I think its proof gun legalisation is retarded

thenumberone : Ha ha, yep. Even with all these laws, seemingly normal people can get a hold of guns, assault rifles even! I don't think a person's going to care about buying illegal weapons if they plan on dying anyway. All the time it takes to vote, argue, and pass all these ridiculous laws is time that could be better spent on something productive.

Sephitard9001 :
thenumberone :

I do not think that is the point of this article. If you read back through it, you may notice that they put emphasis on the lack of security. "With no metal detectors or guards at the building's six entrances --he was able to walk straight in." Also note this other sentence. "Palmer did not have a criminal history." With no criminal history, I see no reason not to trust him with such weapons. How were any of us to know he would snap and start this rampage? I am not trying to justify his acts -that much is obvious. But this violent act of his must have been completely out of character. There were no warning signs other than the text message he sent saying he was committing suicide. Your thoughts on this?

AuraBlaze :
I really dont care what the scenario is,as long as morons like this exist,allowing anyone to have a gun is stupid.regardles of whether you have a criminal record or mental problems.
I see plenty reasons not to trust him with a gun,like the fact gun massacres are attempted every other day in the usa.
Guns=not for civilians,theyre not toys,and you dont get extra lives,its not a video game

How in the heck did that place not have security? Bad judgement I guess

AuraBlaze : I agree, there was no reason for this man to not be allowed to have a gun. I'm just stating that even with all the gun laws in affect, anyone could find illegal weapons if they wanted to. Gun control is a ridiculous gesture.



thenumberone : The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it is both legal and suggested that civilians obtain firearms. Trying to take away, or prevent citizens of the U.S. who pay taxes from purchasing or keeping firearms is wrong. Even if gun massacres happen frequently. For example, when the U.S. decided slavery was bad, they got rid of slaves, they didn't make everyone else slaves as well. Consider this as well, imagine that laws are in place that prevent people from owning firearms. If somebody makes their own firearm from scratch, is it okay to take it away from him?



JigSaw : I don't know. When I entered a courthouse, there was four security guards around me, and I had to walk through a metal detector. I guess it depends on the state whether or not their is high security.

Sephitard9001 :
It was an AMENDMENT,it wasnt in the original constitution print,laws change,to just hold onto something because its always been there is stupid,without change there is no progress.law is not about tradition,its about whats best for the people.
There are areas in america where guns are banned,apparently not everyone agrees.
Paying taxes shouldnt mean get a gun,its not a special offer,spend $500 get a handgun,spend $1000 get an uzi.
Give me a reason why civilians need guns,one reason,and i will show statistics that prove countrys with guns banned are safer in that area.
"they didnt make everyone else slaves as well" what?i dont get what youre trying to say here.
If someone makes a time bomb from scratch is it ok to take it away from him?if someone makes a nuclear weapon is it ok to take it from them?yes.the fact is,they have made something they shouldnt have.something they dont need,thats sole purpose,is to kill.is that a good message,a good trait of a country?encourage ownership of weapons?i think that is a very, very, very, very stupid,iresponsible,and downright dangerous national policy.this trial shows how easy it is to take a life with one,and how hard it is to prevent.how many us presidents have been assasinated?
How many european leaders have been assasinated?and bearing in mind there are about 30 times more leaders to choose from.
Id remind you the original constitution was very different,for one thing,women were not allowed in office,to vote,to have any say in the running of the country,things change.

The prosecution rests.
XD

Sephitard9001 : If 2nd amendment is real why do they slap people with a felony if you are in possession of a deadly weapon without using it nor threatening anyone with it? Doesn't make sense to me.

And that point sliped by me,thats a good point.shouldnt people be allowed rpg's and mortars then?

JigSaw : That depends on various circumstances. The most obvious, I would assume, would be illegal possession such as carrying a weapon without a proper license.

thenumberone : Okay. I do agree that such morons should not have possession of any firearms; however, I believe that banning firearms from private citizens is taking it too far. The sad fact is that there are firearms being distributed illegally. Period. Private citizens should have the opportunity to defend themselves in the event that their lives are at risk.

