Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Burning Zeppelin on April 16, 2007, 10:06:04 pm
-
Ergh, these shootings have got to stop. I don't need to be told that these are actually very uncommon and that the media just hypes the issue up, but it's one too many. What should we do to nurture the people into becoming a better society?
-
Give them a way to violently express themselves without harming themselves or others?
-
It's horrible, I can't even imagine, or want to, what it's like to be a parent and know you have a kid or friend going to Virginia Tech. It's not a matter of it being uncommon, or having the media hype it up, because having it happen once is one time too many. For whatever unfortunate reason, we're now in the era of people not only being suicidal, but having the urge to take other people down with them in the process. I'm not even sure what else to say, it's astounding to me that anyone would do this.
Give them a way to violently express themselves without harming themselves or others?
Mandatory paintball :o
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17virginia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Ehh, it makes me feel sick that after the first round of shootings the campus wasnt shut down. Just because the gunman had supposedly "left campus" there was no reason to suspect that he wouldnt come back, and at any rate a school should shut down after a tragedy like that. But I cant be too angry with the faculty, they are hurting just as much as everyone else. Man, this is really sad to hear about...
-
How do we prevent stuff like that? It is a difficult question. Abstractly, we have three elements to work with: 1) The idea itself of committing public slaughter in a specific way; 2) The motive to do so; 3) The means to do so. A person needs all three of those--and only those--in order to be able to shoot up a group of people.
The first part of that lethal equation--the idea itself--is the hardest to prevent without either infringing upon people's core civil liberties, or consigning them to ignorance--or both. Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible. Imagining slaughter is pretty easy, because images of it have abounded in our culture, in every culture, since the dawn of civilization. And, in a more philosophical sense, I think we would lose an important part of our humanity by not being able to envision acts of destruction--an ability that sits at the core of human ethics.
The second part--the motive--is probably the easiest to address on paper, because it requires only a single dictum--to be applied to all facets of our society, from parents to television show producers: "Raise good children." The problem is that we don't know how to do that at the collective level, and it has to be at the collective level. It won't matter how fine an individual child is raised to be if he or she is not compatible with society at large. Trouble would be inevitable. Only a society where the parts are raised in the context of the whole will people have a good chance of not becoming disgruntled, embittered, despondent, or even murderous. And here's a twist to thicken the stew: To get there, people would have to give up many liberties that we now take for granted (especially in the United States). To frame it outside of a conservative mindset, it would require a significant evolution in the fabric of our culture--and in the minds of individuals. But, short of accomplishing this lofty goal completely, I do believe we can make great strides toward accomplishing it partially. I don't want to get into the thick of that stuff here, because it'll inevitably cause political arguments, but you can imagine the sorts of things I'm talking about: Raise literacy, support troubled kids, discourage bigotry (sorry, fat-haters), reduce poverty, provide structure for kids to express their energies, increase state authority to override incompetent parents, and so on. Unfortunately, all of those things are either expensive, progressive, authoritarian, or even some combination of the three, and are certain to generate opposition.
Sadly, this means it is all but certain that some people--too many--will be able to envision mass slaughter, and will eventually, through life's experiences, develop the motive to commit such an act. All we have left is to ignore our instincts to nurture that person, and instead stop them from carrying out their scheme...the third part of our three-part equation to murder. Now this is simple: If you meant to kill a lot of people, what tools would you want to have? That's easy: Guns. They are widely available and deadly effective. They give you an almost absolute physical advantage over those who do not have them, and the rudiments of their use are easily learned. Other methods of mass murder--chlorine bleach, vehicles, bladed weapons--are much less likely to occur to a would-be killer because they are variously harder to get, harder to use, less effective, or low in utility. The single biggest thing we could do to prevent mass murder with a minimum abrogation of the liberties of the people, is to make guns much harder to bear, and harder still to keep.
Gun control. So it comes down to that. There is no single policy that would have a wider-reaching, more immediate, less costly effect.
-
No single statue short of some Draconian restriction or activity will prevent civil shootings. A shooting is a problem of society manifesting itself. If you want to try, then at the university level provide on-location counseling and depression support services; at the personal level, care for your friends if they are suffering from a deep issue; at the societal level, improve the way the world works to ensure quality of life and justice for all. But as it stands, there is no one-shot legislation for combating cretinism. The former largest U.S. massacre inspired Texas to enable civilians to carry concealed weapons with ease, though I haven't had time to research whether any changes in violence have occurred as a result. It's a creative solution, but one that needs close observation to measure its worth.
I'm posting this before reading Lord J's post, which was made during this draft's creation.
-
How do we prevent stuff like that? It is a difficult question. Abstractly, we have three elements to work with: 1) The idea itself of committing public slaughter in a specific way; 2) The motive to do so; 3) The means to do so. A person needs all three of those--and only those--in order to be able to shoot up a group of people.
And unfortunately these things are big in the news. So now people see this as a way to let this type of violence out on others, and heck, maybe even make big enough a splash to get on the national news like this one and Columbine. Sick, but it seems to be true.
Gun control. So it comes down to that. There is no single policy that would have a wider-reaching, more immediate, less costly effect.
