How Do Gun Laws Influence College Shootings?

[Anttech]

Same reason Europeans and S. Americans can't just accept that soccer incites fans to violence. Talk about barbarism --- how many people die in soccer riots a year?

Less than by guns, fact.

Football hoollaganism isn't tolerated in Europe anymore, teams are fined vast amounts of money if their supporters riot. In the UK I can't think of any cases for a long time, as a matter of fact I can't think of any cases in Europe for a long time. I remember some Leeds United Fan being stabed in Istanbul a few years ago, but that wasnt at the actual game. If you want to broaden the scope of your argument to include any Football Hooliganism gang banging then there would be a few more. But that's just gangbanging and not a lot to do with soccer inciting violence.

Perhaps in the 80's at games but since the inception of all seater stadiums and cctv cameras everywhere there hasnt been any deaths I can think of, at Football games. I have no idea about S.America.

Obviously you haven't talked to many Europeans about the state of Hooliganism, its talked about in the media rather a lot, and we don't like it, and can safely admit that there were problems in the game, thus FIFA and UEFA started introducing the fining mechanisms and "say no to racism" etc etc... If we couldnt/didnt admit to ourselfs their was a serious problem, we wouldn't have done anything about it Admitting there is a problem is usually the first step in resolving that problem.

 

[Anttech]

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of violent crime in the US is concentrated in large cities, specifically with populations of 1 million or more, and of those cities, mostly in inner city ghettos. I was looking over the statistics last night, but don't have access to them from work right now. The US is huge, the majority of the country has very low crime and is quite safe. I personally have never in my life gone into an inner city ghetto and can't imagine that I ever will.

Cant argue with that.

 

[Bystander]

Less than by guns, fact.

Yup --- and more than at trap and skeet shoots, pistol matches, Wimbledon (long range rifle), and other shooting sports. Just something about soccer balls.

Football hoollaganism isn't tolerated in Europe anymore, teams are fined vast amounts of money if their supporters riot. In the UK I can't think of any cases for a long time, as a matter of fact I can't think of any cases in Europe for a long time.

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/06/16/55.asp
It's not the soccer, Europe is a violent culture.

I remember some Leeds United Fan being stabed in Istanbul a few years ago, but that wasnt at the actual game. If you want to broaden the scope of your argument to include any Football Hooliganism gang banging then there would be a few more. But that's just gangbanging and not a lot to do with soccer inciting violence.

Perhaps in the 80's at games but since the inception of all seater stadiums and cctv cameras everywhere there hasnt been any deaths I can think of, at Football games. I have no idea about S.America.

Obviously you haven't talked to many Europeans about the state of Hooliganism, its talked about in the media rather a lot, and we don't like it, and can safely admit that there were problems in the game, thus FIFA and UEFA started introducing the fining mechanisms and "say no to racism" etc etc... If we couldnt/didnt admit to ourselfs their was a serious problem, we wouldn't have done anything about it Admitting there is a problem is usually the first step in resolving that problem.

You did see the Interpol-UN crime statistics link? U.S. homicide rate is equal to the world average. Are you suggesting that the U.S. be held to a higher standard? Since we don't have a history of soccer riots, and do have a history of gun ownership, we aren't being violent enough? Or, are we making you look even more violent? Europeans can't control themselves at soccer games, and the damn Yanks curb their impulses to kill when "satisfaction" is just a trigger pull away --- makes you look uncivilized?

It isn't the availability of weapons. It's the commitment of the citizenry to abide by law. Overall crime statistics for U.S. suggest it's a lower commitment; violent crime statistics for U.S. indicate "par" for the world. Gun ownership doesn't make the U.S. more violent than the world, doesn't make the U.S. more dangerous. Baptists running stoplines to make it to Wednesday night whatever at the church make it dangerous --- closest to getting killed in my life --- and that includes a year in a war zone.

 

[Anttech]

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/06/16/55.asp
It's not the soccer, Europe is a violent culture.

1998? Why not pull something from the real archives. As I said it isn't tolerated in Europe any more.

You did see the Interpol-UN crime statistics link? U.S. homicide rate is equal to the world average. Are you suggesting that the U.S. be held to a higher standard? Since we don't have a history of soccer riots, and do have a history of gun ownership, we aren't being violent enough? Or, are we making you look even more violent? Europeans can't control themselves at soccer games, and the damn Yanks curb their impulses to kill when "satisfaction" is just a trigger pull away --- makes you look uncivilized?

