It just that the silly arguments

On the same token, and I'm sure you were exaggerating, but I'll just point out that knives are obviously not very good ranged weapons, due to accuracy, distance, and expendability problems.

Also, it's not like most guns we're talking about here are being shot at enough distance and enough velocity without enough rifling to actually cause the bullet to tumble and explode like would be required in the wound you're describing.

Is the "problem" with guns and violence in the US caused by the Amendment itself? Other countries appear to have similar access to guns but the gun related crime rate does not appear to be as high. This tends to imply that because people are able to state that it is a right for them to own a gun because the country's founding laws/preambles say that they should.

No. There are certainly a number of people who tout that as the reason they don't want to give up their weapons, but, in all honesty, these are probably also the people who best know how to handle guns, other than the true whackjob few.

The biggest problem is probably unrestricted access to guns. There's no requirement that a person who purchases a gun from a licensed dealer do anything to sell it to someone else. I'm sure it'd be illegal for them to sell it to a felon, but pretty much anything else goes. So I could conceivably buy a gun, getting the permit and waiting however long the law requires and then go the next day and sell it to some other person. There are more laws restricting the sale of cars.

I believe the reason that England, for example, works well in banning handguns is that it's hard to get one at all, I'm guessing because those laws have been in place long enough for the guns not to proliferate and that it's geographically small enough to effectively control distribution. On the other hand, the US was born in gun violence and the populace has come to expect that they exist. I also feel like the wide open spaces of the US has something do do with the mindset of the people that live there, too. Of course, that doesn't explain all the gun violence in the big, crowded cities.

Eh, what do I know? I lost my train of thought, at any rate.

> I'll just point out that knives are obviously not very good ranged weapons, due to accuracy, distance, and expendability problems.

Damn straight. You have to get in close, giving your opponent more time to prepare (or run away). Not to mention that it takes some skill or luck to kill someone with a knife. A gun requires a lot less of either.

> it's not like most guns we're talking about here are being shot at enough distance and enough velocity without enough rifling to actually cause the bullet to tumble and explode like would be required in the wound you're describing.

Well, I can not claim to be an expert on ballistics, but I was under the impression that a bullet is quite likely to change direction inside of a body, and that a fragment is quite likely to happen if it hits a bone. Perhaps I am wrong and it is more likely just to bore right through you in a straight line, but I still think I proved my point.

Unless I remember incorrectly, only high velocity fairly small caliber rounds have enough force to actually get though a body. Most handgun rounds pretty much stop shortly after entering the body, thus preventing the type of damage you're referring to.

Again, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm too lazy to do research right now. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Is the "problem" with guns and violence in the US caused by the Amendment itself?

I don't think so. I think I agree with Micheal Moore's conclusion that the problem is the culture of fear and paranoia we've nurtured here. We're so afraid that we're going to get robbed or raped or murdered, that we're all on the edge and just itching to use lethal force to defend ourselves against an imagined enemy. In a country where everyone feels that way, is there any wonder that a lot of people actually do it?

I've not seen the movie. I probably should.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying about the culture of fear, how does that relate to the school shootings? I ask because the title and the thesis should be ... I don't know ... related to each other.

The entire film is not about the columbine shootings specifically. It's about guns in america in general.

Eh, what do I know? I lost my train of thought, at any rate.

Well I think you were making some good points . . . specifically this one:

The biggest problem is probably unrestricted access to guns. There's no requirement that a person who purchases a gun from a licensed dealer do anything to sell it to someone else. I'm sure it'd be illegal for them to sell it to a felon, but pretty much anything else goes. So I could conceivably buy a gun, getting the permit and waiting however long the law requires and then go the next day and sell it to some other person. There are more laws restricting the sale of cars.

I think owning a gun is a fundamental American right, but that doesn't mean we should be braindead about the process.

I also agree... I see no problems in requiring something as simple as a record of transfer be filed. It seems to follow that the owner of a gun be as responsible for what happens with it as much as a person who owns a car.

So I could conceivably buy a gun, getting the permit and waiting however long the law requires and then go the next day and sell it to some other person.

Keep in mind it depends on which state you live in. About half of the states allow private transfers, the rest require a record of the transfer including North Carolina. All guns being sold across state lines are supposed to go through federally licensed dealers.

Give me my sig back, please.


And I'm not talking about my signature. I'm talking about my Sig Sauer so I can blow your fucking brains out with it.

Give me my sig back, please.

You have lost your rights to a signature for a while. It's now blank. Watch some of your comments on the board, and you will get it back sooner.

edit- Just to clarify. This was not done because of Yz33d's participation in this discussion. This was done as a result of his signature, and some other comments in a few other threads recently.

thats f'in funny

haha... you hitler loving communist!

Please change my title, too.

I believe the reason that England, for example, works well in banning handguns is that it's hard to get one at all, I'm guessing because those laws have been in place long enough for the guns not to proliferate and that it's geographically small enough to effectively control distribution

I'm not sure that that is true. We are always being told by the media here in the UK that is is very easy to buy a hand gun illegally for a few hundred pounds.

I imagine part of the reason we don't have a high level of gun crime in the UK is because the police don't normally carry them (they do have armed response units that can be called upon when the come up against a criminal with a gun). I'm not claiming that the US police could put away their guns and gun crime would stop, that is clearly nonsense.

It is difficult to see how the US can ever get from the situation it is in now with gun crime to a situation like we have in Europe. The US started with guns everywhere (at least that is how Hollywood tells us it was), which is very different to how Europe got started.

Well, I should have been more emphatic about it being a theory. I've never even been to England, not that a short trip would give me a good idea anyway.

Regardless, there's a huge difference between the cultures of the US and the UK in regards to guns, whatever the reason. Just the fact, as you point out, that cops in the UK don't carry guns but that that same idea would be ridiculous in the US is strong proof of this.