Any English teacher could tell you that the first clause doesn't matter for the second. Gun control is a violation of the second amendment.

I hate that my first post is on a topic like this but here goes:

Any debate over gun control after 9/11 is absolutely absurd thinking. The ones that wish our ugly demise will not stop. So it goes without saying that to DIS-arm our citizenry would be mass suicide.

I for one am not paranoid. I am a well prepared individual that looks after the livelyhood of my family. If things should come to an end where deadly force is deemed the only choice left me....I will be the one left standing when the day is done.

This is not in any way paranoia. It is my right to defend both my life and that of my family's.

Not until psychology has significant scientific backing will I submit to a psychology test.

...But that's another debate.

all guns and missile tipe weapons should be iligal everywhere becose they are relighnt on technology and not personal scill. i don't believe in killing outer people for any reason, including war. but if people haft to fight they should use swards or something simaler, so that your ability depends more on your training than the actual weapon, this is fairer.

*loads a gun*

*aims at your head*

*fires*

You can use your sword all you want, but it won't save you.

Two things:

1) Fair is not a realistic concept. No one cares about fair. If you care about fair, you will be trampled.

2) Check. Your. Spelling.

Actually, the people without the guns will be masacred by the criminals with the guns.
It would be unfare advantage, and the U.S. Government would like to have it that way.

Dr Small

Psychology is science. It's Dr. Phil- like "pop psychology" that doesn't have scientific backing, and Freudian-style psychiatry that doesn't. If you aren't aware of the difference between psychology and psychiatry, you should probably look them up now.

Psychology is, however, a highly incomplete science.

The fact of the matter was, even if Cho didn't have access to a gun, it would have been a knife, or a chainsaw, or some other tool. People were getting killed no matter what.

Just my opinion. Disclaimer: I'm from Japan.

It is not a good idea just to argue gun control is 100% right or wrong. Constitution is not absolute by any means (and I don't have the 2nd amendment here; instead law prohibits firearms/swords ). Any type of prior check is not perfect (I agree checks should be improved, but they're not going to be perfect never).

The most important benefit of gun ownership is our security. By having a gun, we can protect ourselves against criminals. However, its importance depends on public security. If the crime rate is very low and we are very unlikely to need guns for self-defence, the benefit to own a gun reduces significantly (I don't deny other benefits of gun, but this aspect of gun benefit becomes lower for sure).

On the other hand, gun control has its own benefit: it raises the price of gun. This is same for any commodity control. Ban on drugs doesn't mean no one can get one. It means people have to buy one on black markets at significantly higher price. Gun control makes it more difficult for criminals/psychos to obtain a gun. This sort of benefit is smaller when gun is used for other purposes legitimately like hunting, because it becomes harder, or costlier, to enforce.

Each society is different in many points: crime rate, the current amount of guns in the society, popularity of hunting, and so on. As for the U.S., gun control seems unreasonable. Crime rate is pretty high. There are tons of guns all over the country already. People enjoy hunting/shooting for hobby (not sure). But this is not the case for some other countries.

sorting out who is mentally is very hard thing; especially there are many other dynamics for using gun to kill people. you can say that i'm responsible fr using gun: we can never know if you can shoot your girlfriend if he was cheating, or your someonee lse for some other reason. human psychology works different...


i think this is just demagogy. we can start to discuss what is liberty/ what is state in a different topic.

i think it's still paranoia... if arms controlled you won't be such a paranoid on that. will shoot the planes by gun/rifle? 9/11 was a terrorist attack that can't be preventing by individual gun ownership.

the criminals are having their guns with amendment #2 as well.

you can not kill that much people with a knife/chainsaw i believe. if all wall marts have gun-shop & if you can easily acces to guns on ebay or via postal service..there is something wrong.

using guns is not so individual think. it belongs to society and culture as well. "bowling for columbine" or gus van sant's "elephant" draws that picture. by the way "Fahrenheit 9/11" is pointing different thing but it shows the industry as well.

i'm totally against mass & individual arming. i can not see it as a kind of freedom. i'm blaming on weapon industry & popular culture & bad politics. this is same in most of the countries in the world.

