1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Strict anti-gun laws in India made it easy for terrorists

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Steeltoe, Dec 10, 2008.

  1. Steeltoe

    Steeltoe What's my move?

  2. Robert

    Robert Flies all green 'n buzzin

  3. LookOutRossi

    LookOutRossi Banned

    I agree. The statement about VTech says it all. Solution to 911=hand every passenger a .45 as they board the plane.:D
  4. RockRocks

    RockRocks head goober

    ding ding ding, WRONG. Your perfect score continues :p

    And you continue to take the bait. Guns are not the causal factor. In my opinion after studying and thinking alot about this, the root cause you are looking for is the level of anomie in a society.


    When the feeling that you cannot influence your destiny and your future is not bright exists among a populace, after a certain point, personal norms descend to the level that aberrant behavior becomes viable. Then chaos ensues.

    The answer it multivariate. Economic systems, educational opportunities, the chance that hard work will pay off, the list is endless. These all factor into one's perception of whether personal behavior can positively impact one's progress and standing in sociaety,

    All this is mushed together at an individual and group level, and determines the degree of anomie and (my contention) the resulting ills, like crime, random violence etc. present in a given society.

    Projecting these factors onto an individual incident and debating how that would have changed the event is a waste of time
  5. cujo

    cujo Well-Known Member

    Switzerland is a perfect example, very very high gun ownership and almost no violent crime. I am not making the argument that the gun ownership is the reason for low crime, But apparently the fact that guns are available to the public does not "cause" gun violence. Then we can look at a country like India where apparently taking everyone's right to own guns away has not stopped violent crime.

    and yes there were plenty of cases of Jews that did fight back ,some died and some survived. "While one in 10 Eastern European Jews survived the Holocaust, two out of every three Jewish partisans survived."
  6. jschmidt

    jschmidt Well-Known Member

    Being next to Pakistan has more to do with this attack than gun laws.
  7. Czolgosz

    Czolgosz Banned

  8. tony 340

    tony 340 Well-Known Member

    Guarantee if I was in one of the VT classes I could have taken that MF'er out no problem.

    I wouldn't have prevented it all together, but I would have put a stop to it.

    I say at least arm the professors.

    Look at airplanes now. There's an armed marshall on lots of flights. Carrying CONCEALED.

    Is that a bad thing?
  9. Jefe

    Jefe Wannabe

    That depends on whether you're planning ill will for those on the plane or not. :up:
  10. iused2ride

    iused2ride Banned

    LOL. Miami is like 11 in murders and 9 in violent crimes.

    I'm pro gun. Everyone that wants should have one. Don't care. All the speculation of what makes what safe is also bs.

    Only criminals commit crimes with guns. Meaning, if you legally carry, get drunk and whack your wife, you fall under a criminal with a gun. Not a law abiding citizen that commuted a crime, because you are not law abiding anymore. The statistics are messed up.

    It's like saying only drunk people get dwi's.

    One more point, if I was an armed robber and thought you were armed, I'd just shoot you in the back of the head and take your money instead of just sticking you up.

    Can't stop now. You might stop one planned out masacre if you were armed. How many unplanned murders would happen spur of the moment if everyone was armed?
  11. iused2ride

    iused2ride Banned

    A well organized terrorist could walk onto a plane with no weapons. Identify the Marshall. Take his weapon. Hi-jack the plane. How does your conceal weapon scenerio sound now? You brought the gun on for the terrorist.
  12. Triumph#207

    Triumph#207 Well-Known Member

    As you say, Switzerland is a good example of gun ownership and low crime rate. However,there are very good reasons for this. Guns under indivual ownership in Switzerland are intended for one purpose and one only and that is to be ready at short notice to defend against an invading army not to shoot at each other. For this reason the guns are kept under strict government control. Remember Switzerland is a very small country and was surrounded by potential enemies during WWII.

    The other reaon is that they are a civilized country like most European countries that are occupied by mostly law abiding citizens and don't need a gun for personal protection.

    Somehow, don't think the gun nuts in the USA would like the strict rules that apply to gun ownership in Switzerland so, with all due respect, not a good example to prove your point.

    Last edited: Dec 11, 2008
  13. RCjohn

    RCjohn Killin machine.

    I can't imagine a single one of my professors being armed. :wow:

    Now half of the TAs probably were armed. :D
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2008
  14. Robert

    Robert Flies all green 'n buzzin

    I thought the pro-gun rationale was that more guns would lower crime and make European countries like Bosnia more law abiding?
  15. Robert

    Robert Flies all green 'n buzzin

    If you compare various countries to the US there is no perfect example because there is no singular correlation between gun ownership and gun control laws versus homicide rates. Besides the relative poverty level, there are dozens of cultural, ethnic and religious reasons unique to each country which have to be looked at in a historical context to make any sense:

  16. RCjohn

    RCjohn Killin machine.

    It's very complicated. Lot's of factors that make different countries unique to others.

    Population, where most homicides take places. Those other countries are country whereas we are States and individual states have individual gun laws.

    Compare the areas in the US and their homicides, laws and amount of guns. See how that works out from state to state and then compare the populations then the unemployment, drug use, etc. etc.

    So many variables.
  17. Czolgosz

    Czolgosz Banned

    So the guns are trained for a singular purpose? Fascinating guns. :D

    Is that to say the US is not a civilized country? Are you implying that Americans are not mostly law abiding?

    Overall, statistics w/ regards to "gun crimes" (those wacky guns) are insignificant. Completely and utterly insignificant.

    Anti-gun is no different than anti-homo. It's simply a personal dislike for something and using Democracy to trample on individuals.

    (contemplating the visceral response; over half of all aids related cases come from the homosecsual community. Those numbers? Also statistically insignificant)
  18. Triumph#207

    Triumph#207 Well-Known Member

  19. Czolgosz

    Czolgosz Banned

  20. cannonballcobb

    cannonballcobb Registered Offender

    Don't you think the Marshall would fire his weapon 1st?

    I say install 2 foot long hickory clubs in the backs of every seat.

    Even with guns, 1 or 2 terrorists might kill a dozen or so passengers, but there would still be a couple hundred club wielding, pissed off folks still capable of administering a proper beat down.


Share This Page