Revisiting Virginia Tech: An argument about arms

"States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly. " This information corroborates my stance. As this debate goes on I've begun to wonder if your stance is closer to mine, which makes me wonder why you have opted to take this debate. Don't get me wrong, I'm having a great time discussing this with you, but you seem like someone with some sense. I guess I was expecting Michael Moore. "The reason I argue stricter gun control is to protect citizens because if stricter testing would be done, psychosis or previous crimes could be detected and preventing in the purchasing of a gun. And, I would like to argue that it does directly influence the purchase of guns on the black markets. " Then, again, we are in total agreement. I am all for the regulation of weapons, of course. I also am in favor of background checks and waiting periods. Believe me, I do not want weapons in the wrong hands -- namely, people who have PROVEN that they cannot be trusted to own a firearm. My CENTRAL problem is that these bans end up hurting the average citizen who would not use them for nefarious purposes. I agree completely that restrictions should apply to those deemed by professionals to exhibit suicidal and/or homicidal tendencies, either by ideation or action. This, I believe, could have made it much more difficult for Cho to have come to his grizzly conclusion, albeit, slightly. "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe those who push for guns be banned are quite the opposite of those in favor of robust freedom of expression. " Naturally I agree, I only mentioned it because of the irony of it. "Although there are many non-gun assaults, the overall picture of American homicide is that of poorly regulated gun control. " What more besides what currently exists can we do, other than adding mental instability to the foray, some of which certain states instituted before the VT massacre? Gun control is already strict depending upon the state. So here is the problem: Normally I like the fact that states do things independently of other states. I think that is fantastic, and I think it is just what the Framers of the Constitution intended. However, here's something else the Framers intended, as per the Constitution. Anything delegated by the Constitution shall not be usurped or abridged by any state law, as the Bill of Rights is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, what is going in anti-gun states and the District of Columbia is unconstitutional, which is surely why it has reached the Supreme Court. ARTICLE VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. " Beyond this, I can't stress enough how little people neglect societal influence in the amount of murders that occur. Its as if people honestly believe that, 1. Criminals play by the same rules as law abiding citizens, and, 2. That somehow an inanimate object muster all of the world's malice within it. As the next link supports, the cause of death, the motive, the age, the demographic, etc all point to one thing: Societal influence. Gang affiliated crimes with handguns, most of which are purchased illegally (who would use a registered handgun with a serial number linked to their name in a homicide? ) is the number one cause of death by handguns. . http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Did you know that you are allowed to carry an unconcealed weapon in the state of Arizona, a far less violent state than its neighbor, California, which has far stricter gun laws. That's because guns don't shoot themselves. The increase of violence is the greatest indication that it is the people residing there that presents the greatest threat, not the gun itself. "No person shall carry a firearm "concealed on his person. " This does not apply to a person in his dwelling, business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person. A handgun carried in a belt holster which is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage is not considered carrying concealed. " Source: . http://www.nraila.org... I therefore submit that using the Virginia Tech massacre as a way to make some kind of argument against gun rights is specious. About the only good thing that came out of it was that it guided some states to look at mental illness more seriously, which some states already took in to consideration beforehand. There are plenty of restrictions to guns. The real fight is the incursion of illegal weapons being smuggled in to the underground networks. These are where the bulk of the homicide-related weapons originate, not at gun shows. The answer that stares us in the face is that we need to take a closer look at what is getting in to our children's minds, and be less concerned about Sig Sauer .40 caliber.