AuraBlaze : you migh wana edit the post where it says "i disagree that banning firearms from private citizens is taking it too far" since i think you meant it is too far.
Well really,the illegal weapon trade is a self inflicted problem.spawned from the idea its ok to own devices of death.

thenumberone : I'm just going to respond to your post in no particular order. Nowhere in the U.S. is there a ban on guns. There may be strict laws, but it's unlawful to completely ban firearms from citizens. One reason for guns? I can think of many. But here's one: If you're under attack from a mugger, the police are not going to save you. The half-second it takes to draw from the holster is quicker than calling the police. A cop going 80 mph isn't going to save you, a bullet going 800 mph will.
 Also, crime increases in areas with strict gun laws. Take England for example. Their crime rate is lower than the U.S. But did you know that it was even lower BEFORE they put gun laws in place? About the, "slaves" part: I meant that if the country decides that certain people (in this case: dangerous people) shouldn't have weapons, they take the weapons away from them. They don't take weapons away from everyone in the whole country. Comparing small-hand firearms to weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous, I'm not even going to respond to that further. In the hands of a normal, average, competent adult, a weapon is less dangerous than a car. A weapon as a maximum of 4 switches/controls, while a car has around 20.
Really? The sole purpose of a weapon is to kill? And I assume that the sole purpose of a women is to give birth, right?. A handgun is classified by the police and the U.S. military as a defensive weapon. Yes, it is a GREAT trait for a country to not only support, but encourage the ownership of personal firearms. Did you know that the Japanese in WW2 never invaded the U.S. mainland because their emperor was afraid that every home in America had weapons? Japan's suicide rate is triple the U.S.'s, and they have very strict gun laws.
4 U.S. presidents have been assassinated. And that's redundant, as John Booth could've just as easily slit Lincoln's throat instead of shooting him. Your point on the constitution contradicts itself. You say that the right to bear arms is an amendment, then claim tradition is foolish. Also, the first ten amendments is the Bill of Rights, a list of unalienable rights that ALL humans should have no matter what. 

In conclusion, your line of thought must be, "People cannot be trusted, so let's place gun laws that people will follow, because they can be trusted." Trying to take away from peoples' rights instead of adding more is pure madness. In trying to deal with the problem of criminals obtaining illegal weapons, they make it impossible for citizens to obtain legal weapons. Somehow, they think that if you're helpless, you're safer from a criminal. If handguns and rifles are not necessary for the defense of this country, why does the military have like, 3 million of them?
You better bring an umbrella, because it's raining cold, hard facts up in here!

There is one big problem with the idea of making guns illegal for citizens. When you buy a gun legally, they are documented, and if you ever use that gun for murder, the gun can be traced back to you, as they all leave unique ballistics marks. If they were banned, then all guns that were used would be under the radar, meaning no record of who bought it, meaning that no murder involving a gun can be traced to any source. That would be a big problem.

Sephitard9001 : first, i dont think its unlawfull to ban guns, especially seeing as they have nothing to do with politics or our daily lives.And im aware you can get around it but its exceptionaly difficult to gain permission in other countrys,like the uk.you need to have a valid reason to own one, like, im a hunter for example(im not, it was an example)
i think shooting dead a mugger is extreme, and he will most likely have a gun himself, so unless you shoot his bullet outa the air, its not falling under the protection status.
england has never allowed citizens to waltz around with guns and there are increased crime rates almost everywhere, americas have spiraled far greater than the uk's.
i never compared it to a weapon of mass destruction, i stated that it was a weapon, not a toy, by putting it into perspective.although when a man can walk into a high school and shoot a hundred people that right there is pretty massive destruction.
A car is not more dangerous than a gun, i dont recall many robberies/muggings using a car.freeze or il throw my sedan at you!
A car is not a weapon, and is vital to the economy, it causes death when people dont pay attention, a gun causes death when its owner wills it, or sometimes when they dont, via a misfire or the like.
"Really? The sole purpose of a weapon is to kill? And I assume that the sole purpose of a women is to give birth, right?" i am sorry but that is a pretty terible analogy. They never designed guns to protect people, they designed them to kill people, and thats what they do.
In the us its classified as such, but then again, i think the u.s government is run by morons.no other way to say it. George bush, clinton, eisenhower, presidents that know absolutely nothing, and half there party is the same,obama is the first president iv seen that actualy has a proper plan of action.

