The Gamespot Gun Control Debate

The only people who are affected by strict gun laws are legal owners.

most killers in the US have obtained the guns illegally. so gun control laws doesn't matter for most killers. I think we need to start looking at our culture instead of blaming guns. Our culture is a violent one. We glorify gangsters and mafia in movies. cartoons even contain violence. we have outlawed drugs and it's bee a fail. banning drugs has actually caused more crime and violence. would banning guns be any different? in England guns are outlawed but the criminals and gangsters still get their hands on them. i don't feel comfortable with guns being banned for law abiding citizens like me while criminals have all the ammo in the world. my last point is Norway. Norway has some of the most gun owners in Europe but their gun violence rate is extremely low. i think making gun owners get training before getting a gun for be mandatory. but outlawing guns will not solve our problems.helwa1988

>in england criminals and gangsters all have guns

>norway

[QUOTE="helwa1988"]most killers in the US have obtained the guns illegally. so gun control laws doesn't matter for most killers. I think we need to start looking at our culture instead of blaming guns. Our culture is a violent one. We glorify gangsters and mafia in movies. cartoons even contain violence. we have outlawed drugs and it's bee a fail. banning drugs has actually caused more crime and violence. would banning guns be any different? in England guns are outlawed but the criminals and gangsters still get their hands on them. i don't feel comfortable with guns being banned for law abiding citizens like me while criminals have all the ammo in the world. my last point is Norway. Norway has some of the most gun owners in Europe but their gun violence rate is extremely low. i think making gun owners get training before getting a gun for be mandatory. but outlawing guns will not solve our problems.Overlord93

>in england criminals and gangsters all have guns

>norway

I'd rather they not exist at all any more. You'd think in a civilized society we would have evolved to a point were weapons were no long nessesary. We should be able to communicate about things and resolve all conficts without bloodshed. I get back in the day we had to fight over resources, but why do we continue to have all of this confrontation and anger towards other living human beings?

Yusuke420

g

Jankarcop

How about this?, Handguns, Hunting rifles and Shotguns you can buy and own if you have a permit. SMG's, Assault Rifles and Machineguns are for law enforcement and military.Treflis

Good thing that Assault Rifles, SMGs, and machine guns are already banned.

Just becuase a gun looks like an M-16 doesn't mean it has selective fire capabilities and is any more deadly than standard hunting rifle.

This is why gun control doesn't work.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]How about this?, Handguns, Hunting rifles and Shotguns you can buy and own if you have a permit. SMG's, Assault Rifles and Machineguns are for law enforcement and military.Wasdie

Good thing that Assault Rifles, SMGs, and machine guns are already banned.

Just becuase a gun looks like an M-16 doesn't mean it has selective fire capabilities and is any more deadly than standard hunting rifle.

This is why gun control doesn't work.

A converted semi-auto assault rifle can be converted back to full auto with a simple elastic band...And frankly the companies selling the stuff do piss all to try to keep people from doing it. All they do is take out the damn spring. Any proper hunting rifle should be bolt action. If you need semi-auto for hunting you simply shouldn't be using a gun at all. Professional target shoting is mostly limited to 5 rounds and .22 caliber ammo. And the ability to fire 30 rounds back to back can never be sanely considered self deefense. There's just simply no use for semi-auto or large magazine guns, you might as well be arguing your right to keep a scud missle....oh yeah for 'hunting'.Ilikemyname420

Which semiauto assault rifle can be converted using an elastic band? Of course companies don't care what their buyers do to modify their weapons. It's not their responsibility. We don't punish the makers of a hacker's computer just because he's broken the law.

Most hunting rifles are bolt action with a magazine. Why should people with an AR-15 be stopped from hunting simply because they have a 30 round magazine?

You don't know anything about professional target shooting. :lol:

There are uses for semi-auto weapons and standard magazines. Just because they're no use to you is meaningless.

I do not usually get involved in this debate despite my strong views on the subject but I just came across this rather interesting news article which gives an explicit example of the usefulness of allowing citizens to carry weapons.