I don't really see that as an answer. So you take away guns. That leaves knives, explosives, and plenty other tools of murder, not to mention if guns were made illegal, the smuggling and what not would be rampant.
-
I don't really see that as an answer. So you take away guns. That leaves knives, explosives, and plenty other tools of murder, not to mention if guns were made illegal, the smuggling and what not would be rampant.
All of these things are variously available today--yet people overwhelmingly eschew them in favor of guns. The logic is that by eliminating the easiest means to an end, fewer people will reach their end.
-
I don't really see that as an answer. So you take away guns. That leaves knives, explosives, and plenty other tools of murder, not to mention if guns were made illegal, the smuggling and what not would be rampant.
All of these things are variously available today--yet people overwhelmingly eschew them in favor of guns. The logic is that by eliminating the easiest means to an end, fewer people will reach their end.
Yes, making it harder will drop off some of the people who are just barely over the edge towards doing something like this. But there will still be those that are just intent on killing others along with themselves. The gun-control thing is also a slippery slope, do you mean banning all guns? Some? If you look at it that way, guns will become the new alcohol like the 1920's.
-
Yes, making it harder will drop off some of the people who are just barely over the edge towards doing something like this. But there will still be those that are just intent on killing others along with themselves. The gun-control thing is also a slippery slope, do you mean banning all guns? Some? If you look at it that way, guns will become the new alcohol like the 1920's.
I am curious to see how you would support those statements.
-
I don't really see that as an answer. So you take away guns. That leaves knives, explosives, and plenty other tools of murder, not to mention if guns were made illegal, the smuggling and what not would be rampant.
Yes, because you can just walk into a shop and buy explosives. I don't think you realize how much more effective guns are as a tool of murder than knives and explosives; more than explosives especially if the attack is a personal one. And do you really think he could've killed 33 people with a knife?
Just a quick look over statistics, apparently "between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths." (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm) In 1997, 10396 of the 15289 murders in the USA were caused by firearms. Outdated statistics, I know, but relevant nonetheless.
We're not talking about making guns totally illegal. We're talking about a more effective way into keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
-
We're not talking about making guns totally illegal. We're talking about a more effective way into keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
Nothing wrong with that, but what would be a more effective way?
-
I'm not sure actually. Higher regulation and stricter gun control is obviously a solution, but what with the gun culture and all, and the Second Amendment, many American's will talk about infringement of their rights and constantly believe that loose gun ownership laws prevent - not cause - crime. They will also say it will protect them from invading forces....
But who am I to talk, I'm not even American.
-
Josh, I disagree with your assertion that guns are the easiest means of group murder to acquire. There is no waiting period or background check to purchase bleach or amonia, and the cost is dramatically higher for the firearm as well. Not to mention the ammunition. Guns are the most obvious, because they are easy to use.
Take away all the guns though, and you will start to see chlorine bombs and such. And say what you will about the danger of gunmen, you kill the gunman you end the threat. Have fun hiding behind a table from chlorine gas.
-
I'm not sure actually. Higher regulation and stricter gun control is obviously a solution, but what with the gun culture and all, and the Second Amendment, many American's will talk about infringement of their rights and constantly believe that loose gun ownership laws prevent - not cause - crime. They will also say it will protect them from invading forces....
But who am I to talk, I'm not even American.
I'm not sure either, it's a hard subject to tackle. I'm not arguing with anything you or Lord are saying, I just have a preference of bypassing gun control and more laws to trying to look at the issues at hand that make people do things like this, kind of like the things Zeality discusses. If we can try and find solutions to those, I think it could be more effective than any law. I might be underestimating some things, but I think others are underestimating just how far some people are willing to go when they aren't thinking clearly, or are psychologically/emotionally unstable.
And what's sad is that politically, both sides will use this either pro/con on this issue. Gun control advocates will say this is self explanatory for more restriction, and on the other side I read a headline somewhere "campus gun ban disarmed virginia victims", I mean...come on.
-
Josh, I disagree with your assertion that guns are the easiest means of group murder to acquire. There is no waiting period or background check to purchase bleach or amonia, and the cost is dramatically higher for the firearm as well. Not to mention the ammunition. Guns are the most obvious, because they are easy to use.
Take away all the guns though, and you will start to see chlorine bombs and such. And say what you will about the danger of gunmen, you kill the gunman you end the threat. Have fun hiding behind a table from chlorine gas.
That is an appeal to emotion--a logical fallacy. Take away "all the guns," as you put it, and fewer people are going to carry out mass murder. Some inevitably will switch to other means, but the very reasons that keep those means from being the preeminent means employed today, will likewise ensure a drop in the overall incidents. You mention chemicals; sure, any old fool can get their hands on dangerous chemicals. But, for the reasons I mentioned in my larger post above, using chemicals to attack is less effective and more risky for the attacker, not to mention being harder to prepare for and harder to execute.
-
Exactly; it is far easier and simpler for a potential murder to go "I have a gun, all I need to do is go and shoot", than "buy materials, risk getting caught before making it, making it, then go out and kill, and probably fail".
-
How would a ban on firearms have stopped this? If the guy wanted a gun, he'd get one, legal or not.
