Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I'm not sure. Gun control laws vary from state to state in the U.S. and with the way the populace goes sometimes if we did that and let federal regulate it. Then there would be bound to be an uproar yelling "SOCIALISM" and a whole constitutional squabble over it.
Ok, I am from the US but maybe you can explain why people would yell socialism at gun control because that makes no scene, socialism would be the government forcing every one to share equally that means if it was socialist we would all make it where one day we all wake up and we have a gun in are mailbox. I know you did not say it was Socialism you were just saying what some people would really do, but to me it still makes no scene what so ever. perhaps you understand it better. (Of course the people in question toss that word around a lot and out of context but it does not mean I understand why.)
Socialism is the economic and political idea of government regulation.
Thank you for clearing things up for me.
I do not feel this would be the proper method of dealing with gun regulation. I feel that the usa having many different laws state by state is a good thing. Every state has different people, with different ideals, and different political opinions.
Good point, but also consider the flip side. If a confrontation between some people happened in bank 1 and bank 2. Which bank is likely to turn more deadly and lead to stuff such as aggravated assault or even murder.
Sorry, for jumping in the middle of your conversation like this, and being off topic. I guess I can understand both points of view about gun control, however what about swords, at least in the US you can't carry a sword even in its sheath (That makes no sense to me I should be able to carry my sword were ever I feel like it). Yet we allow guns I mean come on, yes swords do more damage than a bullet if used right, but it is really close range combat and there for sense guns can kill at a safe distance and there for more dangerous than swords. It just does not make sense why we can not just at least regulate swords like we do guns.
Barring my limited experience with bank robbing (read: none) the bank without guns is going to be a lot safer as having a gun can really only escalate a situation, especially if both sides of a conflict have guns.
No, having a gun would help put a stop to the situation. A robber wouldn't dare rob a bank where many of the people have guns. If both sides have guns then it's better for the law abiding citizen because there are more of them. The robber might surrender without a shot needed to be fired. In this scenario most of the time, only the robber gets hurt if a shot is fired before he shoots.
This is a good question. The only reason I can think of as to why the do not allow swords is that.
Robber comes with his gun out. (That would be logical to assume because otherwise, he's not much of a threat.) What are the chances that you can get your gun, point yours at him and shoot before he shoots you? Chances are someone else is bound to get shot before he is. Just as in your story below, how many people got shot before she even realized her gun was not there?
Also look at this the other way around. Did this madman attain his gun the same way as Hupp did? Following the same gun control laws? If so then look at the damage lightly moderated Gun Control can lead to. Even if Hupp had her gun, how many people would he have killed in those seconds it would take her to reach into her purse pull out the gun, point and shoot? It still shows how disastrous lightly moderated gun laws may be.
How many people would have been shot if Susan hypothetically in your scenario had a gun. How many more people were shot when Susan didn't have her gun. One of the main points of having a gun for self defense is to prevent injury or death of yourself and other law abiding citizens. If a madman comes in with a gun, it's dangerous either way whether others have a gun or not. I'm not saying many law abiding citizens holding guns would remove the danger of a situation. It will help stop it however. Like the story said, the madman shot people one by one. People died, but Susan having a gun could of saved her family and the many others who were killed.
The point is, people would have died anyway. Yeah less people would have died if Hupp had her gun, that's a positive, but the fact that people still died unnecessarily due to a gun shows that lax gun laws still create problems that could be avoided if heavier gun laws that probably entail something in which the madman would become ineligible to have gun were in place.
Statistically speaking, no. People who obtain weapons legally don't commit crimes with them. People are not stupid enough to use a weapon in a crime that is linked to their name. Most offenses for legal gun owners are usually related to paperwork issues/unintentionally walking into gun-free zones and not violent crimes. I think the discussion should be more steered towards does carrying concealed weapons create a disincentive for criminals rather than would carrying concealed weapons help in X case. It has been hypothesized that concealed carry makes criminals less likely to, or at a minimum, think twice, target civilians. Although, I'm not sure if this is the case.
True people would have died anyway, unless the gun man took out the gun slowly. Anyway, we don't know lax gun laws were the reason why the people died that day. You only brought that up hypothetically. Most likely, lax gun laws weren't the reason the madman killed those people. By the way, the only reason Susan didn't have the gun in her purse. Was because of a gun law that was passed shortly before the incident. By law she had to keep the gun in her car; because of this, her family and many others were mercilessly killed.