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]A converted semi-auto assault rifle can be converted back to full auto with a simple elastic band...And frankly the companies selling the stuff do piss all to try to keep people from doing it. All they do is take out the damn spring. Any proper hunting rifle should be bolt action. If you need semi-auto for hunting you simply shouldn't be using a gun at all. Professional target shoting is mostly limited to 5 rounds and .22 caliber ammo. And the ability to fire 30 rounds back to back can never be sanely considered self deefense. There's just simply no use for semi-auto or large magazine guns, you might as well be arguing your right to keep a scud missle....oh yeah for 'hunting'.airshocker

Which semiauto assault rifle can be converted using an elastic band? Of course companies don't care what their buyers do to modify their weapons. It's not their responsibility. We don't punish the makers of a hacker's computer just because he's broken the law.

Most hunting rifles are bolt action with a magazine. Why should people with an AR-15 be stopped from hunting simply because they have a 30 round magazine?

You don't know anything about professional target shooting. :lol:

There are uses for semi-auto weapons and standard magazines. Just because they're no use to you is meaningless.

Banning guns would not stop the shootings. However it's currently just way too f*cking easy to legally obtain a gun. It wouldn't be the end of the world to have stricter laws before being allowed to obtain them.tagyhag

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]A converted semi-auto assault rifle can be converted back to full auto with a simple elastic band...And frankly the companies selling the stuff do piss all to try to keep people from doing it. All they do is take out the damn spring. Any proper hunting rifle should be bolt action. If you need semi-auto for hunting you simply shouldn't be using a gun at all. Professional target shoting is mostly limited to 5 rounds and .22 caliber ammo. And the ability to fire 30 rounds back to back can never be sanely considered self deefense. There's just simply no use for semi-auto or large magazine guns, you might as well be arguing your right to keep a scud missle....oh yeah for 'hunting'.Ilikemyname420

Which semiauto assault rifle can be converted using an elastic band? Of course companies don't care what their buyers do to modify their weapons. It's not their responsibility. We don't punish the makers of a hacker's computer just because he's broken the law.

Most hunting rifles are bolt action with a magazine. Why should people with an AR-15 be stopped from hunting simply because they have a 30 round magazine?

You don't know anything about professional target shooting. :lol:

There are uses for semi-auto weapons and standard magazines. Just because they're no use to you is meaningless.

So what is your point in all of this? Anything can be modified and demanufacturered to do what the owner wants it to do. I don't care what you can do with the gun, I don't care what kind of gun you can get, what I care about is why people are doing this stuff. Forget about what was used, find out the reasons why people are going mentally insane, and if you find that out, find out what the signs are so that you can prevent some mentally unstable individual from doing said crime.

This is what aggravates me, everyone looks at the gun as though it has a brain of its own, why don't we ever look at the people who are actually pulling the trigger, and spend money on researching mental illness instead of wasting money on banning guns like we have with banning drugs. Its a joke. Why everyone is sitting here talking about stricter gun laws and banning them all together we are forgetting the larger point, someone has to pull the trigger, and we need find out what their intent was, and why they did. We need to find out what the warning signs are so parents aren't turning a blind eye to behaviour that points to their children doing something insanely crazy like this kid did.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Banning guns would not stop the shootings. However it's currently just way too f*cking easy to legally obtain a gun. It wouldn't be the end of the world to have stricter laws before being allowed to obtain them.xscrapzx

A) Having readily available guns.

B) Acting shocked, saddened, or surprised when lots of people get shot every week.

Pick one.

There needs to be strict laws that prevent people who have severe mental problems from getting guns. Obviously, that won't solve everything, but it would be a step in the right direction. Also, those guns that can be easily converted into automatic rifles need to be outlawed. Nobody needs an assault rifle to defend themselves.

You can pretty much look up the elastic band thing yourself...frankly it's illegal to do so I'm not going to go into any more detail than I have. You can also look up ISSF rules while you're at it.Ilikemyname420

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Got it.

