Larrythescaryrex said:

Some people would have been able to reload without being stopped by some granny, thus perhaps negating the need for high capacity clips. Or alternatively, had the foresight to bring TWO guns.

Regardless, you have made your point, guns are a deadly weapon. If they weren't it would be meaningless that we had the right to bear them. They are not, however, weapons of mass destruction.

---

Quote:

the raw statistics on the number of people murdered by guns

---

Quote:

guns are extraordinarly well suited tools for murderers

---

the spiral said:

Face it - the Tucson shooter would have used a truck full of ANFO if he had access to one, or the knowledge to build one (without getting very busted very quickly), but he didn't need anything close to that elaborate to murder and wound all the people he did.  From what I recall, even Eric Rudolph didn't rack up the body count this Tucson guy did - and Rudolph engaged in multiple attempts with multiple bombs placed in strategic locations.

---

Quote:

Thank you, and I agree that guns are not weapons of 'mass destruction'.  It should perhaps be noted, however, that the Tucson shooter was only taken down when his clip was empty and he had to stop to put in a new one.  This makes me wonder whether fewer people might have been injured or killed if only 10 or 12 shot clips had been available.  The point that he could have simply brought more than one loaded weapon does temper that concern, though I still find myself wondering for what purpose any law-abiding citizen or target shooter would need a 30+ shot magazine?

---

Wiccan_Seeker said:

Quote:

guns are extraordinarly well suited tools for murderers

---

No disagreement there. They are also extrordinarily well built tools for stopping murderers, so its really a double edged sword (which is also a great tool that cuts both ways)

---

Kada said:

Are we going to outlaw knives after this?

---

Stains Blue said:

"Never trust a man that does not hunt"
-Theodore Roosevelt

And thats the guideline that should be followed when discussing gun laws

---

bendychicken said:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

---

and body armor

bendychicken said:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

---

Stains Blue said:

Now someone explain to me why guns should be outlawed?

---

JackthaTripper said:

-Guns will exist so for the general safety they must be accessible so that good guys have them too (for example mass murderers are cut short by armed citizens).

---

Quote:

-Countries that outlaw guns see dramatic rises in crime (read defenseless victims susceptible to criminals).

---

Quote:

-Guns were granted by our forefathers so that the government will be kept in check (among other reasons), this is the chief reason though.  They lived through tyranny and gave us the powers needed to fight that when it reared its ugly head Foreign AND Domestic.

---

Quote:

I'm fine with this, and support gun safety courses and background checks to make sure that the right people are getting guns.  I also believe in more strict licensing requirements for more dangerous guns such as machine guns.  As it happens, this is exactly what current gun laws do.  The effect is that very few criminals are able to get their hands on machine guns.

---

Quote:

Well, sort of.  Note that the second amendment mentions militias.  The idea was that states would have their own militias that they could call up if the need arose.  Such militias would be composed of citizens of those states, and would require that those citizens be armed.  What you have to remember is that: (a) The United States was initially supposed to be a consortium of relatively autonomous states united under one federal government, and (b) Most of the founders did not want us to have a standing army.  Basically, instead of a standing army, state militias would be able to be called up when the need arose and defend the security of the state(note that the 2nd amendment refers to the "security of a free State") from tyranny both foreign or domestic.  So it wasn't about citizens overthrowing their government so much as keeping the states relatively autonomous.

---