I didnt actually attack you, or your country, I was attacking the concept legalised weapons. What is your excuse for inferring I am violent, and come from a violent culture? And more to the point, what has that got to do with legalised weapons? You really are the master of the strawman, and Ad hominem I have seen you do it so often.

It isn't the availability of weapons. It's the commitment of the citizenry to abide by law. Overall crime statistics for U.S. suggest it's a lower commitment; violent crime statistics for U.S. indicate "par" for the world. Gun ownership doesn't make the U.S. more violent than the world, doesn't make the U.S. more dangerous. Baptists running stoplines to make it to Wednesday night whatever at the church make it dangerous --- closest to getting killed in my life --- and that includes a year in a war zone.

This is a forum, not a monologue, I can't understand your grammar, or more to the point, your lack of grammar.

 

[ShawnD]

I can't ever wrap my head around the concept of gun control. People keep thinking it's a good idea even when common sense practically slaps them in the face to say it doens't work.
Fact: handguns are illegal in Canada
Fact: handguns are not at all hard to find in Edmonton

If handguns are illegal, how the hell do these asian gang members all have handguns? A law obviously did nothing to stop the flow of guns. So where did they come from? Probably the US, but if the US makes handguns illegal, the guns will come from Iran, or Pakistan, or Mexico, or Russia. There will always be some country where handguns are easy to get and can be shipped over to Canada. If we can't stop the flow of guns, or even slow it down, we might as well not make it a crime to own one.

Due to recent changes in Canadian gun laws (registration), everybody I know is now an criminal because we own unregistered guns. I actually need to find foreign suppliers just for some damn bullets.

Gun Facts

 

[Evo]

That reminds me of another slogan "if owning a gun is a crime only criminals will own guns".

 

[shmoe]

If we can't stop the flow of guns, or even slow it down, we might as well not make it a crime to own one.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. How is not being able to keep handguns out of peoples hands a reason to take away legal deterrents for possesion?

Due to recent changes in Canadian gun laws (registration), everybody I know is now an criminal because we own unregistered guns. I actually need to find foreign suppliers just for some damn bullets.

So what's stopping you guys from registering your guns?

 

[ShawnD]

That reminds me of another slogan "if owning a gun is a crime only criminals will own guns".

That's exactly the problem.

One stat gun control advocates don't like to look at is the country of Switzerland. It's the most heavily armed country in the world by almost any standard you can throw at it, but their crime is not out of control. Why?

 

[scorpa]

So what's stopping you guys from registering your guns?

The guns registry was one of the stupidest things ever...stupid liberals. It costs a fortune to register your guns, and for no real reason. Gee crime rate didn't go down and the criminals didnt register their guns, how suprising that it just turned out to be a waste of how many billion dollars. I'm so glad that the conservatives got rid of it...I believe now you still have to register handguns but you aren't required to register your rifles and shotguns.

 

[ShawnD]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. How is not being able to keep handguns out of peoples hands a reason to take away legal deterrents for possesion?

It's a reason to take away deterrents because those deterrents do nothing. Want a similar example of useless deterrents? The US war on drugs. Americans can get 10 years in jail for carrying a joint, yet marijuana is still a cultural icon and the vast majority of Americans have tried marijuana at least once.

By now you probably want to know my solution, and yes I have one. Make guns easy to buy, but require a simple background check. You go into buy a gun, you give them your name and some other information, the store does a background check, when it comes up clear, they call you up and you pickup your gun. It's easy, it's fast, it does a simple check to make sure you're not crazy. They will not keep a record of which gun you purchased or how many bullets you bought. Criminals tend to buy their guns on the streets, so guns involved in crime wouldn't be tracable by gun registration anyway.

So how does this differ from the current setup we have? First off, the current setup requires you take a course. You sit in some stupid class for the better part of a day and you learn useless crap you'll never do such as "don't aim at people". If I wanted to learn how not to defend my home, I would simply destroy my gun. I should be taught to effectively aim at intruders and land kill shots, but no this is gun safety so we'll just skip the home defense portion. Secondly, the current setup requires you to tell them all the guns you own. I'm only against this because it has historically been the first step towards gun confiscation. Lastly, the current system has an anual fee. Why should I need to keep paying a fee to keep a gun I already paid for? Are they going to come to my house and confiscate my gun if I don't pay them? Probably not, but it suddenly becomes illegal for me to own my gun or buy bullets, which is total BS.

