Quality links, like PubMed, are going to require a subscription....advanced apologies for that, but here are a few free links.

http://www.psychlaws.org/BriefingPapers/BP20.htm#2
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/ehpp

I feel that handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. Rifles, shotguns, and semiautomatics all have their uses. I had one teacher that said that all guns should be legal so the government doesn't abuse their power. I don't buy it, if people don't like what a government does, lots of people will die until the government stops. Case and point Iraq.

A few observations..

It's curious that those that are so pro firearm are that terrified of them on a day to day basis that they feel the need to sleep with them under their bed and come up with ideas such as an armed guard in a lecture theatre (which is a notion so extreme to me that it indicates something has severely fucking failed in society.)

I can see a lot of you Yanks on this thread are too afraid of committing yourself to be pro banning them outright, because you're too terrified of being labelled a liberal or similar territory that comes with making such statements in the US.

Those that say banning them doesn't work at all take a look at the gun crime statistics within the UK. I can accept the idea that it wouldn't work in the US because you already have such a massive gun culture, but other arguments don't really hold water.

Those that say the media is making a big deal about these university massacres look at the wider picture with regard to firearms. Have a look at your own statistics. 30000 Americans per year shot dead.

Also trying to get to these people before they perpetrate such acts isn't feasible. There's tons of depressed screwed up teenagers out there, impossible to know which is going to pick up a gun.

Proof?

Bravo! I give it no later than Monday this is somehow linked to his interest in "Death Metal" (by which the "journalists" will mean TOOL).

Media turning it into a gun issue, you were already too late when you made the post, sorry...



Proof?!? Innuendo is much more fun!

...you're ignoring the fact that mostof these are gang-related. Gangs almost always purchase their weapons illegally so any laws illegalizing self-defense would not make a difference there.

Also, there are at least 300,000 cases a year in which guns are used in the home against robbers. That alone far outweighs the 30,000 deaths caused by firearms a year.

Afraid of guns? Because people keep them in their house? Who are you shitting? People who want them banned are the ones afraid of them. Guns save more lives (and property) in the U.S. than they kill.

I agree with this 100%. Look at Poland - gun possession here is possible but at cost of absurd fees and rigorous training. And still there is gun violence present - maybe not at the scale of the US but we have to remember what kind of countries we are comparing. Needless to say I ask why there should be a ban on guns? I said it before - I'll say it again - nutcracks and gangs who want to get guns will get them anyhow - no matter if you ban them.

Also the comment about society being fucked up (posted by imb) - no shit Sherlock! If basic management of depressed or otherwise "touched by life" and problematic individuals is a issue then it is obvious as hell something is wrong with society. Wake up and smell the flowers - this is the world we live in.

This pretty much backs up my point from before. Tantamount to 'Most people who are against firearms are liberal pussies who are too afraid of the weapon'. I'm not afraid of them per se, as other people have said they're just a tool. It's other people that are the problem. I don't trust other people. There's way too many screwed up and irrational people in society, I don't trust them with a tool that can take another person's life with something that is the equivalent of a touch of a button.

This is something you skirted over when it's actually quite an important point. Of course criminals will always be able to obtain firearms whether banned or not, but there are huge disparities between the scale of the problem in Poland where there's greater controls than in the US where there isn't. (Again someone here actually bother to take a look at the statistics before posting - Please)



Society is severely screwed up when they're suggestions for lecturers to carry firearms. Say what you want about the UK, but I feel safe enough here at uni that suggestions like that are the last thought on my mind.

That's how it appears to me from my perspective, one of the few statements on here that clearly didn't need quantifying (dolt).

Click on the 'Zyprexa documents' link here for more evidence than you can eat re. olanzapine.

Global sales of Zyprexa were worth $1.16BN to Lilly in Q4 of 2007 alone.

I would do that regardless because the kind of gun owner who would be stopped by a ban on firearms is not the sort who'd commit an armed robbery. I don't deny that some gun killings would be averted(mainly ones committed on the spur of the moment by people under the control of powerful emotions), but the career criminal who makes his living breaking into houses would still get a gun if he thought it was needed to make his work go smoother. I keep a gun under my bed to protect me from hardened criminals, not guys who killed their cheating wives and their lovers.

I've avoided this thread for a while, as I am usually in firearms related threads to spew my usual, I thought I would give it a break. As it happens, Earthcubed, Thorgy, Zdan and Scorpio have said pretty much what I would have. A lot of firearm deaths could be avoided with a total firearms ban, especially in the case of those who use them for suicides (but would probably then choose another means), but it would not have much of an effect on gang related shootings, as those generally do not involve legally obtained firearms. Anyone who is a felon can not have one, and there are waiting periods, and background checks needed, depending on:

1. The state that they reside in.
2. The type of firearm.

Also, despite seeing what appear to be AK47s and M16s shown off on news bulletins, and in gun shops, they are usually NOT automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are incredibly hard to obtain legally (MANY checks, and Tax stamps are needed), as well as being VERY expensive. A REAL M16 could set you back $15,000 or more, and that is only if you meet all of the legal criteria. What you see in news reports and the like, are semi-automatic AR15 (M16 copy)and WASR (AK47 copy) rifles.