Control Arms campaign for tougher controls on the arms trade

<crosses fingers> Let's see if this one lasts longer than the one on that other forum

I'm all for gun control. That is, the enforcement of current laws and the training of owners. Anything above that should not be allowed. Well, maybe slacking off on some of the laws in California and DC... they're just a little too restrictive.

I'm not quite sure that you understand the amount of training (practice) one needs to have to safely and professionally handle a firearm. With a sword, you can just run around and start hacking away with minimal fear of hurting innocent bystanders. With a firearm, you need to make sure your aim is true, your target is correct, and anything beyond your target is not in danger - all in a split second.

Goons with guns: This is where the enforcement of current laws comes in. It is illegal for felons to own certain weapons as per law. This is where, as mentioned previously, the governmet needs to have a good reason to take away liberties. Criminals have proven unworthy of certain liberties in this case.

Guns are everywhere: USPS regulations are rather strict on mailing firearms. It's generally regarded as a bad thing to do. You would also be hard-pressed to find a firearm for sale on E-Bay (check under "Some Examples".

Doesn't seem to be anything wrong to me.

The problem has been solved. Cho was treated as an outpatient, not committed. That was why nothing turned up on the check. This is probably something that should be investigated country-wide (the law).

Could you please re-word this; I'm having a fairly difficult time trying to establish what your actual stance is.

I think Gun control is hitting your target...

Gun control is using both hands.

Just kidding, I think it's a funny joke. Seriously, the problem is that few gun crimes are committed with registered firearms. We need some gun control, but tightening down seems like it will remove them from law-abiding citizens who aren't hurting anyone, and do nothing to remove them from the criminals. That's not helpful. I'm in favor of reducing crime in general, and killing in particular, but I think we need a more robust solution than "hey, lets just pass some more gun laws, that oughta do it."

The United States has a unique relationship with guns - to be honest it might make more sense to have TWO threads (one for United Statesians and one for non-United Statesians). As an outsider, living in a country with tight gun-control laws (and relieved about it!), the internal debate in the US appears quite bizarre, with the issue entangled with US culture and sense of identity. On the one hand, the pro-gun arguments are stale, formulaic and make sweeping statements about the consequences of gun control that are totally at odds with the experiences of those of us that have the benefits of tight gun laws. What is most saddening is the way theoretical notions of rights, cultural identity and paranoia about YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT (!) are seen as more important than the daily toll of murder and fear on your streets, and in your homes and (most awfully) your schools. On the other side, your pro-control lobby seems not to want to ask what it is about the US psyche that causes US citizens to go around killing people - when other countries with similar levels of gun control to the US don't have the same problems. Even in this thread, it is possible to see the unsupported demagoguery, ad hominem and straw man fallacies that poison the debate in the US. This sort of lazy, unthinking reactionism is part of the problem - if you aren't struggling to understand and consider the issues in this sort of thread, then you aren't really helping. The United States has much to be admired, but your attitude to guns and your attitude to when violence is acceptable saddens and causes sorrow to those who would be your friends.

Psychology is a pseudo-science. I don't mean to criticize it; I am just saying that it is not science.

You have some excellent insights. Speaking as an insider to American culture (I was born and raised in Arizona) I would say the American relationship with guns is unique indeed.

I believe the U.S. Constitution was written as it was because the men who founded the country were paranoid about government and only formed it out of necessity and never wanted it to become totally secure from the threat of revolution in the hopes that this would help force any U.S. government to more accurately represent the will of the people.

Just a thought to add to the mix.

Owning guns should be illegal or at least under heavy restrictions.

I don't support the right to own guns neither to hunt nor to use in defence.
Not even the police or state should have the right to use lethal weapons

The insistence on the right to carry or own guns is sure an american thing totally incomprehensible to me as an european.