Thank you for answering my question. I always wondered That.
You've misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that lax gun laws were the reason why he killed people. I said lax gun laws are why this madman got a gun and was able to perform what he was going to do.
Again, assuming that the populace is of good temperament. And true, guns ands knives can kill people all the same, but that's exactly why these types of things are banned in public areas. The gun is a proxy, and people can abuse this proxy if not heavily checked.
This is true, which is why I've said that gun laws and how they are regulated is a give and take type deal. The lighter they are, the more available a viable self-defense weapon is, but it also means the more available a viable aggressive weapon is. While the more heavily regulated means the less available this self- defense weapon is, but also the less available this aggressive weapon. If we sat square in the middle to be at that "perfect" medium. Then we have both problems, just in moderation.
Well most likely lax gun laws weren't how he got the gun. That's what I meant.
I'm not assuming the entire population is of good temperament. But most of the population is. Most people wouldn't dare shoot someone because of a push. Not everyone is sane. This is why we have gun laws, you're right. However, must of these insane people would go to insane circumstances to get the gun anyway.
I agree
Source?
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/17/us/gunman-kills-22-and-himself-in-texas-cafeteria.html?sec=travel
So you honestly think she made up the part of her leaving the gun in the car? Well, it's confirmed both her parents died. Since Susan was eating with her parents. They must of been together during the shooting. So her and her parents could have escaped. But they didn't. Something obviously must of happened. They must of gone near the gunman. In Susan's testimony she says her father charged the gunman because he saw Susan didn't have her gun. Susan thought her mother was behind her when Susan was escaping. It was actually police that confirmed that her mother was with the wounded father when she got shot. Police said she bowed her head and got shot. So most of her testimony has been proven true. She was for less gun control afterwards, so it is very likely that she had a gun.
It would of surely helped even the odds. The gunman wasn't spraying. He was killing one by one. She must of had multiple bullets. So if he was just walking through the room. He is an easy target. She said it herself, it would of been an easy shot.
Have you ever heard of "survivor's guilt?" Usually in an extremely stressful situation, the survivor usually has guilt for being the only person who lived. The person thinks that they should have died, and they look for reasons to blame themselves for the what happened. Whether it really is true or not, the survivor completely believes that it is true.
I never questioned the police officers' testimony.
If he was shooting THAT slowly, why didn't her dad run out of the restaurant with her?
I agree, but it would also turn away law abiding citizens if the laws are too tight.
If a bunch of criminals plan to hold up a bank. It would be a lot harder if a majority of the people there own a gun.
I should be on your side, I live in Canada. lol
True, but the more exposure to firearms the more likely citizens will be more experienced. I still don't get how you say if a mad person decides to pull a gun on you, you having a firearm would make things worse. It would even the odds. Not the other way around. The only benefit I see, is the person taking your gun after they shot you. If you didn't shoot on time.
I could see why. But given that they come from pro-gun sites, they probably haven't taken the measure of whether the presence of a gun with a civilian is a dissuasion to robbers if the civilian is alone. I'll look some stuff and see if there aren't any anti-gun statistics.
It's in Texas. This state has one of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation. (I should know, I live in Texas) Now you said the incident happened in 1991, but even then it was really easy to acquire a gun.
That's a pretty large blanket statement you've just made with no supporting evidence at all. I've yet to find any survey that would have information concerning this so I won't press the point too much further. I will argue that a blanket statement like this is wrong from personal experience (but that doesn't carry much water) and the undeniable existence of pacifists and anti-gun organizations.
True, but what happens when the exercise of this right becomes a detriment to the populace? With that in mind, using the word "rights" is somewhat misleading since these rights can be suspended. (eg. incarceration). I would consider more of a privilege by definition.
Amendments can be repealed, if the situation gets out of hand (such as prohibition days). Thats what I should think happen here.
Constitutional amendments can only be repealed with a 4/5 ths vote (learned it in class but can not find a supporting websight.
) With how polarized politics are (well american politics anyway) I truly do not see the 2nd amendment being repealed, Especially because it is in the first ten. Also the 2nd amendment does have it benefits as well as disadvantages. So both sides of the argument will always have proof as to why there side is correct, and there for it will (under normal circumstances) will never reach a majority like 4/5ths vote (the requirement).