Boston Marathon

[trish]

Then, in that case, you have to also ban all knives, all pens,...

No, we don't. The very same week of the Sandy Hook shootings a guy went on a knife rampage in a school in China and injured twenty some students. Guess how many he killed. If you guessed none you're correct. The determination of how easy is too easy depends in part on the lethality of the weapon.

A gun is designed to kill. If you're using it properly then your killing something or practicing to kill something.

[BrassVillanueva]

Oh, come on now; that's a lousy argument. Any weapon can be just as lethal as a gun, you just have to know how to use it to that effect. I could make a lethal weapon out of a paperclip, a folded up sheet of notebook paper and a rubber band. I'd have to have pretty good aim for it to actually be effective in killing someone, but that weapon is no more or less lethal than any other. You're talking about banning something on a basis that simply does not exist.

[trish]

I could make a lethal weapon out of a paperclip, a folded up sheet of notebook paper and a rubber band.

So why do you need a gun? You can effectively defend yourself against bad guys and the tyranical government with a bag of paper clips and rubber bands. Why are we wasting money arming our soldiers with automatic weapons when paper clips are equally lethal?

[yodajazz]

Then, in that case, you have to also ban all knives, all pens, all pencils, frying pans, baseball bats, straight razors, hedge shears, anything with a sharp edge or that can be used a blunt object... all things which are even MORE accessible than guns and ALL of which have been used as a deadly weapon, either with the intended effect or simply with the intent.

No, not an acceptable argument. You don't take away the tools from the people who use them properly just because some whackjobs use them improperly. That's the whole point. No more regulation will do any good, and the regulation that's already in place doesn't do any good, either. Gun control does not work. It never has and it never will.

Motor vehicles are registered. Look at all the regulations on the use of motor vehicles. Guns are instruments that can be used specifically for crimes. The registration of guns, primary purpose is to prevent easier access, for criminals,and identification their misuse, such as those with serious mental health issues. It's really the same with vehicles. There are many restrictions on who is allow to drive. The fact that someone can use a vehicle for illegal things, regardless is not a valid argument, for non regulations. Since people, will always speed while driving through school zones, does not argue there should be no speed limits. The fact that many will comply, raises the level of safety. Yes criminals will always have guns, but to argue, that we should let it be easier for criminal to get them, does not follow true logic. In fact you can argue, that there should no rules in society, because someone will violate every rule.

[Ben]

Interesting article....

Post-Boston vulnerability will at last force Americans to consider ‘why they hate us’:

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/vulner...-consider.html

[fivekatz]

Interesting article....

Post-Boston vulnerability will at last force Americans to consider ‘why they hate us’:

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/vulner...-consider.html

I don't think Boston was that moment. LOt of factors there from the relatively low loss of life, to the speed with which the terrorists were caught, to the fact that the brothers appear to be idiots on their own that were so cold that one laid his backpack bomb at the feet of a child and the other brother ran his brother over and dragged his body down the street in the getaway car.

There are genuine issues that people have with the American empire but if history teaches us anything when you attack the civilian population you will initially only fortify their support for their government and only total victory will ever cause capitulation.

If the "oppressed"peoples of the world want to hit America where it will hurt and cause a change in attitude they need to attack corporations not civilians at work or play IMHO.

[BrassVillanueva]

So why do you need a gun? You can effectively defend yourself against bad guys and the tyranical government with a bag of paper clips and rubber bands. Why are we wasting money arming our soldiers with automatic weapons when paper clips are equally lethal?

Because guns are easier to use. And the very reason WHY the general populous is supposed to arm themselves with those guns is to be able to defend themselves against people who, for whatever reason, decide to use the same type of weapon for the wrong reasons. Mutually assured destruction is proven to prevent more crime than anything else. That's all there is to it.

[BrassVillanueva]

Yes criminals will always have guns, but to argue, that we should let it be easier for criminal to get them, does not follow true logic.

It would be no easier for criminals to get them without gun control than it would be WITH gun control. That notion is absurd. Gun control has never and WILL never force criminals to obey gun control laws. They'll find guns regardless of how difficult the legal channels are made, because they don't GO through legal channels. What about this is so difficult to comprehend?

[dderek123]

^ The guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were obtained legally. Not difficult to comprehend either.

[BrassVillanueva]

^ The guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were obtained legally. Not difficult to comprehend either.

No, actually, they weren't. Lanza stole them from his mother in the process of killing her. That's not legal.