To put this simply (perhaps too simply, as it is a very complicated subject):

Neither you nor anybody in the world can protect me from harm as well as I can (with a firearm). Therefore, if there is a chance (no matter how small) that I may be harmed or my property illegally damaged or stolen, then I have a fundamental (religious people say God-given) right to keep and bear arms to defend myself and those around me from those who would limit both my and others' freedom.

Now, this definitely comes with certain restrictions, these mostly being:

1) I cannot use my firearm to cause harm others, illegally damage or steal others' possessions, or threaten to do so. If in fact I do these things, I lose the right to protect myself, because I have abused the authority.

2) I should be well trained and well equipped to know how to handle, maintain, store, and (of course) fire my firearm. This is simply so I have a lower chance of unintentionally inflicting harm to somebody else or their lawful property. This should be done prior to applying for a firearm license.

3) I must submit myself to a psychological examination and/or a background check to verify that (a) I am who I purport to be; (b) there is a low chance of me using the gun to harm somebody else or their property, intentionally or unintentionally; (c) I am aware of and agree to abide by the terms of use (sounds like a piece of software). This step is to simply verify that I am a level-headed person that is aware of and cares about the consequences of my actions.

4) I realize that the government (or the license-issuing agency) is in fact a bureaucracy, and that it will take a bit of time for them to review my paperwork and mail me my permit. If I am intending to shoot somebody, this waiting period will hopefully allow me to "cool down" and think about the consequences of my actions.

5) I should store and maintain my firearm in a safe, secure place so that a malicious person cannot use my firearm to commit a crime. This also includes ammunition, as these can accidentally discharge under moderately extreme circumstances.

I'm told (take this with a grain of salt - I could be wrong) that one of the things Hitler did when he rose to power is institute a massive gun registration. Then, because the government knew exactly which people owned guns, it was easy to collect them from the general populace and therefore crush any future violent uprisings before they even started. Although I forcefully disagree with the entire nazi mentality, it was an ingenious strategy on his part.

I realize that we would all love a world where there was no crime, where people genuinely cared for other people, and the world was in a perpetual state of peace, but these are ideals, and by their very nature, cannot be attained. So long as some people bully others around to take what they do not deserve, the world will have a use for weapons. In short, we all have ideals, but the world, as we all know, is not an ideal place, and we must therefore restrain ourselves to thinking within the constraints of reality.

I sincerely hope that I have not offended anybody, as it is extremely easy to do so on the anonymous internet, whether it is intended or not. I apologize if I have posted too long of a reply, but I simply wanted to express my thoughts as best I could.

-Andruk

Science is simply a logical refining process to achieve (hopefully) objective results. The process is essentially:
1) Notice a phenomenon.
2) Develop a hypothesis for the phenomenon.
3) Devise an experiment to test the hypothesis to see if it adequately explained the phenomenon.
4) Use the hypothesis to predict the behavior of a slightly different phenomenon.
5) If the hypothesis is perfect (they rarely are), publish the results to see if they are repeatable by other scientists [those who also follow the scientific method). If the hypothesis is not perfect, go back to step 2, refine the hypothesis, and repeat the rest of the steps.

Statistics is the (hopefully) objective process to analyze and refine a collection of data to assimilate correlations (positive, negative, or none) between variables. This mostly gets into trouble when people attempt to imply causation, such as:

- There are 3 times as many police officers per capita in Washington DC as there are in Denver, CO.

- There are over 8 times as many murders per capita per year in Washington DC than there are in Denver.

Therefore, police officers in Washington DC commit a lot more murders in Washington DC than they do in Denver. This is obviously a fallacious correlation, caused by the implication that the police officers were causing murders. This statement is not "true" statistics.

It appears more logical that due to the higher rates of crime (per capita) in Washington DC, the city hired more police officers to keep the citizens safer than they were prior. However, statistics simply tells you that the number of police officers per capita is positively correlated with the number of murders per capita per year. It is up to the reader to logically imply causation.

Now, how does this relate to psychology? Well, we do studies on people to see what happens to them when they are subjected to some stimuli. These results inevitably cause a psychologist to accept his previously defined hypothesis or discard/refine it.

Sounds like a science to me.