Vince Vaughn: "Banning guns is like....."

Post Reply New Topic

Overall U.S. firearm-related crime statistics say that such crime is decreasing ( http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... ic-unaware and http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... rders-down ). Even mass shootings haven't increased in frequency, though news reports about them have increased ( http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18 ... n-20121218 ). So, apart from the hysterical hype, you are safer than you were in the early 1990s.

So in the 90's there were more shootings? Are the laws tougher now or did something else change?
So mass shootings have not decreased either, it is on a constant level?

That is what the reported evidence shows. The reports were based on U.S. Department of Justice and FBI statistics.

The laws were tougher in the 90s and there was also more gun crime in the 90s.

Mass shootings have not increased since the 90s either.

The most deadly mass shooting, the one at VA Tech, was carried out by a guy using two handguns. They were a 9mm and .22 which are two of the smallest available calibers. In fact, a .22 is the smallest caliber of gun that is considered to be a viable weapon. So the idea that we should restrict the types of guns people can buy seems ridiculous to me.

there are a bunch of cases of people using cars to kill mass people. one that I remember the most was a persons brother was crazy and the cops did nothing, then he took a car/truck and ran over a bunch of people killing htem. people will purposely run into cars going the other way on the high way. just recently a guy accidentally supposedly , killed 4 kids in a matter of seconds. the mom barely survived. imagine if you were a guy driving his truck 50mph through a school playground or while kids are loading on bus before school, o knocking a school bus or public bus off a bridge(has happen) so say you have 50 people/kids on a bush or waiting to get on. you can very easily kill a bunch of people with cars. yet anyone can have one as long as they prove they pass a test. heck there's not even any limits on mentally ill having cars like there are with guns. I'm way more afraid and legitly so of being ran over while walking then being shot. I've almost be ran over a bunch of times. by people who think one second of their life is more important than me living. if these people were just out to kill people i'd be dead. there's nothing separating sidewalks from roads.

now that just addressed cars, now there's knifes/axes/swords/bats/bombs/etc
look to china to see mass stabbings/axing.
people who want to kill masses of people always find a way. guns are illegal in uk but they keep taking more and more and more. the illegal guns they find keep increasing despite being illegal for over 30 years or so. you'd think it'd be decreasing until there were non. but nope they are still smuggling them into britain. an island surrounded by ocean.
the US has a crime ridden nation to our south, we can't stop them bring drugs across and worry they might one day smuggle a nuke. so if britain an island can't stop people from getting guns how would the us with all of central and south american connected to us do it.

though really it comes down to liberty and freedom. you have to treat people innocent , you can't just assume everyone is guilty and say no guns for anyone. nore can you say no ____ for everyone because 1 person went and abused it.
if 1 kid threw his milk on another kid do you take the milk away from all the kids or punish the 1 kid who was bad?

also no hatred Bondkatten
hugs.
think it comes down to more of you've never owned/shot a gun so you don't' care but say tomorrow the world decided to ban all cats. you'd be against it. but rest assured they'd have some seemly legit reasons to do so. most people are ok taking the rights of others away when they don't care about said rights. rich white people don't' care about police harassing people based on race, it doesn't effect them. this is also why most anti gun people don't' show up at meets/rallies/opencongress lobbies, etc. but gun rights people show up in mass. its why they get 5 times more letters against gun laws then for gun laws. people don't put time in effort into something that won't directly affect them. banning guns would not effect the antis , life after would be exactly the same. but pro gun people would have police at their door, higher costs, fees, having to register like some sex offender, and losing property we paid for.

gun owners are discriminated against and its considered ok. its not and shouldn't be ok to discriminate against any group of people. we aren't violent baby killers like the anits paint us. we're nice regular people, lots are cops or military, firemen, doctors, teachers, postal service employees, students, pastors, all walks of life.
oddly in the us most eh shooters have been left leaning people who didn't own guns but stol them or bought them just for doing the deed. non of my guns except maybe the mauser, sks and glock have ever shot anyone, but the mause was a ww1-ww2 gun, the sks was chineses so may have been used in korean war, the glock ex police so probably not but still possible. really the amount of people shot compared to guns owned, ammo owned is very very very very very low.

mean one would have to see how much ammo was made which isn't tracked. probably trillions and trillions of rounds and then how many people are shot.

hugs again. I get passionate about gun rights. hope I don't upset you though.

yeah he also had the 10 round mags which according to the antis would stop shootings. don't forget the columbine shooting was also during the assault weapon ban, yet they used the very guns banned. I think the thruston shooting here was also during the ban. It'd be interesting to compare shootings during the strict laws to shootings after.

people need to remember the media has a agenda to ban guns, so they look, dig and seek any thing that will support it then plaster it all over the tv/net. they jump on any shooting saying it was a ar15 before any news comes out. then later when it turns out to be a shotgun or handgun, they go hush hush and completely ignore it.
they also ignore every case of guns used in self defense. principle stops a school shooting from happening with his handgun, burry that story in celebrity gossip. its stupid. how many mass shootings were prevented by guns? or but it doesn't matter because it never happen. but if it had it'd been all over the news and pushing gun bans.

