The American gun Laws.....can it remain as it is?

They're calling yesterday's event a "black swan theory" event...in that there were no warning signs...no way to see it coming...

Last I read the guns were his mother's and he stole them....

It's no secret that the financial state of american healthcare in general sucks...but if this was really a black swan event than no amount of mental healthcare would of prevented it...over time when all the info is revealed we will learn what happened and how to possibly prevent it

But if we are going to talk about banning things that cause death, lets talk about cigarettes. 81,000 deaths last year, in america alone. It's only purpose is killing.

I think you want to read up the history of tobacco. it was used for trade, celebrations, and as peace treaties. When discovered by europeans, it became a luxury product. saying the purpose of tobacco is to kill people is like saying the purpose of rivers is to drown people. You're confusing side effect with purpose... Not to mention, if we are to use the people kill people, not guns analogy, we can say that cancer kills people, not cigarettes.

ren wrote: Not to mention, if we are to use the people kill people, not guns analogy, we can say that cancer kills people, not cigarettes.

Really? going to play that game? I can do that too, guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Saying cigarettes don't kill people, the cancer it causes does, is the same as saying guns don't kill people, the hemorrhage it causes does.

I think you want to read up the history of tobacco. it was used for trade, celebrations, and as peace treaties. When discovered by europeans, it became a luxury product. saying the purpose of tobacco is to kill people is like saying the purpose of rivers is to drown people.

And the purpose of guns was at one time to put food on the table and protect one's self in the wild.

Actually, no we're not going to play that game, i was pointing out how retarded the argument is.

And the purpose of guns was at one time to put food on the table and protect one's self in the wild and in war.

You really want to brush up on your history. Guns were first used to suppress a christian rebellion in china. Firearms were spread through the rest of the world by... invading armies. (mostly but not only mongols. For example europeans brought firearms to america... You say they were using them to defend themselves from the locals? Their gigantic armies, powerful bows and armor must have really scared the shit of those poor portuguese carpet salesmen.)

how is the purpose of a gun any different than that of a bow besides its range?

Andy, the difference is efficiency and ease of use. How about if everyone could kill telepathically through some new tech? Think there would be some limits on use and ownership cuz of that?

Just curious because people have been condemning it because guns are "designed to kill" So basically it's because its good at what it does.

A lot of things are designed to kill.

We shouldn't allow people to take martial arts either, because it is a matter of "efficiency and easy of use"

Years ago in florida martial artists did have to register with the police upon achieving black belt level...and would have to warn would be attackers...what an epic fail....most people I warned were more eager after the warning than before ...it's a huge feather in the cap to be able to claim defeat of a black belt...though it's been my experience that a lot of bb's may have the knowledge to use the techniques...not as many have the experience to use them in a practical manner...and the best ones have no desire to use them

efficiency and ease of use. Here gun ownership is illegal, and chavs didn't switch to bows.... Because bows are highly regulated too...

I wouldn't call martial arts efficient and easy. I'll let Jestor explain in greater detail, but I'm pretty sure one's hands do not turn into a violent weapon by paying a one-off membership fee and pulling a trigger. Not to mention the martial arts I've seen do not seem aimed at combat efficiency.

ren wrote: Not to mention the martial arts I've seen do not seem aimed at combat efficiency.

Wait.. Your telling me that something originally designed to help people be better killers is not bad in the hands of responceible people?