-
A gun ban, like hadriel said, would stop nothing. It would only bring easier access to guns. See since marijuana is illegal it's more fun to obtain and use because of the thrill. Making guns illegal would only give it a thrill and people would own more guns than necessary.
-
So if we making killing legal, then no one would get the thrill?
-
Well in that case the thrill would turn into pure hate. Any dislike of another person would lead to death. That would cause more murders.
-
How would a ban on firearms have stopped this? If the guy wanted a gun, he'd get one, legal or not.
But the ease of acquiring a gun will be seen as an incentive to kill. We're not talking about terrorists here.
-
Acquiring a gun is pretty damned easy regardless, thanks to the black market.
Now I'm all for tighter restrictions on gun ownership. But taking them away outright won't accomplish anything. It will very possibly lose more lives than it saves, by virtue of people not being able to defend themselves in their homes.
A gun ban, like hadriel said, would stop nothing. It would only bring easier access to guns. See since marijuana is illegal it's more fun to obtain and use because of the thrill. Making guns illegal would only give it a thrill and people would own more guns than necessary.
Speaking as someone who's smoked it before, I can tell you that the "thrill" of acquisition really has very little to do with it, except in the case of young teenagers.
-
I won't speak for anybody else, but I haven't advocated a total gun ban. Even so, making all guns illegal would not cause gun use to increase. Legal bans may be ineffective for a hardcore segment of users, but they have their desired effect on the majority of the population.
-
I have to agree with Lord J here on the subject of gun control, and I'd like to point out something: Japan. Guns are completely illegal for civilians there, and even the black market has trouble getting them. There are still violent crimes, but they use bladed weapons for the most part. However, these violent crimes come with the drawbacks of bladed weapons, and there's rarely a massive slaughter carried out by a single individual (anime heroes excepted). The point here is that it is indeed possible to ban guns and benefit from it. It won't be easy, but it is possible.
There's just a couple problems. We have to remember why the Second Amendment is there in the first place. The primary reason at the time was that the government wasn't powerful enough to create a standing army to protect the nation, so they needed civilian militias to fill in the gap. Hence why the amendment states that the freedom to "bear arms and form militias shall not be infringed." Over time, that became no longer the case, and the government's army became more than sufficient.
So, why wasn't it taken off the books? We can't say for sure of course, but there are many who believe that some of the founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) believed that a time might come when the US government got too corrupt, and another revolution was needed. For that, the citizens needed a half-decent chance to be able to arm themselves against the government, hence why the amendment remained.
With the collosal power-grabs of the Bush administration in recent years, we're closer to this point than ever before, but we're not at it, and I doubt we'll get there this time around. The people realized what was going on in time, and voted a Democratic congress in, which would prevent any further power grabs. This does serve as a wake-up call though, that we have to be vigilant. We have to keep an eye on the government to make sure they don't try to take over. And when they do, it's our job to vote them out. If we're too late on that, then that's when we'll be thankful we have the Second Amendment.
-
I wonder if firearms are not in fact obsolete as a method of revolution against the U.S. federal government. Arms firepower is no match for the government's vast security forces in all their boggling might. If there were a revolution, one of two things would happen: The government would utterly collapse without the need for much (if any) armed conflict, or the revolution would be crushed at an enormous cost in lives, economic stability, and civil function.
-
Why did no one commit these kind of school rampages 100 years ago? Society has changed. We've changed. So yes, take away all the guns you like, write more laws regulating the use of weapons, become even more dependent on the government to save you from yourself. But I agree with the Bard of Stratford when he said, "The fault...is not in our stars, but in ourselves" xD Despite the pretentiousness of that quote, it's actually kinda apt. Violence and its concomitant violent crime is a problem here in America, and it has nothing to do with the availability of weapons.
-
While some of you might not be able to understand how people there feel, I most certainly can. Some of you may recall the Platte Canyon hostage situation last September?
If not, allow this to refresh your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting
That was my old high school and my sister's class, though thankfully she was home sick. My ex-girlfriend(but still good friend) was actually there, though, and the girl that was shot and killed? She was my sister's best friend.
I first heard about the events from customers in the drive-through--I was working at Wendy's at the time--and I had no idea who was there or what was going on. When I found out it was at my old high school, I was freaked out of my mind. My two sisters go to that high school and while I knew my sister Samantha was home sick I had no idea where Rachael was, what classrooom it was in, and so on and so forth. It was extremely scary, sad, and horrible.
You know what one of the worst parts about it was? The place where the hostage taker was camping near the school? That was a favorite river side spot for my girlfriend and me just the month before...had we not broken up and kept going, we might have run into the guy ourselves.
So, I can definitely understand how the parents and families of those murdered at Virginia Tech...it's not pleasant, to severely understate the situation.
I wonder if firearms are not in fact obsolete as a method of revolution against the U.S. federal government. Arms firepower is no match for the government's vast security forces in all their boggling might. If there were a revolution, one of two things would happen: The government would utterly collapse without the need for much (if any) armed conflict, or the revolution would be crushed at an enormous cost in lives, economic stability, and civil function.
Iraq is proof that our vast military couldn't hold down our own country...people find a way to get past even the best of military technology. I am firmly in favour of Second Amendment rights...the whole idea behind it is to protect the people from an oppresive government should the worst happen.