Also, I'm a cop. It's illegal only to make the modification(in NY and NJ, at least). Not talk about how it's done.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]Banning guns would not stop the shootings. However it's currently just way too f*cking easy to legally obtain a gun. It wouldn't be the end of the world to have stricter laws before being allowed to obtain them.tagyhag

You have to be 21 in the States of Mass, and you have to attend a gun safety class, after that you have to fill out your reasoning for having a gun, and you can't have ever been in trouble. If you have DUI or have been arrested for any reason you will not be able to obtain a gun license. Very rare are class A licenses handed out, usually the class B is, which you are alowed to have a gun, but are not allowed to carry it. On top of that, once you fill out the paper work it is up to the discretion of the chief of police of said town if they want you to have it. Then you have to wait 30 days for their decision if not longer, it took me a month in a half to get my license, once I I got confirmation of it, I then had to go to the police station get my finger prints taken and picture and my license was obtained. If you move you must fill out the proper paper work and send it to the town in which you obtained the license, the town in which you are going to reside in, and to the City of Boston. If I go over state lines with the gun it is federal offense in which it is automatic jail time.

Even though I have a class A license and I can carry it concealed, I must have it on me at all times. If I leave it anywhere it must be unloaded and in an approved gun holding safety box. If I don't follow these rules I can be fined, lose my license, and possible stricter penalties can be thrown at me.

I heard Cali is much stricter than Mass, which to me what you jsut suggested does not sound right. Also I mentioned having a class B license you can't carry it, but having a class B is not even worth it, why? Well because the rules are so strict with a class B license that it would be very easy to lose the license. Stricter gun laws aren't going to help, if someone loses their mind like this fool did there is nothing you can do.

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Which semiauto assault rifle can be converted using an elastic band? Of course companies don't care what their buyers do to modify their weapons. It's not their responsibility. We don't punish the makers of a hacker's computer just because he's broken the law.

Most hunting rifles are bolt action with a magazine. Why should people with an AR-15 be stopped from hunting simply because they have a 30 round magazine?

You don't know anything about professional target shooting. :lol:

There are uses for semi-auto weapons and standard magazines. Just because they're no use to you is meaningless.

xscrapzx

So what is your point in all of this? Anything can be modified and demanufacturered to do what the owner wants it to do. I don't care what you can do with the gun, I don't care what kind of gun you can get, what I care about is why people are doing this stuff. Forget about what was used, find out the reasons why people are going mentally insane, and if you find that out, find out what the signs are so that you can prevent some mentally unstable individual from doing said crime.

This is what aggravates me, everyone looks at the gun as though it has a brain of its own, why don't we ever look at the people who are actually pulling the trigger, and spend money on researching mental illness instead of wasting money on banning guns like we have with banning drugs. Its a joke. Why everyone is sitting here talking about stricter gun laws and banning them all together we are forgetting the larger point, someone has to pull the trigger, and we need find out what their intent was, and why they did. We need to find out what the warning signs are so parents aren't turning a blind eye to behaviour that points to their children doing something insanely crazy like this kid did.

You have to be 21 in the States of Mass, and you have to attend a gun safety class, after that you have to fill out your reasoning for having a gun, and you can't have ever been in trouble. If you have DUI or have been arrested for any reason you will not be able to obtain a gun license. Very rare are class A licenses handed out, usually the class B is, which you are alowed to have a gun, but are not allowed to carry it. On top of that, once you fill out the paper work it is up to the discretion of the chief of police of said town if they want you to have it. Then you have to wait 30 days for their decision if not longer, it took me a month in a half to get my license, once I I got confirmation of it, I then had to go to the police station get my finger prints taken and picture and my license was obtained. If you move you must fill out the proper paper work and send it to the town in which you obtained the license, the town in which you are going to reside in, and to the City of Boston. If I go over state lines with the gun it is federal offense in which it is automatic jail time.

Even though I have a class A license and I can carry it concealed, I must have it on me at all times. If I leave it anywhere it must be unloaded and in an approved gun holding safety box. If I don't follow these rules I can be fined, lose my license, and possible stricter penalties can be thrown at me.

I heard Cali is much stricter than Mass, which to me what you jsut suggested does not sound right.xscrapzx

When buying rifles/shotguns you usually only have to be 18. They can't deny the sale of a rifle anywhere in the country, I believe. Handguns are where the states differ greatly.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"] You can pretty much look up the elastic band thing yourself...frankly it's illegal to do so I'm not going to go into any more detail than I have. You can also look up ISSF rules while you're at it.Ilikemyname420

So what is your point in all of this? Anything can be modified and demanufacturered to do what the owner wants it to do. I don't care what you can do with the gun, I don't care what kind of gun you can get, what I care about is why people are doing this stuff. Forget about what was used, find out the reasons why people are going mentally insane, and if you find that out, find out what the signs are so that you can prevent some mentally unstable individual from doing said crime.