Remember, even a ban on handguns and 'assault rifles' does not mean that criminals will not get them. You are only keeping them out of the hands of those that obey the law. There are not all that many shootings here in the U.K, but two of them were committed with firearms that have been banned for years (Mac 10 and AK47) that were never available here, and were smuggled in by criminal gangs.

I am opposed to preventing people from committing suicide, if they wish to do so. A man owns his own life if he owns anything at all.

So long as the person will only hurt himself in the process, I don't have a problem with it. Suicide by cop and by other means that affect others, I do not agree with. It's just plain inconsiderate.

If I'm not mistaken, 25% of all gun-related homicides in the U.S. occur in the five cities (counting Washington D.C. as a city) with the strictest handgun laws in the country (complete bans in three of the cities). And the numbers haven't changed much since the laws were enacted.




Why isn't this a reason to allow weapons in the home, at the very least? There's not much else you could do if one of these screwed up irrational people came into your home. Takes the cops anywhere from three to fifteen minutes to get to your house depending on where you live, and if they're going to harm someone in the house they would have finished in that time, before the police arrived.

As far as suicides, those do not count as homicides, and thus shouldn't be included in a list of gun fatalities. And like Scorpio said, that's their own business.

No, this is a reason to ensure there is not a widespread availability of firearms. If I were to snap now and wanted to go on a murderous rampage I wouldn't know where to start in terms of obtaining such a weapon. That's how it should be. Also I don't know about you but I'm not worried in the slightest about strangers entering my home at night. I don't live in a particularly great area either.



According to my crude maths even excluding suicide you're still 14 times more likely to be shot dead in the US than the UK.

If I wanted to obtain a black market gun without going through the usual channels, I could have it in a day. I already know whom I would contact. It is not that difficult.



I am a cautious man. I would rather be safe than sorry, especially when it requires little effort and little risk on my part. I keep a gun under the bed. I doubt I'll never need it, but if I do, I'll use it. No big deal.

One thing to consider is that 'home invasions' are more common in the UK than they are in the U.S.A. In the States, homes are usually robbed when nobody is home, whereas in the U.K, a lot of homes are robbed when occupied, and the people are injured or threatened in the process.
Link to article
I feel it is not unwarranted to speculate that this is because in the U.S, many people are armed in their homes.

There would have been no way to catch the kid. He was a promising student with the whole world in front of him, not a loonie making bomb threats. These shottings are being carried out by people who are angry at a society that offers them nothing. Whether we like it or not, these gunmen are making statements. If this kind of thing only happened because they were crazy or depressed, it would happen a lot less.

I have to disagree. There are plenty of crazy and depressed people out there. Plus, they're not making any substantial statements. By killing themselves and strangers, what do they say to us? Nothing, they get on TV for a few days. In death they get the attention that they craved in life, but were denied. Examples of people who were making a statement are the Unabomber and Muhammed Atta. Huge difference.

True.



...Say, how large is the number of armed burglaries? I'd guess that the odds to be burgled the way you describe are higher than being killed by a gunman at a school, but probably still pretty low, no? So if you don't live in an especially dangerous place, why do you feel such a need for "protection"? Not even just a handgun but a shotgun, too.

I am not against guns or anything and I understand why some people would feel the need to have them, but over here, if you somehow legally acquired a shotgun for home protection, people would think you are rather paranoid. Then again, our burglars don't usually have guns and usually break into homes when there isn't anyone in them.

It's not a daily occurrence, but it's astronomically more probable than being killed in a school shooting. There have been a few armed robberies in the area that I recall hearing about and I assure you, I do not live in a dangerous area.



Because I consider it all reward, no risk. I keep it there in case I need it and if I don't then....nothing happens. In other words, I can think of a reason why it's a good idea(I can protect myself against an invader), but I see no drawbacks, except the cost of purchasing the weapon.



Yes, a shotgun. I have several reasons. First, if a thief hears the sound when you pump it, there is an excellent chance that alone will cause him to stop whatever he was doing and leave. Second, when loaded with the proper ammo, a shotgun is ideal for close range combat. Fire it in the guy's general direction and you'll at least maim him. The disadvantages are that it cannot easily be maneuvered in hallways and it it's not good for penetrating armor. I would use one of my rifles for that, but nobody is going to break into my house wearing protective gear.



Things are different here. It's not like upstate where everybody and his mother is armed and it's way easier to get a gun, but still nobody would think it at all odd if you said that you have a shotgun for home protection. Nobody would think much of it if you said you had 20 guns.