That said, I am also definitely in favour of doing the best we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Background checks, waiting times, and other safeguards put into place to ensure that those purchasing firearms legally are law-abiding citizens are a definite must. On that same token, I also highly encourage that gun safety and gun use classes are required for any gun owner so they know what they're doing with it.
Why did no one commit these kind of school rampages 100 years ago? Society has changed. We've changed. So yes, take away all the guns you like, write more laws regulating the use of weapons, become even more dependent on the government to save you from yourself. But I agree with the Bard of Stratford when he said, "The fault...is not in our stars, but in ourselves" xD Despite the pretentiousness of that quote, it's actually kinda apt. Violence and its concomitant violent crime is a problem here in America, and it has nothing to do with the availability of weapons.
One definite cause of violent crime is passion or sudden emotion, which is usually much more present in men than women. It's a problem with our society...we discourage the idea of men sharing their emotions and feelings, and by doing so we create a huge problem where so many men in an attempt to be "macho" will bottle up their feelings and then unleash them. That's why men tend to be much more violent. It's stupid and ridiculous, really, and ought to be changed if we want to reduce violent crime.
Of course that's just one reason...we've also got poverty, social inequality, and many other causes. Only by eliminating these causes can we truly eliminate violent crime. Guns don't kill people...people kill people, and if they are intent on killing someone they will find a way.
-
Civilian militia can quite often equal the force of a standing army. The Bangladesh Independence War is proof of that.
@Joe100: Well, maybe because guns weren't so great back then. And, as you said, society has changed. Well, maybe society has to change once more.
-
It is unnerving to be able to find the victims on Facebook.
Looks like the heat is off Alberto Gonzalez for a couple days...
The Wikipedia article has been the best source of news, as editors are poring over independent sources to present them there. It's nice to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#International_reaction .
-
It is unnerving to be able to find the victims on Facebook.
Looks like the heat is off Alberto Gonzalez for a couple days...
The Wikipedia article has been the best source of news, as editors are poring over independent sources to present them there. It's nice to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#International_reaction .
The net is aflame with this story...everywhere I go people are talking about it left and right, especially at NationStates where people are replying every other minute, which is extremely rare even for that place, as busy as it is.
This is quite horrifying, really...I just wonder what possessed the Korean student to do this...was there something else at hand? Revenge against another student? Was the student contracted to kill a specific person and any and all witnesses? Was the student depressed over an obssession of some kind, say with an MMO, or perhaps due to a lack of social exposure? Was it simply a mental illness or temporary insanity? What was the motive?
For that matter, where did he get the weapons involved? Why did no one try to stop him? It sounds to me like there were several instances where if a number of students charged him en masse they could have stopped him. So why did they just watch him kill? And why did he commit suicide?
If I was a praying man, I'd be praying for the victims right now. As it is, my heart goes out to the victim's familes. As I said before, I know what this is like...I know the horror and suffering they're feeling about all of this.
The one thing I do hope is that there is no backlash against any Korean neighborhoods near Virgina Tech, or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter...the people in those neighborhoods do not deserve the blame for the act of one South Korean student.
-
people are afraid of death, people never charge said person with a gun because they think they will die. in the end people will always put the chance of them surviving before the chance of stopping someone else kill more people.
apparently "from what tv said" he killed himself after so he probably had issues with something and wanted to die. meaningless / insanity induced / pissed off massacres don't tend to end with a simple suicide.
-
There's something more to this...the events make the Columbine massacre pale in comparison...so what was his motive? I refuse to believe it is nothing more than simple mental issues or issues with specific people...there's more to it than that. Much more. What, I can't say, but something about it just feels as if there is a deeper reason lying in wait here.
-
The one thing I do hope is that there is no backlash against any Korean neighborhoods near Virgina Tech, or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter...the people in those neighborhoods do not deserve the blame for the act of one South Korean student.
I don't think that will happen, to my knowledge Korean students aren't usually the ones who cause issues like this, except here of course, but most people understand it is an isolated case, not some reason to discriminate.
-
While some of you might not be able to understand how people there feel, I most certainly can. Some of you may recall the Platte Canyon hostage situation last September?
If not, allow this to refresh your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting
That was my old high school and my sister's class, though thankfully she was home sick. My ex-girlfriend(but still good friend) was actually there, though, and the girl that was shot and killed? She was my sister's best friend.
I first heard about the events from customers in the drive-through--I was working at Wendy's at the time--and I had no idea who was there or what was going on. When I found out it was at my old high school, I was freaked out of my mind. My two sisters go to that high school and while I knew my sister Samantha was home sick I had no idea where Rachael was, what classrooom it was in, and so on and so forth. It was extremely scary, sad, and horrible.
You know what one of the worst parts about it was? The place where the hostage taker was camping near the school? That was a favorite river side spot for my girlfriend and me just the month before...had we not broken up and kept going, we might have run into the guy ourselves.
So, I can definitely understand how the parents and families of those murdered at Virginia Tech...it's not pleasant, to severely understate the situation.
Damn, that really sucks. I'd like to say I can sympathize, but the closest I can come is when Bush visited my old high school when my sister was there (I know I know, bad time for humor).