i think the fact that japan never invaded the us had a little something to do with the fact they were split trying to invade australia and india at the same time, and soon after there fleet was decimated.
Are you trying to insinuate the japanese commit suicide because they arent allowed guns?im not really buying that...
tradition is foolish if you let it hold you back.the claim always made is its a constitutional right and you cant change that, which is ironic and hypocritical because that law is a change to the original constitution, thus in saying you cant change it to defend guns it should therefore be returned to its original state, which would b the end of gun ownership.that, is my point.
Maybe thats what america thinks all humans should have, but they didnt really respect those rights when they invaded other countries...
if we had the right to own nuclear missiles by your logic we shouldnt change it because we cant remove rights...
the military has 3 million because without them they couldnt kill people...
for defenseive purposes, on trained soldiers should have guns, and they shouldnt own them.upon removal/resignation from the army the weapon should be surrendered.
the sun is shining here, its a hail storm of facts on your end

There are good arguments both for and against banning guns. I personally believe they shouldn't be banned, but maybe just have stricter regulations on owning them.  As sephitard said, it is easy for people to get guns, even illegal ones. If guns are banned there is nothing that is going to physically stop people from getting guns, it would just make all of them illegal. The only way to stop this would be to get rid of every gun, which is impossible. As long as there are militaries there will be guns being produced.

If they somehow managed to make guns unattainable I think people would resort to knives and homemade bombs. Where I live, they have made getting guns harder, and since then the majority of murders have been stabbings.

A few years ago I was talking with my father and uncle about guns. They told me when they were kids (would have been in the late 50's/early 60's) it was common for parents to give guns to their children to go have fun hunting gophers and what not. They said there was almost no incidents of  abusing this and harming other people. Keep in mind they were living in a rural area. Maybe there have been certain aspects of our society that has influenced the way people view violence in general. Its possible that media has desensitised people and made them more willing to kill other people. Just something for you guys to think about.

smotpoker86 : Good point. My step-father has some magazines from when he was a kid, and they advertise repeater rifles - to children even! I don't know what it is, but there's some factor that made the modern person prone to violence.

Sephitard9001 :
i said its not a right, and it isnt. if its needed for work then its different, my point is random civilians shouldnt be allowed to have them.
hardly all sorts of hoops, theyre suppsoed to decide if youre mentally capable, half the time they dont bother, thats not much in the ay of 'hoops'.
i dont think no guns is strict, i think its common sense.
most people would not be effected, theyd just be annoyed they couldnt shoot stuff.
if you pull a gun on a mugger, you have him, shooting him is unnecessary.if hes got a gun, you aint going to be able to shoot him, since hes got the element of surprise, you are therefore pretty much screwed.
If hes desperate enough to rob people, chances are he'll still rob you.if he sees you with a holster he'll probably just shoot/stabb you instead, which is worse id say.
lets think, gun massacres in uk, i dont even know of any major ones.france?same.germany?samejapan?sameamerica?yeh, quite a few.
criminals do know most stores in america have guns, and they still rob them.so you've somewhat destroyed your own argument there.
you are evidently missing the point.a car is not a weapon. a car can not be concealed.a car can not be taken into a building.a can not kill what it cant reach.you can dodge a car.
None of those things are true of a gun.
drop the japan thing, its got nothing to do with guns.
yes knifes are dangerous, but you need them to cut food, make tools etc.when was the last time you shot butter onto your toast?or make a wood carving using an uzi?
because a country with higher suicides dosent use a gun to do so, guns are therefore not bad?
...
...
...
...
seriously, your japan argument is incorrect and irrelevant.
guns are so dangerous only people directly controlled by the government should have them. jeez.
Guns are not weapons of defense, there is a limit in defense and guns are far over it. it is too easy to abuse and therefore can not be given out freely.
if i had a knife i could kill a few people, id get taken out pretty soon though.
if i had a gun, good luck stopping me before iv killed a ton of people.
i dont feel the need to be shot by a firearm, and in the uk, the odds of that are exceptionally thin due to regulation.in america however, theres a pretty good chance i would have a gun pulled on me at somepoint.
guns should be international conduct 'crap'
more deaths have been caused by guns than nukes, thats for sure.
im sorry, but america does not invade countrys to save the people.
ww1:entered after us citizens were killed.
ww2:entered when us soldiers were killed.
vietnam:entered when communism spread there, and looted, raped and murdered/burned to the ground entire villages(you can look it up, because its true)
korea:communism, again.
iraq/afghanistan: a man responsible for more deaths of americans is hiding there, and there is the threat of having oil exports to the usa cut off.and after the war most of the major oil contracts are awarded to us firms, and most of the iraqi treasury goes 'missing'.
where in that list, are the selfless wars?
if that was the case, how come china, iran, north korea, the biggest violaters, havent been invaded?