Ours don't either, but I still feel better armed. Listen, I know a guy nearby who never locks his front door. He's been doing it for 40 years and nobody has ever gone in. I could stop locking my door and I doubt that anything would happen, but I won't do that because I like to stack the odds in my favor as much as I can.

I feel sorry for any prospective burglars that target your house...couldn't you use a handgun and shoot them in the legs? Poor guy is probably just hungry

I have a couple of guns as well. They have always been a fascination of mine and part of my life growing up. Many of my friends' have relatives who are police officers, and I have relatives who are police officers. I've always gone on hunting trips growing up as well. I feel very comfortable with a gun and I respect their destructive power, as any responsible gun owner should.

Well, the Unabomber and Muhammed Atta were more successful at making a statement. But I cannot believe that mental disorder explains these shootings at Va Tech or NIU. To me, that's about as reductive as saying they only carried out the killings because they had an easy time buying a gun. I don't doubt they craved attention, but I guarantee that there are a few people out there who watched these massacres and thought, 'These guys have the right idea', and I doubt that's entirely about attention. These are educated people who took a look at the world they were about to inherit and said no I don't want it. Now, I don't agree with the way they carried out their aggression, but, as much as I don't want to say it, I understand.

It's totally subjective to say someone's 'crazy' or 'depressed'. The Unabomber, for example, seemed perfectly sane to me. But considering what he carried out, he would certainly have been diagnosed with some sort of psychosis.

One of the best reasons to use a shotgun for home defence is that you can choose from a great number of different loads, that suit your needs. If you live in a place with thin dry-walls, you can choose a lighter load, that will not penetrate more than it needs to.

My ex-Marine suitemate this year is getting an apartment next year off-campus, meaning he is allowed to store weapons in it. He told me he's keeping his Colt .45 and an AK in his room. His future flatmates are one ex-Army friend and another friend who's crazy about hunting; both are bringing their pistol.


Pity the fool who tries to rob that apartment.

If you are not going to shoot to STOP an assailant, you are not supposed to pull the trigger. This means either a shot to the COM (Centre of Mass) - the torso, where the vital organs are located, or to the head. The reasoning behind this is that you should only shoot (shoot to STOP) someone when your life is in serious danger, not just to warn them, or to wound them. This is especially the case when the assailant hasa gun or knife. If you only shoot to wound, there is a good chance that they will be able to shoot or stab you. They will be running on adrenalin and rage, as well as PCP or Crack Cocaine in some cases.

no post

The only way I see anti-gun laws being passed is if the US decreases its gang violence and creates incentives for people NOT to rob. If those get in place, then maybe those of you who own guns that are afraid of gun owning robbers will concede and give up their right to bear arms.

Also, giving everyone a gun will not hinder gun violence. In a fit of rage, who knows what people who don't have guns will do if they do have guns.

The M1 Carbine is my weapon of choice against home invaders. The rifle stays beside my bed and a book case with two loaded magazines sitting within arms length of the bed.

As far as shooting the robber in the legs to "send a message" I do not buy into that, knowing with my luck I would probably end up getting sued by the fucker. Rest assured if someone breaks into my house they are getting three in the chest and one in the head.

no post

Haha, that's my weapon of choice in Call of Duty 4. But seriously, I'm never coming near your house.

About the issue, gun violence isn't something that a law is really going to help. It's cultural. I'm sure this has been said.

I was partially joking, but yeah, makes sense

I wouldn't use something like that unless I lived alone (penetration of walls is not good if you have kids), or was in a more rural area (protecting a whole piece of land). Still, as far as stopping power goes, it would do the job.

Yeah I live in the country with woods surrounding a good portion of my house and then a lot of fields. Makes for really good shooting practice . My only neighbors within shouting reach being two registered sex offenders and a couple of coke fiends that I am almost positive have a meth lab going with how much traffic goes in and out of there.

As far as wall penetration I agree the M1 is very bad for it but out of all the fire arms I own at the moment it is by far my favorite with maybe the 38 coming in as a close second (I have a thing for revolvers).

I am not to worried about it tho tbh, I trust my aiming enough and the direction in which I would be shooting to not go through a wall into the other bed room in the house.

Hopefully I will never have to find out.

Damn, is it just me or is the USA really a fucked up place?

I saw a gun exactly 3 times in my life, 2 times on a police officer and in a museum.
People rarely get robbed and if it does happen it's done in complete secrecy at night.

Did any of you actually had to use your right of self-defence once?
No serieusly, i'm not making an argument here, just curious.

It's the sort of thing which doesn't happen to most people unless you live in a really crappy neighborhood, but why take any chances?

Yes. America is like that. Police have had to shoot 2 people in 4 months with 30 miles of here for threatening their family on a public road with a semiautomatic weapon, and we only have 8 murders in our whole state a year.