what's it like 50-200 to 1 the ratio of defense with a gun to murder with a gun. something like millions every year.
but one can never know thankfully what could have happened if not for those guns, how many lives would have been lose.

how many more people would have been beheaded if the boss hadn't had a gun in his car, at that factory. how many kids would have died at that school, how many people died at a cafe, or restaurant, or subway, or etc.

thanks to those gun owners we'll never have to know.

or vice versa, how many more people would have been saved in paris? what if the guy who filmed that cop get shot had a gun instead of just a camera.

the police were actually against the proposed ban. they know the reality is they almost never at shot at by rifles. so banning rifle ammo because it's able to go through a pistol round rated body armor is ridiculous. the gov doesn't care about police they are just using them to gain knowledgeable people's support.

LOLOL I know----I 'bout fainted when I first heard one----he said he 'bout crapped himself!! (He had already heard plenty, before he got his.)

@Bondkatten: Most people are scared-of things they've never experienced----that's totally natural----but, you could go to a shooting-range (depending on what country you live-in), and tell them how scared you are, and they would be extremely helpful / patient, etc.----AND, appreciative that you were, at least, trying----OR, you could live in fear, as you are now.....

@sly279: Yeah, I know wha-cha mean about the 10-round mags. I had to laugh when the antis wanted to ban everything but them, since I knew the Colorado theatre guy had used them.

I just wish antis would do some actual investigating, before they do all their stuff. I mean, come-ON----you can best bet if they wanted to save whatever "tree-of-the-week" they're huggin', they'd spend EXHAUSTIVE hours on the Internet to make sure they had all the "fire-power" (pun intended, of course) needed to fight everybody that stood in their way.

It's also much easier to defend yourself with a gun, especially if you're not physically powerful or trained in any sort of martial art. In the US, defensive gun usage dwarfs criminal gun usage, though by what magnitude is still a matter of debate, as it's a difficult thing to measure.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any experience with guns and shooting? I've spent a lot of time on this topic, and typically it's the people with the least knowledge and experience who are the most passionate antis.

Let's say a gun rights advocate succeeded in banning cars and was shot. Would they prefer a horse drawn ambulance?

You can use a sword to kill as many people as a firearm. You can use a knife to murder someone in place of a concealed firearm. You can poison many people, say by spiking food; you can burn down a building full of people. All of these are equal in difficulty, and the main factor is the will of the murderer.

Does that mean that the gun crimes were because of illegal weapons?

It is strange that mass shootings have not decreased, shouldn’t people (police, law makers…) have learnt to identify and get better at finding the kind of people that make these crimes and prevent them from getting access to weapons?


Sly,there is no hate between us
I understand that you are very passionate about this subject. The thing is that I have my ideas and since I’m not an American, I have a different perspective.

I think that stricter rules are necessary for many things, like before giving people a license make sure that they are not a**holes. If a driver shows recklessness to others in traffic, take away his license. I’m sorry that you have almost had accidents, people can be such a**holes.

I understand that it feels unfair when you have passion for something and you personally don’t abuse it and then other people do. But the thing is that I don’t think there is another country in the world were so many people get killed per year (by guns) as in the US, or am I wrong?

For me I look at it like this. People get killed by guns. Life is worth more than the right to have a hobby. If you want to have a gun, wouldn’t you want to be sure that people that could use it against others will have it harder to get one?

The thing about the analogy with cars is wrong because a car is used for transport it has a useful purpose, but what purpose does a gun have except for to hurt/kill?

But it is your country so I don’t judge; I just have my own thoughts and feelings. I just don’t get why there are not harder checks on the people that have guns. And I think it is interesting to hear ideas and thoughts from people that have completely different ideas

And again no hate, just different ideas, I hope I don’t upset you either I know I will not change anyone’s mind on the issue, just expressing my own views on the matter. And I understand that most people that have guns are not out to hurt people. But it happens and when it happens it is horrible and cannot be undone. All that can be done is preventively.

I don’t live in fear
I fear for what guns can do in the wrong hands. I have no desire to handle guns even if it was legal here. What would I do with them? I’m not a hunter. I’m not a police. I’m not a military person. I have no use or need for a gun.

I think that the whole idea that you must have a gun to protect yourself because the next guy has a gun is horrible, seems like the escalating will never stop. He has a bigger gun, then I need a bigger one as well!! !

I don't have any experience of shooting with real guns. I really don't think that the fact that the fact that I don't have experience matters. If it did then let’s take the argument further. That would mean that you would never be allowed to express thoughts for anything that one does not have actual experience of? So then I could for example have no views on child marriage, circumcision, pedophilia, death, war and so on...
People are still entitled to their own opinions even if they lack the actual experience. I listen to “the other side” I’m not out to make fun of or disrespect anyone, but I have the right to my own thoughts and ideas.

Seriously? That is not true, a person with a sword is easier to escape from and it is easier to subdue a person with a sword than a person with a gun, especially if there are several people around.