thenumberone : It is a right. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It may not be a right in the UK, but it is here. Clearly, you've never bought a gun in the U.S. or have never heard of someone do so. They check your criminal record, there is often waiting periods, etc... Thinking that having no guns isn't strict is an opinion. A lot of people would be affected, think of all the hunters. They have to eat too, probably because they can't afford to buy all their groceries. Most hunters I know are poor and live in trailers. Rich people don't shoot up animals for no reason that often.
If you pull a gun on a mugger - oh wait, you can't legally have guns in the UK. You're stabbed to death. If you pull a gun on a mugger in the U.S., he's yours. If the mugger is armed with an illegal weapon in the UK, then clearly the laws have failed, and you're left defenseless. If he's desperate enough to rob someone, he'll pick a weak defenseless target, he won't target the nearest person if he has a weapon. It's easy to find a gun-less man walking down the street in the U.S.
No shooting massacres in the UK? Dunblane and Hungerford for two examples. None in Japan either? Are you kidding? Ever hear of the Yakuza? Even a mayor was shot dead by a gangster recently in Japan. And no, hundreds and hundreds of stores are completely unarmed. Chain stores like Sears, and Walgreen's, and even Walmart (even millions of fast-food places) do not have any firearm protection of any kind. Only small, mom & pop shops carry weapons. Just because a car isn't a weapon, doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Nationally, there is more than 40,000 death rate from vehicles alone. There is only 20,000 to 30,000 deaths from firearms.
My Japan argument may be irrelevant, but it is correct. Guns should only be controlled by the government? Not according to the Constitution, which pretty much says the exact opposite. It more or less encourages you to take out the government if it becomes corrupt or if it deviates from the, "American Way". Honestly don't think that it's possible to defeat the U.S. Army with civilians, but it suggests to. Yes guns are for defense, you can't argue with the official police and military report. There is NO limit in defense. If a criminal breaks into your house, feel free to completely vaporize his very existence. Obviously that isn't possible, but if it were, I certainly would. Anyone who is going to do that or has violent intent deserves it.
Guns kill more people than nukes? Sure, but not at one time. As you clearly said so yourself, you would be put down before you did too much. If everyone was armed, you might be able to kill 3 or 4 people before you were shot by everyone else. Use a nuke, and that's millions upon millions of people dead in an instant. There is no stopping that. Seriously, there is no comparison there. I don't know where you're getting your info, but no, the odds of being shot dead in the street for no reason in the U.S. is incredibly, incredibly low. The last time I ever heard a gun, was about two years ago when a cop shot an armed criminal in the arm down my road. We don't have shootouts in the streets every other day over here.
I don't see your point with the World Wars. We're at fault for stepping in and help saving billions upon billions of people because we were attacked. That's complete bull crap. I didn't know so many people were ungrateful. Keep in mind that I said, "Help" because I'm not arrogant enough to say that we were the absolute saviors who defended the planet. I know Russia and the UK played a major role.
As for that Vietnam massacre, the officer in charge acted lawlessly and created his own orders. The President or generals didn't order people to be massacred and villages to be burned, the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the officer in charge of the troops.
Obviously you can't very well invade China or Korea. Mostly because they have something called nuclear weapons. Huh, go figure. Sorry that we don't want every country on the planet to be completely devastated by nuclear fire.
Also, you never responded to the many questions I posed in my previous post near the end.

Guys!! The tangent argument on the legality of firearms is better suited for a different thread.

On Topic... wow, how unstable is that guy that he felt the need to shoot the judge? And where was security... every courthouse I've ever seen has mandatory metal detectors.

Elara : I meant to edit the original post to include a question posing gun control, but I never got around to it. Sorry lol

Sephitard9001 : Ok, that is better then. Go ahead an edit your first post.