There's something more to this...the events make the Columbine massacre pale in comparison...so what was his motive? I refuse to believe it is nothing more than simple mental issues or issues with specific people...there's more to it than that. Much more. What, I can't say, but something about it just feels as if there is a deeper reason lying in wait here.
I think you underestimate the strength of mental issues. This one, I do know personally. Rage can build up underneath, and there's no way to release it. Logic gets short-circuited to simply thinking "If I'm in pain, then it's fair that everyone else be in pain, too." At a certain point, reality warps, and people are no longer seen as human. This is what happens in the vast majority of these school shootings; after this warp, the extent is just a matter of how long before the kid gets caught. A greater number of deaths just means it took them longer to catch him, not that there's necessarily anything more to this.
And no, you don't have to worry about me. I can understand all those mental processes because I've come close to it in the past. However, another peculiar quirk of my mind (I call it "empathy," wish more people had it) blocked this off from actually happening. Since then I've managed to tame this beast, and I keep it securely chained up. Unfortunately many people never do this, because they never realize they need to.
-
I think you underestimate the strength of mental issues. This one, I do know personally. Rage can build up underneath, and there's no way to release it. Logic gets short-circuited to simply thinking "If I'm in pain, then it's fair that everyone else be in pain, too." At a certain point, reality warps, and people are no longer seen as human. This is what happens in the vast majority of these school shootings; after this warp, the extent is just a matter of how long before the kid gets caught. A greater number of deaths just means it took them longer to catch him, not that there's necessarily anything more to this.
And no, you don't have to worry about me. I can understand all those mental processes because I've come close to it in the past. However, another peculiar quirk of my mind (I call it "empathy," wish more people had it) blocked this off from actually happening. Since then I've managed to tame this beast, and I keep it securely chained up. Unfortunately many people never do this, because they never realize they need to.
I suppose you've got a point there...I too am quite familiar with rage and all sorts of strong emotions. Sometimes they get the better of me and make relations with people somewhat strained--just take a look at the Imus thread for a prime example--and of course, sometimes I may hurt myself. (Never physically...more like a mental beat-up session.) Hell, I'm feeling a bit of it right now, though I imagine that's actually my hunger headache and the irritance I'm feeling causing it.
I've just been watching too much Stargate lately...I keep expecting some kind of odd secretive hidden motive for everything at every turn nowadays and I've got to stop that. It's quite foolish of me.
-
All of this is just so freakin stupid :x It's gonna get to the point where nobody except poilce officers can carry loaded firearms and then that will infringe apon our right to bear arms, at the same time it's next to impossible to stop everybody from obtaining guns so that wont even solve the problem :( :x I HATE STUPID PEOPLE.
-
All of this is just so freakin stupid :x It's gonna get to the point where nobody except poilce officers can carry loaded firearms and then that will infringe apon our right to bear arms, at the same time it's next to impossible to stop everybody from obtaining guns so that wont even solve the problem :( :x I HATE STUPID PEOPLE.
true it wont solve the problem, but it will make it harder for people to go on said rampages if obtaining a gun is harder.
as for the right to bear arms thing, why are so many people obsessed with that
-
Why? Because it is outlined in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the highest law in said country.
Allow me to quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is an often misunderstood piece of text...some perceive it to mean that only those in a milita can own firearms, but that's not what it actually says. Note the "well regulated" as well as the comma between the bit about the militia and the right itself. Essentially, it's saying that the People--that is, the law-abiding citizens--serve as a check on the militia--or the military--with their right to hold arms. In essence it's a way of preventing the government from being able to oppress the people should it ever turn authoritarian.
Still, I do agree with you in part...the harder we can make it for criminals to obtain guns legally, the better. On that same token law-abiding citizens are not going to start killing people with guns--especially if they're trained in the use of guns and gun safety so accidents are far less likely--and deserve to use the tools they need to defend themselves if necessary. Furthermore, if we were to completely ban the use of firearms--an unconstitutional decison, I might add--we would, in essence, be handing the reigns to the violent criminals who obtain them illegaly.
-
I think that to own a fire arm, you should have to have no criminal past, must pass a safety class for use in guns along with a written portion, and you should then only be allowed to posses a handgun, no automatic guns, or even semi automatic, also you shouldn't be allowed unless your an officer, to carry them around in places like banks, air ports, that kindda thing, If you really want to carry a gun around, then deal with all the rules and restriction, oh and I just saw a news report about this whole thing, and guess what....THEY FINALLY CAUGHT ON THAT SCHOOL'S AREN'T SAFE :shock:!! :x.... we're controlled and regulated by complete idiots :?
-
My cousin and people I graduated with go to VA Tech, but luckily none of them were hurt. When I first heard the news I went ballistic with worry, but I'm glad that for me the nightmare is over. I can't express enough sympathy for those affected by this.
-
Apparently said shooter, who was an English major, wrote stories about murder and pedophilia. I can't remember who, but I think his teacher and his old high school where two of the victims came from too, called counselors and other authorities to check up on him, but they said he didn't do anything illegal. I can imagine they'll be kicking themselves now.