So what's stopping you guys from registering your guns?

Basically it boils down to the fact that I don't want my name to end up on a list of potential anything. Our current government is great, and I don't fear them, but what about tomorow? Will our next government be a bunch of fanatics who try to use the existing list as a list of people to take guns from and or kill? It happened in Germany. What if Canada was invaded by the US? Would the occupying army use that list to disarm the population?
These situations are extremely unlikely, but that doesn't mean they're impossible.

 

[ShawnD]

.I believe now you still have to register handguns but you aren't required to register your rifles and shotguns.

I don't know if you need to register them, but I think you still need an FAC license. That's the stupid training thing I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Evo]

This is just a joke , so no one start asking for links to back up statistics. I just thought it went along with the topic.

US Gun Statistics
Various Sources
2-2-5

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

 

[scorpa]

Haha that's a good one EVO

 

[scorpa]

I don't know if you need to register them, but I think you still need an FAC license. That's the stupid training thing I mentioned in my previous post.

FAC license? Is that an actual training course where you go to some sort of classroom and they teach you how to use guns because I have never heard of anyone having to do that...or maybe people are supposed to and just don't ...I don't know.

 

[Bystander]

1998? Why not pull something from the real archives. As I said it isn't tolerated in Europe any more.

http://english.people.com.cn/200406/17/eng20040617_146615.html
When's the next championship?

I didnt actually attack you, or your country, I was attacking the concept legalised weapons.

Without evidence.

What is your excuse for inferring I am violent, and come from a violent culture?

Same as yours for "attacking the concept of legalized weapons." Opinion is just that, opinion. Some opinions are based on experience, or other evidence; some are not. You've pointed at the homicide rate in the U.S. and blamed it on legalized firearm ownership; I've pointed at soccer violence and blamed it on a violent culture in Europe --- both are insupportable assertions of cause and effect.

And more to the point, what has that got to do with legalised weapons?

Your argument against the concept is groundless --- the homicide rate in the U.S. (legal firearms) is on par with the global homicide rate, and the fan violence rate at sporting events in the U.S. is far lower than that for the rest of the world. The U.S. is NOT a violent country, nor do legalized firearms contribute to an unusual level of violence in the country. This can be contrasted, again, to the adverse effect soccer balls have on human behavior elsewhere in the world.

(snip drivel) That, "(snip drivel)," is an ad hominem, as is the following: "Grammar;" People living in glass houses are best advised to not throw stones. In the second, I imply to the reader that your command of the language is less than comprehensive so that the reader may infer that same idea, devaluing your credibility in the forum. It is ad hominem when I attack you, and not ad hominem when I attack your arguments.

"Strawman (also straw-man) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man " arguments require that I misrepresent facts or arguments others present, then rebut the misrepresentation to make my case. Have I misrepresented your position?

 

[Cyrus]

I will repost this because when I tried to the servers messed up. My previous professor was big into guns. He goes shooting, and has taken students with him in the past. (Not as a class, but because those students were into guns as well). Turns out he goes shooting with the guy that owns my hobby shop.

I think everyone should learn how to shoot and hold a gun, so less people hurt themselves by accident. Lack of education can kill. (Just not by that DEA cop)

 

[shmoe]

It's a reason to take away deterrents because those deterrents do nothing.

I have to disagree. It's not going to stop most criminals, but it will stop or at least make the honest and law-abiding people think twice before trying to get illegal firearms. There are enough irresponsible but otherwise law-abiding yobbo's out there that I'm happy they can't get handguns easily.

Basically it boils down to the fact that I don't want my name to end up on a list of potential anything. Our current government is great, and I don't fear them, but what about tomorow? Will our next government be a bunch of fanatics who try to use the existing list as a list of people to take guns from and or kill? It happened in Germany. What if Canada was invaded by the US? Would the occupying army use that list to disarm the population?
These situations are extremely unlikely, but that doesn't mean they're impossible.

I guess that's fair, very paranoid in my opinion. Doesn't justify breaking the law in my eyes though.