Sephitard9001 : you were saying its a human right,im saying its not.
Obviously i know people in the us can buy guns or we wouldnt be having this conversation...
And yet plenty of people who have criminal records buy guns.
I said hunters can have guns already.
Muggings in the uk are not as common in usa,and more people are killed in muggins in the usa...
Most people dont display there gun so how is it easy.
I never said no massacres,youre not reading what i say.i said no significant ones
Those british ones were like,20 years ago and under 2
Deaths compared to about a hundred in 1 massacre every year in the usa.
Gangs arent massacres,if they were,the american mob bosses and drug lords would account for a lot more gun crimes in the usa.
Youre clearly missing the point, car deaths are predominately accidents and are needed for everything.guns arent.
I can totally argue with the us police and military,its my RIGHT.
You can shoot more than 4 people before getting taken out,and i never said shot dead,ready my post.i said having a gun pulled on me,and its not incredibly low.
Why should anyone be gratefull?when asked to help,when tens of thousands were being killed,america refused,even when france,the country that made u.s independence possible,was conquered,usa never steped in.the reason usa jumped in is because without european help the odds of america defeating germany and japan were,negligible.gratitude is due toward a selfless act,not a self serving one.
And saving billions upon billions,europe had less than half a billion people back then.
The government is acountable for the army,and gave the orders.they told the army to destroy everything so the communists couldnt get food or shelter,causing the south vietnamise to starve to death.
Maybe the usa shouldnt have set the standard by mass producing nukes.you could have intervened before they had them,you didnt.what about africa?why not get rid of there dictators?
I addressed every point you made...

thenumberone : The only people that buy guns who have also committed a crime are people who have either committed a non-violent crime, or purchased an illegal weapon. It doesn't matter whether or not they're are hunters, everyone should be treated equal. Just because someone's too poor to afford groceries, doesn't mean they should be the only ones able to defend themselves. The massacres in the UK both had 16 deaths more or less, and the same amount of injuries. No massacre committed in the U.S. has had more than 100 victims, that's ridiculous. Yes, gangs are accounted for in massacre reports and death tolls. Car accidents, yes. Amazing how a car, which is supposedly less dangerous, can kill more people in an accident, then a gun wielded in crime, which is supposedly incredibly dangerous. My point is, car ACCIDENTS are more common then gun HOMOCIDES. That's more than enough reason to prove that cars are simply more dangerous. Imagine if someone drove around hitting everyone they could find. It would be more dangerous than someone shooting everyone they could find. It may be your right to disagree with the police and military, but it's also your right to argue the correct way to perform a brain surgery with a certified doctor. Point is, you're probably wrong when you argue with a professional about their profession. What are you talking about, of course getting mugged is a low rate. How would this be a country if more than 50% of people are robbed? Again, where are you getting this information? Movies do not count. I could walk down 4 blocks in every major city 5 times, and probably never get mugged. Your whole point about WWII is strange. America should be ashamed of itself because it didn't get involved with a European war until they were directly threatened? The same people who say this, are the same people that say America should be ashamed of itself when it involves itself in Asian wars when the U.S. is dragged into it. WE were attacked, we didn't attack. Please make up your mind. Either option is met with outcries from the same people. Umm, what? Hitler was a threat to the entire planet, not just Europe. He was going to cleanse the planet of people who he didn't think were necessary. That happens to be billions of people.
The government is not responsible for anything that happened there. Like I said, the officer acted of his own accord. Also, the South Vietnamese were our allies in Vietnam more or less. They opposed the communist north.
Intervened before they had them? Are you serious? It's not like the countries developing nuclear weapons friggin' advertised it. They were discreet about it, for obvious reasons. It's also not like America are the world police either, we can't always take bad toys away from countries whenever we feel like it.

