oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,689
Of course we have to talk about guns when we hear about these things. The fact is, there are more guns per capita in Canada and they don't have the same ratio of gun violence that we do. So I can't say that guns are the main issue in these cases.
It would be very, very difficult to ban guns in our country. We have a national mythology that involves gun ownership. It's a part of our culture. And in this day and age, banning them would not prevent them from being obtained.
Yes, I think mentally ill people and criminals should be barred from gun ownership but many of these mass shooters have no criminal history or diagnosed mental problem before the murders.
Nuts with a vendetta are hard to stop. Sure, guns make it easier to achieve their goal (and it bothers me that we glorify guns so much in our culture) but McVeigh killed 168 people without a gun. They would likely find a way, with a gun or not, regardless if we had a ban.
What I don't want to hear, though, is that he would have been stopped if everyone was armed. In such an event, there would likely be more deaths due to crossfire.
I dont think we glorify guns but they are a part of our heritage and also part of our constitution.
No one knows if he could have been stopped if someone there had a weapon. We certainly have seen and read about other cases where crimes were stopped when a legal gunowner had a weapon and an opportunity to use it to stop the perpretrator.
But you are right...banning weapons is certainly not the answer. If that were the case then only the criminals would have guns because criminals do not abide by laws and would get illegal firearms. And illegal firearms are used much more often than those who use an legally obtained gun.
imo