A little bit about the Swiss:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Their culture is pretty different from Canada and the US. I'd imagine the mandatory military service involves not only extensive gun safety training but also training of the killing kind that you'd like. If everyone in Canada went through this kind of training, it would probably change many peoples views (mine at least).

 

[Anttech]

"Strawman (also straw-man) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man " arguments require that I misrepresent facts or arguments others present, then rebut the misrepresentation to make my case. Have I misrepresented your position?

By clever use of leading questions you attempted to, and I am sure many people would have seen and infered from your leading questions that I actually thought, " that the U.S. should be held to a higher standard?" or perhaps I thought "you weren't being violent enough?"

(snip drivel) That, "(snip drivel)," is an ad hominem, as is the following: "Grammar;" People living in glass houses are best advised to not throw stones. In the second, I imply to the reader that your command of the language is less than comprehensive so that the reader may infer that same idea, devaluing your credibility in the forum. It is ad hominem when I attack you, and not ad hominem when I attack your arguments.

It was actually some advice, because your monolog method of communication can be rather difficult to follow. No need to take offence, I for one find your "---'s" very difficult to comprehend.

Your argument against the concept is groundless --- the homicide rate in the U.S. (legal firearms) is on par with the global homicide rate, and the fan violence rate at sporting events in the U.S. is far lower than that for the rest of the world. The U.S. is NOT a violent country, nor do legalized firearms contribute to an unusual level of violence in the country. This can be contrasted, again, to the adverse effect soccer balls have on human behavior elsewhere in the world.

I will presume you mean: 'the homicide rate in the U.S. using Legal firearms is on par with the global homicide rate."

Since firearms are so obtainable in the US, legally, that would have a direct influence on the amount of Illegal firearms, wouldn't it? So to not include all murders by firearms, would not paint the most balanced picture.

Same as yours for "attacking the concept of legalized weapons." Opinion is just that, opinion. Some opinions are based on experience, or other evidence; some are not. You've pointed at the homicide rate in the U.S. and blamed it on legalized firearm ownership; I've pointed at soccer violence and blamed it on a violent culture in Europe --- both are insupportable assertions of cause and effect.

Glad you admitted that your opinion was baseless. I actually was inferring that since guns etc are so readly available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc to increase. I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill"

 

[Anttech]

http://english.people.com.cn/200406/...17_146615.html
When's the next championship?

Where are the deaths, you were inferring to?

I like this part, seems to correlate with what I was saying:

UEFA had warned the English Football Association that the national team could be banned from the tournament if fans cause trouble in Portugal.

The head of the British police force offering advice at Euro 2004 said the rioters were a disgrace but added that the incidents bore no signs of organized soccer hooliganism.

 

[ShawnD]

It's not going to stop most criminals, but it will stop or at least make the honest and law-abiding people think twice before trying to get illegal firearms.

Actually since they don't have a legal option, they'll be quicker to jump to the illegal option. If you can buy a gun at Walmart, you'll buy a gun at Walmart. If you need to buy it from a gun dealer, who's also probably a crack dealer, that's who you'll go to. Something like ebay is more my style, but not everybody knows how to use ebay.

 

[Bystander]

By clever use of leading questions you attempted to, and I am sure many people would have seen and infered from your leading questions that I actually thought, " that the U.S. should be held to a higher standard?" or perhaps I thought "you weren't being violent enough?"

At which point you say, "No," and "No," and state what you do mean. I asked if those were your intended meanings.

It was actually some advice, because your monolog method of communication can be rather difficult to follow. No need to take offence, I for one find your "---'s" very difficult to comprehend.

Tough.

I will presume you mean: 'the homicide rate in the U.S. using Legal firearms is on par with the global homicide rate."

You presume incorrectly --- read the Interpol-UN statistics link.

Since firearms are so obtainable in the US, legally, that would have a direct influence on the amount of Illegal firearms, wouldn't it?

Certainly not. Illegal firearms (automatic weapons, silenced weapons, and whatever else is included under the heading "illegal") are far more common per capita in N. Ireland than in the U.S..

So to not include all murders by firearms, would not paint the most balanced picture.

The Interpol-UN statistics INCLUDE all homicides; try reading the link. You are plucking "straw" from thin air to build your "straw-man."