Sephitard9001 : i said about a hundred.and i disagree,if you dont need a gun you shouldnt have one.
Youre logic is,if something COULD be more dangerous,everything else is safe.this is false.
I never said mugged,i said have a gun pulled,under any circumstance,and even 20% is enough to be likely.
I never said ashamed,i said you were owed nothing,and not to confuse self serving wars with selfless acts.
Your point was i should be gratefull,my point was america has never entered a war for any reason than self serving,be it defence or invasion.
Of course the government is responsible,its there army.if i gave a gun to a 5 year old and he killed someone,do you think the courts will accept,i never told him to do that?hell no,im going to jail for manslaughter,along with about 8 other charges.
America very much installed the south vietnamise government and had little public support.the people in the south,the us army alienated,causing your defeat and withdrawl.
It was not a war for the people.
If you were invading to help people,you would have.so are you retracting your statement that said america went to war to help the people there?

Historical evidence supports that Vietnam happened because America didn't want another communist country... it was all about the Cold War. I've spoken to sailors that were on the ship that was supposedly attacked, thus triggering the actual fighting... and they said flat out the attack never happened. Someone got jumpy, things got out of hand, and the higher ups took the advantage. We had no right to be there, especially not once France backed out and admitted defeat.

But that actually is another topic entirely... so let's try not to go off on merits of old wars.

I believe the legality of private ownership of firearms is, in fact, a deterrent to violent crime. No matter what our government does in the way of banning firearms, criminals always have ways to access illegal ones. Therefore by taking the right from the ordinary citizen, you leave all the remaining firearms undocumented, and in the hands of unsavory characters. In other words: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. Sure, I would support strict regulation of firearms, but that's very different.

I know of no reason banning firearms would significantly decrease violent crime rates. The way things are now, all legally purchased guns are meticulously documented and easily traced. The vast majority of citizens who buy firearms will never even use them, let alone murder another human being. These people who slip through the cracks and murder people are rather few and far between (and I've never heard of any American spree killings even close to 100 in body count), and although I would love those cracks to be closed, violent crime rates in the United States are actually quite low on average. The proliferation of news media makes it seem like more bad things are happening than ever, but that's not the case. It just seems worse now because you will actually hear about some random crime that happened in another state that you might never have heard otherwise. These crimes will occur regardless, and in fact I've known very few Americans who have ever even been threatened with a firearm (and I live in a state that is pretty lax in gun control). I have, however, known multiple Americans to have been mugged at gunpoint in the UK, oddly enough. Obviously this evidence is anecdotal at best, but it's just what I've been exposed to. Our violent crime rate has decreased tremendously since my birth.

I guess ultimately I think it's a question of how much faith you are willing to put in your citizens. "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" -Benjamin Franklin.

thenumberone :

Morsalbus : This, I very much agree with. That one bit of logic is the ONLY one you need to argue against very strict laws.. Law-abiding citizens will not have guns. So the guns are left for the criminals. It's a non-disputable fact that around 300,000 people in the every year in America use firearms in self defense. If guns weren't available to everyone, the government would be responsible for 300,000 deaths each year, much like how they're "responsible" for the atrocities in Vietnam.

Sephitard9001 : if america hadnt pumped guns out over hundreds of years 300,000 people would not be getting shot at.
Annette :


Elara : not entirely, it arose after i debated the idea that americas army only used guns as tools of peace and prosperity, but i get your point,at any rate thats more or less resolved now.

Elara :
thenumberone :
Sephitard9001 :

All I can say is I want to have the opportunity to defend myself as I believe is necessary. If I feel my life is in jeopardy I would like to have the opportunity to defend myself with a gun, and I feel that right should be extended to everyone who provides evidence of their own account that they can wield a weapon properly and justly. I must say everyone here has made impressive arguments for and against the topic at hand. I kind of felt there was a growing tension within, so I just thought I would get this out in the open and get you all over here to see what Annette had to say --though I now see that thenumberone already has.

Annette :

thenumberone : You can get illegal weapons anywhere, like Northern Ireland for example.

Sephitard9001 : they have guns in n.ireland because during the ira campaign in ireland countrys like libya gave them guns.

thenumberone : I think his point was that America doesn't supply all of the world's guns, and the criminal element will get its hands on some regardless. America was not and is not the only place to have been "pumping out guns over hundreds of years."