This is what aggravates me, everyone looks at the gun as though it has a brain of its own, why don't we ever look at the people who are actually pulling the trigger, and spend money on researching mental illness instead of wasting money on banning guns like we have with banning drugs. Its a joke. Why everyone is sitting here talking about stricter gun laws and banning them all together we are forgetting the larger point, someone has to pull the trigger, and we need find out what their intent was, and why they did. We need to find out what the warning signs are so parents aren't turning a blind eye to behaviour that points to their children doing something insanely crazy like this kid did.

I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment, but I do think that people should be required to at least pass a basic safety class for firearms before being allowed to purchase a weapon of any kind. As it is now, someone can walk out of their local gun shop with a brand new handgun/long gun and not have a clue how to use it or be safe with it. If we implement a safety test, it would at least cut back on the amount of accidents dealing with guns, like when people shoot themselves accidentally while cleaning their weapon because they didn't realize a bullet can remain in the chamber... If people want to cause violence however, there's little gun control would do about it. People will go to great lengths to do harm if they mean to. The only thing gun controls would do is take guns away from legal gun owners.Hellfire-1

That depends on which state you are from. That isn't the case every where.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]How about this?, Handguns, Hunting rifles and Shotguns you can buy and own if you have a permit. SMG's, Assault Rifles and Machineguns are for law enforcement and military.Wasdie

Good thing that Assault Rifles, SMGs, and machine guns are already banned.

Just becuase a gun looks like an M-16 doesn't mean it has selective fire capabilities and is any more deadly than standard hunting rifle.

This is why gun control doesn't work.

[QUOTE="Hellfire-1"]I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment, but I do think that people should be required to at least pass a basic safety class for firearms before being allowed to purchase a weapon of any kind. As it is now, someone can walk out of their local gun shop with a brand new handgun/long gun and not have a clue how to use it or be safe with it. If we implement a safety test, it would at least cut back on the amount of accidents dealing with guns, like when people shoot themselves accidentally while cleaning their weapon because they didn't realize a bullet can remain in the chamber... If people want to cause violence however, there's little gun control would do about it. People will go to great lengths to do harm if they mean to. The only thing gun controls would do is take guns away from legal gun owners.airshocker

That depends on which state you are from. That isn't the case every where.

Is it proven he has/had a mental illness? Anyone could be a potential murderer, given certain circumstances.
Most murders are committed in a spur of anger or rage. You can't really find a mental illness with them.
I'm not excusing the killer here or any sorts, it could be that in his anger he wanted to kill a teacher but wasn't satisfied.
I'm not 100% certain there is a common theme or profile for mass shooters.
And not every mentally ill will go on mass shooting sprees. I'm saying mass shooters are not always (detectable as) mentally ill.
You are mentally ill from the moment you start planning a shooting spree, but I doubt people like those plan a year ahead.

You should start with oulawing the tools they use for murder. Then, try to find these individuals.
No matter how you spin it, outlawing guns is the easier thing to do than a full-scale, nation-wide search for the mentally ill.

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

So what is your point in all of this? Anything can be modified and demanufacturered to do what the owner wants it to do. I don't care what you can do with the gun, I don't care what kind of gun you can get, what I care about is why people are doing this stuff. Forget about what was used, find out the reasons why people are going mentally insane, and if you find that out, find out what the signs are so that you can prevent some mentally unstable individual from doing said crime.

This is what aggravates me, everyone looks at the gun as though it has a brain of its own, why don't we ever look at the people who are actually pulling the trigger, and spend money on researching mental illness instead of wasting money on banning guns like we have with banning drugs. Its a joke. Why everyone is sitting here talking about stricter gun laws and banning them all together we are forgetting the larger point, someone has to pull the trigger, and we need find out what their intent was, and why they did. We need to find out what the warning signs are so parents aren't turning a blind eye to behaviour that points to their children doing something insanely crazy like this kid did.

xscrapzx

Is it proven he has/had a mental illness? Anyone could be a potential murderer, given certain circumstances.
Most murders are committed in a spur of anger or rage. You can't really find a mental illness with them.
I'm not excusing the killer here or any sorts, it could be that in his anger he wanted to kill a teacher but wasn't satisfied.
I'm not 100% certain there is a common theme or profile for mass shooters.
And not every mentally ill will go on mass shooting sprees. I'm saying mass shooters are not always (detectable as) mentally ill.
You are mentally ill from the moment you start planning a shooting spree, but I doubt people like those plan a year ahead.