Glad you admitted that your opinion was baseless. I actually was inferring that since guns etc

"etc" refers to baseball bats, knives, Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the lead pipe, and other implements of mayhem?

are so readly available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc

Again, "etc" refers to homicides committed with instruments other than firearms?

to increase.

You keep trying to sneak around the Intepol-UN statistics. Brings up the question again, "Is a homicide rate that is equal to the global rate high?" And, the other question, "Are you applying a different standard to the U.S. than to the rest of the world?" Does it startle you that people who are expected to be responsible for their actions can behave responsibly?

I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill"

Your penultimate sentence directly contradicts your final sentence.

Outlawing the kris, khukri, and kirpan is not going to reduce the homicide rates in Indonesia, Nepal, and India. Homicide is the result of human intent, not inanimate objects.

 

[Anttech]

Tough.

So obfuscating your argument is intentional?

Your penultimate sentence directly contradicts your final sentence.

"I actually was inferring that since guns etc are so readily available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc to increase. I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill""

There is no contradiction.

People who own guns legally are not more likely to kill, but since guns are more available legally, it follows that they would also be more available illegally.

Certainly not. Illegal firearms (automatic weapons, silenced weapons, and whatever else is included under the heading "illegal") are far more common per capita in N. Ireland than in the U.S..

Scraping the bottom of the barrel? In case you didnt know N.Ireland has had rather a lot of problems in recent years. There are as many as 10 large Militant terrorist groups there. N.Ireland also has a population <2 Million and to top it of N.Ireland is Not a country. Why not make a comparison between the Whole of the USA and Brixton in London?

"etc" refers to baseball bats, knives, Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the lead pipe, and other implements of mayhem?

No it refers to all types of Guns. You know automatic, hand...

At which point you say, "No," and "No," and state what you do mean. I asked if those were your intended meanings.

I don't answer leading questions, nor to I tolerate people trying to put words in my mouth, especially words that misrepresent my views.

 

[Cyrus]

To Recap:

You said, post #15:

However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.

And you were wrong, as shown below.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9813/gsupplyxf3.gif

Then you said:

What exactly was the data saying? That although there is lots of violent crime in the US its decreasing, because everyone is so responsible with there weapons, or because the cops are better at their jobs.

the data that shows you don't know what your talking about...

So let's take that 2% and extrapolate a bit, if 100 people have guns then 2 are used in violent crimes, if you have 10,000,000 then 200,000 are used.

Then you try to make up your own data...

"I actually was inferring that since guns etc are so readily available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc to increase. I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill""

Why did you bring this wrong statement back up to life? Did you not see the graph I provided?

People who own guns legally are not more likely to kill, but since guns are more available legally, it follows that they would also be more available illegally

How do you know? Got some data to back that up?

Please explain shawnD's comments about switzerland, which further shows how wrong your argument is? (And try to avoid opinion and speculation, which you have been doing to no end so far)

 

[JasonRox]

Guess what?!

You won't believe what happened just like 30 minutes ago.

The police, fire department and whatever lab stuff swarmed our school!

Check it out... http://www.brocku.ca

They found threatening letters with white powder in them. They are testing it out with the obvious test of whether or not it is Anthrax.

Anyways, I'm at school doing nothing. The TV crew and all them are here. It's starting to rain, so that's going to suck for the officers outside.

 

[Cyrus]

Doesnt that show you that guns are not the problem? ...

 

[Evo]

Guess what?!

You won't believe what happened just like 30 minutes ago.

The police, fire department and whatever lab stuff swarmed our school!

Check it out... http://www.brocku.ca

They found threatening letters with white powder in them. They are testing it out with the obvious test of whether or not it is Anthrax.

Anyways, I'm at school doing nothing. The TV crew and all them are here. It's starting to rain, so that's going to suck for the officers outside.

The world is so full of crazy people. Keep us updated Jason. Don't sniff the white stuff, k?

 

[JasonRox]

The world is so full of crazy people. Keep us updated Jason. Don't sniff the white stuff, k?

But what if it's goo...

So, our school will be on TV tonight for sure especially after what happened just last week. That's crazy publicity for us.

 

[JasonRox]

Doesnt that show you that guns are not the problem? ...

Um... Nope.

 

[Cyrus]

Then you have not learned a thing in this thread.