@cronopolis: Aren't those already rules? I definetely wouldn't sell a gun to someone with previous criminal activity, and I'm pretty sure you can't carry automatic or semi-automatic weapons, or carry a gun which can hold more than 8 bullets. But I think it changes from state to state; all I know about American law is from Law & Order, so basically only NY.
@Kyronea: Time for a major crackdown on the blackmarket?
@saridon: American's are obsessed with the first two amendments, bringing them up in basically every discussion even minutely related.
-
@saridon: American's are obsessed with the first two amendments, bringing them up in basically every discussion even minutely related.
That's because tons of Americans don't give a flying fuck about them or can even name the five rights described in the first. Literate Americans emphasize the Bill of Rights wherever possible to combat the utter ignorance of certain citizens.
-
@saridon: American's are obsessed with the first two amendments, bringing them up in basically every discussion even minutely related.
That's because tons of Americans don't give a flying fuck about them or can even name the five rights described in the first. Literate Americans emphasize the Bill of Rights wherever possible to combat the utter ignorance of certain citizens.
Really? I thought it was the other way around; ignorant citizens always bringing up the First Amendment when going around carrying "GOD HATES FAGS" signs, and noting the Second Amendment when they have an AK47 in the shed. Basically a scapegoat for their own intentions.
-
I think that to own a fire arm, you should have to have no criminal past, must pass a safety class for use in guns along with a written portion, and you should then only be allowed to posses a handgun, no automatic guns, or even semi automatic, also you shouldn't be allowed unless your an officer, to carry them around in places like banks, air ports, that kindda thing, If you really want to carry a gun around, then deal with all the rules and restriction, oh and I just saw a news report about this whole thing, and guess what....THEY FINALLY CAUGHT ON THAT SCHOOL'S AREN'T SAFE :shock:!! :x.... we're controlled and regulated by complete idiots :?
The student in question purchased both of his non automatic weapons legally, after passing background checks. The first gun, and with it, the first 50 bullets, were purchased a month ago, because in VA you can't buy two guns within 30 days. Your regulations would not have stopped this.
-
Why did no one commit these kind of school rampages 100 years ago? Society has changed. We've changed.
No...we haven't. Society is really not so different than it ever was. Human nature remains the same. People did commit serious crimes one hundred, or one thousand years ago. Indeed, life now is better than it was then--not the other way around. Most societies and perhaps all of them--including our own--were bloodier, and less just than what Americans enjoy today. What has changed is that more people are more emancipated, more wealthy, more educated, and more powerful than ever before. That's good news, not bad.
One definite cause of violent crime is passion or sudden emotion, which is usually much more present in men than women. It's a problem with our society...we discourage the idea of men sharing their emotions and feelings, and by doing so we create a huge problem where so many men in an attempt to be "macho" will bottle up their feelings and then unleash them. That's why men tend to be much more violent. It's stupid and ridiculous, really, and ought to be changed if we want to reduce violent crime.
Unless the news reports are plain wrong, this was not a crime of passion...so what you have written is only tangentially relevant at best. It is also derogatory toward men. I have known plenty of men and plenty of women, and in all honesty aggression is the product of two simple, gender-neutral factors: A feeling of power relative to others, and a lack of character integrity. Women on average are less aggressive than men because they are given fewer opportunities by our misogynistic society to feel dominant. This isn't to say that males aren't inherently aggressive, but rather that they aren't all that much more aggressive inherently than females.
All anecdotal, of course, so take it with a grain of salt...but nonetheless, as some of the Compendium's vets could attest, I devote a fair bit of time and energy to the study of sexism. I pay a lot of attention to human behavior in this context.
Guns don't kill people...people kill people...
But to quote Eddy Izzard, the guns help.
@saridon: American's are obsessed with the first two amendments, bringing them up in basically every discussion even minutely related.
The First Amendment is the single most important of all the amendments. That is why it comes up so frequently. It is the core of our civil liberty, protecting multiple essential freedoms from speech to religion to the press.
The Second Amendment comes up in debate so often because right-wingers have made it a pet cause of theirs. It is, nonetheless, the least relevant of all 27 amendments other than the now-repealed prohibition of alcohol.
Some new thoughts after today's developments:
Xenophobia
I was very dismayed to hear today that the killer was a Korean national with U.S. residency. Anti-immigration sentiment--which is really just a euphemism for xenophobia--is already much more inflamed in this country than most people realize, and this is exactly what we didn't need. I for one am very glad that gun control has thus far dominated the news cycle, because we have here the makings for an anti-immigrant movement the likes of which would be a major United States mark of shame for the remainder of our existence as a nation. Thank goodness, at least, that the killer was a permanent resident alien and a citizen of a country with which we are strongly allied.
Liberal versus Conservative
The liberal talking heads have been emphasizing gun control pretty much down the line. Nothing very creative from them, although one Seattle liberal radio talk show host pointed out that it would have taken a very, very strict set of gun laws to have thwarted this particular shooting, because of the particulars. However, the Mayor noted what I said yesterday: Gun control might not be able to prevent a particular shooting from occurring, but over time it will save lives statistically. A ban (partial or total) would have some net positive effect.