You should start with oulawing the tools they use for murder. Then, try to find these individuals.
No matter how you spin it, outlawing guns is the easier thing to do than a full-scale, nation-wide search for the mentally ill.

DrTrafalgarLaw

I heard he might have AS, but most people with AS are not more violent than other people. I think that people who have a severe mental illness shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm. It obviously won't solve everything, but it's a start.

Outlawing guns would also cause a ton of problems, and most people would simply not be willing to let go of their weapons. It's not a viable solution. The only viable solution I can think of is to ban weapons than can be easily converted into automatic weapons, and add more security agents at schools, cinemas and such.

[QUOTE="Socialist696"] Yeah, you anti-gun supporters can throw out all the nice outcomes of no firearms, talk about how it would be a better place without them, how it should be done and would be a prevention to gun violence...but that's all it is. Talk. Its not going to happen.DrTrafalgarLaw

There would certainly be some advantages to outlawing all firearms, but it would be foolish to ignore the disadvantages. People with bad intentions would most likely still be able to find weapons. All weapons wouldn't magically disappear.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] I dont know what state you are from but in Massachusetts where I'm from, it is not easy to get a license.xscrapzx

You have to be 21 in the States of Mass, and you have to attend a gun safety class, after that you have to fill out your reasoning for having a gun, and you can't have ever been in trouble. If you have DUI or have been arrested for any reason you will not be able to obtain a gun license. Very rare are class A licenses handed out, usually the class B is, which you are alowed to have a gun, but are not allowed to carry it. On top of that, once you fill out the paper work it is up to the discretion of the chief of police of said town if they want you to have it. Then you have to wait 30 days for their decision if not longer, it took me a month in a half to get my license, once I I got confirmation of it, I then had to go to the police station get my finger prints taken and picture and my license was obtained. If you move you must fill out the proper paper work and send it to the town in which you obtained the license, the town in which you are going to reside in, and to the City of Boston. If I go over state lines with the gun it is federal offense in which it is automatic jail time.

Even though I have a class A license and I can carry it concealed, I must have it on me at all times. If I leave it anywhere it must be unloaded and in an approved gun holding safety box. If I don't follow these rules I can be fined, lose my license, and possible stricter penalties can be thrown at me.

I heard Cali is much stricter than Mass, which to me what you jsut suggested does not sound right. Also I mentioned having a class B license you can't carry it, but having a class B is not even worth it, why? Well because the rules are so strict with a class B license that it would be very easy to lose the license. Stricter gun laws aren't going to help, if someone loses their mind like this fool did there is nothing you can do.

Is it proven he has/had a mental illness? Anyone could be a potential murderer, given certain circumstances.
Most murders are committed in a spur of anger or rage. You can't really find a mental illness with them.
I'm not excusing the killer here or any sorts, it could be that in his anger he wanted to kill a teacher but wasn't satisfied.
I'm not 100% certain there is a common theme or profile for mass shooters.
And not every mentally ill will go on mass shooting sprees. I'm saying mass shooters are not always (detectable as) mentally ill.
You are mentally ill from the moment you start planning a shooting spree, but I doubt people like those plan a year ahead.

You should start with oulawing the tools they use for murder. Then, try to find these individuals.
No matter how you spin it, outlawing guns is the easier thing to do than a full-scale, nation-wide search for the mentally ill.