 

[JasonRox]

Then you have not learned a thing in this thread.

The reason why I say is because not all crazy people can obtain biological "weapons" and such. Therefore, some resort to simple things like a knife and injure or kill one person.

On the other hand, in the US, a crazy person does not need to get biological "weapons" to kill lots of people. They easily buy a gun and shoot away.

 

[Cyrus]

On the other hand, in the US, a crazy person does not need to get biological "weapons" to kill lots of people. They easily buy a gun and shoot away.

I would like to see some data on how many people buy a gun for the sole purpose of shooting away, as you say. Need I remind you why this thread was started, because a CANADIAN shot at kids?

 

[Anttech]

How do you know? Got some data to back that up?

Took me under 1 minute on google..

The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA. No new legal full-autos have been manufactured for the civilian population since 1986, causing the economic rules of supply and demand to drive the prices of existing automatic weapons well above the cost of manufacturing and distributing them, making it impractical for most Americans to afford a legal automatic firearm even if they do legally qualify for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

AMERICANS FOR GUN SAFETY FOUNDATION REPORT SHOWS
170,000 FIREARMS STOLEN EVERY YEAR WASHINGTON -- 1,695,482 firearms have been reported stolen to police since 1993, and they are frequently used in later crimes, according to a report released today by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (AGSF).
http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm

Are you seriously going to claim that making a Object (any object) legal to own is going to decrease the circulation of that said object?

As for ShawnD’s argument, IMHO you can't compare Swizerland and the US. It would be more akin to comparing violent crime in the more afluent areas of the US compared to the Ghetos of NY. As Evo said, and I aggree with, the US is huge, and it has many faces (paraphrasing). Most Violent crime is in the Larger cities and usually in the poorer area’s. Swizerland doesn’t have that problem. The US does, so its feable comparrison, but convient for you, as it allows you not to think about the circulation driven by the legalisation of weapons, and point blankly claim “There isn't a problem”

 

[Evo]

Took me under 1 minute on google..

What has that got to do with what Cyrus asked you?

You said

People who own guns legally are not more likely to kill, but since guns are more available legally, it follows that they would also be more available illegally

So Cyrus asked

How do you know? Got some data to back that up?

And you answer

The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.

Please explain to me how legal weapons made and sold here in the US increased the number of guns that had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.

That right there is the reason making gun ownership illegal only takes them away form non-criminals. Criminals and crazy people will still get guns illegally.

 

[Anttech]

Why are you selectively quoting me?

Please explain to me how legal weapons made and sold here in the US increased the number of guns that had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.

I honestly don't know how to "show you how legal weapons made and sold here in the US increased the number of guns that had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA" As I wasnt asserting that.

Edit: But I think I can answer that anyway: IMO if you have the infrastructure in place already to sell weapons, then it is easier to introduce black and grey area weapons into the mix. If you don't have that infrastructure already it would be more difficult to introduce the weapons. Basic Buisness 101

The link you have a problem with was to show how many Illegal firearms are in circulation, the next (which was ignored) was to show how many are stolen in one area, per year. Probably the first link is redundant to this argument, but I just wanted to show how many Illegal automatic weapons were in circulation.

The second link I provided is more relevant to this argument, as it shows how many are stolen each year. If you have a lot of legal weapons in circulation many are going to get stolen, and thus the amount of Illegal weapons is going to increase, Right?

Seems like I am talking to a brick wall here, ohh well.

 

[Bystander]

The reason why I say is because not all crazy people can obtain biological "weapons" and such. Therefore, some resort to simple things like a knife and injure or kill one person.(snip)

Curious assertion given the USDA, FDA, state boards of health, water quality regulations, and all the other social constructs in place to keep us all from killing each other accidentally. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/food_poisoning/stats.htm
Seventy to eighty million food poisoning cases a year, and five thousand deaths in spite of efforts to control the problem would suggest that the availability of biological "weapons" is universal. Biological assaults probably don't provide the gratification or sense of accomplishment one feels from crushing someone's larynx between the thumbs, and that may explain the small number of reports of such crimes; "died after prolonged illness" isn't the sort of thing a DA can have a coroner present to a grand jury and expect to get an indictment, either. Under-reported in the homicide statistics? Maybe --- "killing's too quick" animosities do exist between people.