Morsalbus : i never said america was the only place,and i never said that they were responsible for the guns in other countrys.eastern europe is the main source of those,ukraine,russia etc.
There (criminals)supply is a lot more restricted when guns are illegal.

thenumberone : What you did say is that those 300,000 Americans wouldn't be getting shot at if America hadn't been producing guns, and I would argue that less than half of those incidents involve the offending parties using American made firearms. Regardless of the nationality of the firearms, I think people who are going to perpetrate violent crimes will do so with any means. Many illegal firearms here in the USA are imported and sold to gangs and the like, they have a supply line regardless. And the people who are not as well-provided with weapons will try to kill (or mug or what have you)with whatever means they can. The fact that you think denying firearms to the majority who won't try to kill anyone unnecessarily is a reasonable policy makes me wonder whether you a) have too little faith in normal citizens, b)have too much faith in governments ability to keep weapons from criminals if guns are outlawed, or both.

thenumberone : America isn't even the one to invent guns. Blame China for firearms if you're gonna blame us for nukes.

Morsalbus : the vast majority of illegal us weapons are american manufactured,and i would no sooner trust someone with a gun than i would with a bomb.
Sephitard9001 : china invented gun 'powder' not guns.
Guns were made as lethal as they are today by america.

thenumberone : Are you kidding me? Some of the most popular illegal weapons are Uzis and AK-47's, and those are Israeli and Russian made respectively. Most automatic weapons are not made in America. That's because most automatic weapons in the US are military issue. Any gun is lethal, even the very first one created. Americans don't make guns, "more lethal", they create weapons that are just as lethal, but with modifications to make them perform better in combat. The only way to make a gun, "more lethal" is to give the gun a higher capacity, or a larger round.

Sephitard: they can make the bullets travell at greater velocity and with more deadly bullets.
Ak47's and uzis are cheap and simple,thus common.in america criminals generaly go for the more advanced american weaponary.

thenumberone : Funny how you try to tell me what criminals in my own country use. But I digress. Criminals however, do NOT go for extremely valuable advanced weapons. They're criminals for a reason. They want cheap, reliable weapons that can not be traced, and there's no assault rifle more reliable than an AK-47. American-made military rifles are generally not available on the black market, especially to broke street thugs.

Sephitard9001 : a minute ago you were sayin you hardly see illegal guns so how do you know?
Amerian weapons are readily available on the black market.

thenumberone : American weapons as in United States Military weapons might be in the black market, but do you honestly believe a gangster could afford it? If they could afford to buy an illegal weapon of that quality, and seeing as illegal weapons are more expensive than legal weapons, then they wouldn't need to be criminals.

Not all american guns are expensive,especialy seeing as theyre stolen and sold far cheaper.

thenumberone : The mere fact that they must be stolen or smuggled from the military or military providers would make their prices outrageous. A lot of effort goes into the acquisition of military-grade technology. Those efforts must be compensated.

A lot of the time,not really.you pay the high ups in the military and they just give the guns away,its not some super secret infiltration mission where they wear disguises and havd a shoot out before skidding off in an unmarked van.

thenumberone : Umm, yeah. If someone who had a high enough rank to order the shipping of military equipment was delivering them to undisclosed locations or somewhere that is specifically a danger zone, they would be immediately caught. The black market obtains weaponry buy either purchasing them in countries where it's legal to do so, or they steal directly from the manufacturer using an insider. A general or an officer, no matter the nationality, could not supply criminals with military technology without anyone knowing. Where did you hear  that officers just hand weapons out?

there are many cases of weapons "going missing".
all that is needed, is a war.then huge amounts of guns change locations constantly for the duration of the war, the guns are bounced around so much no one person could possibly track them, and they'd only really notice if they looked into it, a few here and there.
They cant prove what happened to them either.this is a good example:


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15184

there is a clear statement there:

Since 2004 there appears to have been no accountable and transparent US
audit trail for approximately 360,000 infantry weapons supplied to the
Iraqi security forces," said Brian Wood, Amnesty International's arms
control manager. "Coupled with the poorly managed US supply of small
arms

these guns are NOT efficiently managed.
how do you misplace 360,000 guns? you dont.
They'v been picked off by a host of people, from the guards and shipment overseers who are willing to notify interested partys and look away, to the clerks who just know its too easy not to.
I doubt many generals have done it but theres no doubt people in the army have.

thenumberone : Yeah like I said, all those people that must've, "turned a blind eye" were working indirectly with the military, or they were insiders. It's impossible to stop stuff like this from happening. It's also not legal, so it's obviously not condoned by anyone important.