The conservatives have been emphasizing the immigration angle, and, apparently as a defense to the attacks on gun rights now underway, they have also been spinning the murder as overhyped. One right-wing radio talk show host in Seattle said today that people are driving this event way out of proportion, because more people die every day in this country from things like car wrecks than they do from shootings. So, he reasoned, what is all the fuss? (He's actually got a point, except for two things. One, a more calm public reaction will do nothing to prevent these shootings from happening. Two, the "fuss" is that premeditated murder is a more culturally harmful event than a car wreck.) A few minutes later the radio host started saying that illegal immigrants come into the country, infest our cities with crime, shoot police officers, and who knows what else--because at that point I turned off the radio. He's a bullshitting bastard, and it is scary that so many people feel the same way as him right now.
Dehumanizing Diversions
It came out today that the killer left a letter raging against women, rich kids, campus debauchery, and perhaps some other things. I suggest to you all that these elements of the story are a diversion. They are meant to dehumanize the criminal and make it easier for us to think less critically about why this shooting occurred and how it can be prevented. In other words, the hype surrounding these details is our pop culture's own numbskulled attempt to cope with the tragedy in its own numbskulled way. Don't fall for it. We should assume that the killer was a human being just like the rest of us, and that whatever grievances drove him to this crime were at least somewhat based in society. I am not saying that we should absolve him of his legal responsibility for these crimes, but I am saying that a wiser society will look first at itself when one of its people goes bad, and only second will it look at the person who committed the crime.
The Second Amendment
Scrap it. If people want to have guns, let them damn submit to some regulation. I don't necessarily support a total gun ban, but neither do I support a Constitutional Amendment worded so broadly that right-wingers (and libertarians) falsely construe it to mean that private citizens should check their own government with the threat of violence. That is absurd in today's world.
Illegal Guns
To those who keep arguing that outlawing guns will give criminals absolute power over the rest of us, stop being deliberately dense. For one thing, the authorities would still be armed, and they are ones best equipped to deal with all of this. For another thing, the implicit argument behind arming private citizens is that they will be able to defend themselves and others against armed criminals. Gun battles between private citizens is a very bad solution! Most people would be overwhelmed by adrenaline and would make bad decisions in the heat of a gun battle. I know many of you around here feel bold, smart, and able to function well under pressure. I also know that many of you are none of those things. So it is with the rest of society. If more people brought guns to a shootout, unintentional shootings would soar. Think of the chaos! At the time of the shooting, you have no information about what is going on...yet you expect to make sound decisions about who to shoot? Bullshit. Life is seldom that easy.
-
Doesn't the Second Amendment basically support vigilantism?
-
Liberal versus Conservative
The liberal talking heads have been emphasizing gun control pretty much down the line. Nothing very creative from them, although one Seattle liberal radio talk show host pointed out that it would have taken a very, very strict set of gun laws to have thwarted this particular shooting, because of the particulars.
Yes it would have. It's unfortunate also hearing all the warning signs that have also come out today about this student, some people tried to do something about it, but apparently it wasn't enough.
-
Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.
-
Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.
And, statistically, you're more likely to use those home-protection guns to shoot a friend or family member than a burglar.
-
A burglar would use his gun to scare you off if you approach him, rather than to shoot you (unless you jump up behind him and shout out 'boo!'). However, if you threaten him with a gun, blood will be spilt.
-
No...we haven't. Society is really not so different than it ever was. Human nature remains the same. People did commit serious crimes one hundred, or one thousand years ago. Indeed, life now is better than it was then--not the other way around. Most societies and perhaps all of them--including our own--were bloodier, and less just than what Americans enjoy today. What has changed is that more people are more emancipated, more wealthy, more educated, and more powerful than ever before. That's good news, not bad.
I am talking about the question of why young people are going on murderous rampages in schools. This is a new problem. It's not the end of the world, but it is something that needs to be understood. And would you like to explain to me how society doesn't change? Because we are all living like Puritans fresh off the Mayflower, aren't we?
Xenophobia
I was very dismayed to hear today that the killer was a Korean national with U.S. residency. Anti-immigration sentiment--which is really just a euphemism for xenophobia--is already much more inflamed in this country than most people realize, and this is exactly what we didn't need. I for one am very glad that gun control has thus far dominated the news cycle, because we have here the makings for an anti-immigrant movement the likes of which would be a major United States mark of shame for the remainder of our existence as a nation. Thank goodness, at least, that the killer was a permanent resident alien and a citizen of a country with which we are strongly allied.
Any evidence to support this claim of xenophobia (oh Jesus, are we lynching immigrants yet?!?!?!?), or is this the same multiculturalist crap that any argument against mass legal and illegal immigration is a sign you are a racist, xenophobe, and must never be given any avenues at all to let one's voice be heard? Name calling isn't an argument, buddy. Although it is fun. You stupid asshole. As for him being Korean, so what? Asians from places like China, Korea, and Japan are so statistically underrepresented in violent crime compared to other races in America that this isn't even an issue, and I can't see why you would even bring it up. When mass anti-Korean protests start popping up, then get back to me.
-
I am talking about the question of why young people are going on murderous rampages in schools. This is a new problem.
Prove to me that it is a "new" problem. Given the xenophobic nature of your post, I'm not interested in listening to your opinions. Give me facts, or don't expect to be taken seriously.
-
Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.
