how much easier it is to kill with a gun. It's true that if somebody really wants you dead, there are many ways they can achieve that end, but a momentary lapse of self control (like what seems to have happened in the case posted in this thread) does not easily lead to a killing, with a pen, with a baseball bat, with a knife, or with anything else as easily as with a gun.
I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect Americans to give up their guns. They have a tradition of owning them and their ownership is a part of the American constitution. What I propose, is that the US government start replacing them with non-lethal firearms. Guns that disable the target (for self defence) but don't kill. This way, all the people who own guns for defence of their home and family can still have that defensive capability, without the associated risk of little Johnny picking up dad's gun and blowing his, or his school mate's brains out. Perhaps the government can offer some kind of financial incentive as part of an exchange program, to swap out existing lethal firearms for non-lethal alternatives.
After all, if you have a weapon that effectively does everything a conventional gun does, but is non-lethal, why would you want a lethal weapon? Surely, it's better that the law deals with criminals, than a citizen does. If somebody breaks into your home, surely it's better to shoot them with a gun that'll disable them, than kill them? Surely, even the criminal has a right to life, a right to a chance to reform? Surely even the criminal's life has some value and is worth preserving? It should be up to the law to punish criminal behaviour, not the individual citizen. Disabling criminals, so that the law can deal with them, has to be better than the alternative.
I guess the problem with substituting non-lethal firearms for the lethal, is that the companies that make the guns and the ammunition, are big, rich and powerful. They have influence over the political system, to the point that they can prevent the kind of changes I have suggested from taking place.
The cold logic that states that it's always a human finger behind the trigger, so guns, or their presence in a society are not a problem, though perhaps technically correct, ignores the cost in human life that guns facilitate. It will always be easier for the average person to kill with a gun, than a knife, or by hand. That will never change. Gun's are just more effective at killing with greater ease.
I understand that we all want to feel safe and secure. We all want to protect our homes and our loved ones and we all want to see our constitutional rights preserved. But the cost in human life from the use of lethal weapons is mounting. How many more children have to die?