DrTrafalgarLaw

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"] In Cali, a state known for strict laws, to buy a shotgun/rifle you need to be 18, provide clear evidence of identity and age, and wait 10 days.tagyhag

You have to be 21 in the States of Mass, and you have to attend a gun safety class, after that you have to fill out your reasoning for having a gun, and you can't have ever been in trouble. If you have DUI or have been arrested for any reason you will not be able to obtain a gun license. Very rare are class A licenses handed out, usually the class B is, which you are alowed to have a gun, but are not allowed to carry it. On top of that, once you fill out the paper work it is up to the discretion of the chief of police of said town if they want you to have it. Then you have to wait 30 days for their decision if not longer, it took me a month in a half to get my license, once I I got confirmation of it, I then had to go to the police station get my finger prints taken and picture and my license was obtained. If you move you must fill out the proper paper work and send it to the town in which you obtained the license, the town in which you are going to reside in, and to the City of Boston. If I go over state lines with the gun it is federal offense in which it is automatic jail time.

Even though I have a class A license and I can carry it concealed, I must have it on me at all times. If I leave it anywhere it must be unloaded and in an approved gun holding safety box. If I don't follow these rules I can be fined, lose my license, and possible stricter penalties can be thrown at me.

I heard Cali is much stricter than Mass, which to me what you jsut suggested does not sound right. Also I mentioned having a class B license you can't carry it, but having a class B is not even worth it, why? Well because the rules are so strict with a class B license that it would be very easy to lose the license. Stricter gun laws aren't going to help, if someone loses their mind like this fool did there is nothing you can do.

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"][QUOTE="Socialist696"] Yeah, you anti-gun supporters can throw out all the nice outcomes of no firearms, talk about how it would be a better place without them, how it should be done and would be a prevention to gun violence...but that's all it is. Talk. Its not going to happen.bloodling

There would certainly be some advantages to outlawing all firearms, but it would be foolish to ignore the disadvantages. People with bad intentions would most likely still be able to find weapons. All weapons wouldn't magically disappear.

I'd rather get killed by a criminal that got a weapon illegitimately, than live in a society of a constant fear that anyone could bear arms and shoot me.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

There would certainly be some advantages to outlawing all firearms, but it would be foolish to ignore the disadvantages. People with bad intentions would most likely still be able to find weapons. All weapons wouldn't magically disappear.

DrTrafalgarLaw

If you ban all guns in a country already filled with guns, it would cause major problems. I'm not saying that the current shootings aren't major problems already, but I'm convinced that crime would rise. Criminals with weapons would feel even better about committing crimes knowing that helpless citizens most likely don't have guns. The government would have to hunt down illegal gun dealers like the plague. I guess the advantages and the disadvantages are debatable, it's hard for me to evaluate both options accurately, but since a lot of people in America care about their freedom and would rather have a gun than not have one, I don't think that it's the right way to go for now. There are other steps that need to be taken before even starting to think about banning guns. Security has to be tightened.

To be honest the biggest instigator of mass shootings is the media, they know it, but they can't ignore the gold mine.tagyhag

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"] We outlaw gun possesion here. We don't experience mass shootings every other week. See any correlation? And you're right, it's not going to happen with hicks still clinging on to their 2nd amendment and their guns like it's still the early days of America being founded. Hint: It's not. There is no reason anymore for civvies to bear arms. You have a police-system in check, swat, surveillance camera's, the army if neccessary, metal detectors etc. There is no civil war. No foreign threat. Nothing. Why do you still cling on to weapons like barbarians?DrTrafalgarLaw

There would certainly be some advantages to outlawing all firearms, but it would be foolish to ignore the disadvantages. People with bad intentions would most likely still be able to find weapons. All weapons wouldn't magically disappear.

I'd rather get killed by a criminal that got a weapon illegitimately, than live in a society of a constant fear that anyone could bear arms and shoot me.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]To be honest the biggest instigator of mass shootings is the media, they know it, but they can't ignore the gold mine.santoron

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

There would certainly be some advantages to outlawing all firearms, but it would be foolish to ignore the disadvantages. People with bad intentions would most likely still be able to find weapons. All weapons wouldn't magically disappear.

xscrapzx

I'd rather get killed by a criminal that got a weapon illegitimately, than live in a society of a constant fear that anyone could bear arms and shoot me.

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]

Remember when we tried to get rid of alcohol?

Inconsistancy

More kids drank and car fatalities rose in younger people?

(I like how you took what I was attacking and made it out to seem like I was attacking a different viewpoint though. Kudos to you and that good ol' fashioned OT derailing argument bait.)