And, statistically, you're more likely to use those home-protection guns to shoot a friend or family member than a burglar.
Statistically, most people can't aim for shit either, especially under pressure.
Personally, I don't like the idea of carrying a gun with me everywhere, save a combat zone or somewhere with a lot of lawless violence. Of course, I'd rather carry a gun than practice grappling, throwing, and knife techniques, but that's because I'm already a pretty good shot.
When it comes right down to it, I don't think guns should be illegal to own, but allowing any random jackass with a trigger finger to own and carry a gun kind of bothers me. Honestly, I'm more afraid of some nervous fuck who can't aim carrying a handgun than a professional criminal. People should be able to safely handle and proficiently use a gun before being allowed to carry one.
Besides, getting rid of guns in a country where there's more guns than people is like thinking we can get rid of hammers or cars. Your best bet is to invent some sort of security device that makes people feel safer than if they carried or owned a gun, but doesn't kill or maim. Then only hunters, hobbyists, and criminals will own guns, but every person with this new invention will have the ability to easily take down an armed assailant.
It'd be more effective than any gun control law.
-
Apparently said shooter, who was an English major, wrote stories about murder and pedophilia.
so he most likely was a /b/tard, anonymous strikes again.
-
Unless the news reports are plain wrong, this was not a crime of passion...so what you have written is only tangentially relevant at best. It is also derogatory toward men. I have known plenty of men and plenty of women, and in all honesty aggression is the product of two simple, gender-neutral factors: A feeling of power relative to others, and a lack of character integrity. Women on average are less aggressive than men because they are given fewer opportunities by our misogynistic society to feel dominant. This isn't to say that males aren't inherently aggressive, but rather that they aren't all that much more aggressive inherently than females.
All anecdotal, of course, so take it with a grain of salt...but nonetheless, as some of the Compendium's vets could attest, I devote a fair bit of time and energy to the study of sexism. I pay a lot of attention to human behavior in this context.
True, true, but you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the same misogynistic society you speak of. All things neutral men would not be any more agressive than women, but in our society that tends to look down on men who share their feelings and otherwise use healthy methods to relieve their anger, men will be more violent because it bottles up. Again, I stress the societal factors. Given that I myself am a male, I'm speaking from experience here, when it comes to bottling up feelings. Bottled up feelings affect a lot more than people realize.
But to quote Eddy Izzard, the guns help.
They certainly do at that...that's why we need to stress gun safety and proper gun usage for all gun owners. I know I plan on taking such courses when I purchase a firearm.
Xenophobia
I was very dismayed to hear today that the killer was a Korean national with U.S. residency. Anti-immigration sentiment--which is really just a euphemism for xenophobia--is already much more inflamed in this country than most people realize, and this is exactly what we didn't need. I for one am very glad that gun control has thus far dominated the news cycle, because we have here the makings for an anti-immigrant movement the likes of which would be a major United States mark of shame for the remainder of our existence as a nation. Thank goodness, at least, that the killer was a permanent resident alien and a citizen of a country with which we are strongly allied.
I agree completely. Thing is, sooner or later some racist xenophobic jackass--say, Tom Tancredo--is going to use this as an excuse to try to crack down on legal immigration yet again.
Illegal Guns
To those who keep arguing that outlawing guns will give criminals absolute power over the rest of us, stop being deliberately dense. For one thing, the authorities would still be armed, and they are ones best equipped to deal with all of this. For another thing, the implicit argument behind arming private citizens is that they will be able to defend themselves and others against armed criminals. Gun battles between private citizens is a very bad solution! Most people would be overwhelmed by adrenaline and would make bad decisions in the heat of a gun battle. I know many of you around here feel bold, smart, and able to function well under pressure. I also know that many of you are none of those things. So it is with the rest of society. If more people brought guns to a shootout, unintentional shootings would soar. Think of the chaos! At the time of the shooting, you have no information about what is going on...yet you expect to make sound decisions about who to shoot? Bullshit. Life is seldom that easy
And you seem to be under the mistaken impression that those of us who share my opinions on this picture the country as some kind of horrible gang violence paradise. I'm not disagreeing with you here, Lord J...we definitely need to reduce violent crime. But the guns themselves are not the cause. Do they occasionally make it easier? Yes. Does that mean we ought to ban all guns? Absolutely not. What happens if we did ban all the guns? How would we defend ourselves easily against violent criminals? Say a 220 lb rapist was attacking a 110 lb woman. Without the gun, she would not be unlikely to successfully defend herself, unless of course she took the same kind of self-defense classes my sisters did(and really, more people ought to take those kinds of classes) but that is a rare thing at best. Remember, that same easy use helps a person defend themselves much more easily.
As for only the authorities having the guns...that's part of the problem. I distrust the government a lot more than I used to thanks to Bush and people like him in power...those authorities might not always be your friend, you know. And, of course, let's not forget those self-same authorities are also human and often make mistakes and otherwise use their weapons for the same purposes...think of all the bad cops we've heard about recently. Being an authority does not a good person make.
That said, I do still want to see reduction in gun ownership, at least till we can focus on and eliminate the true causes of violent crime.
Besides, getting rid of guns in a country where there's more guns than people is like thinking we can get rid of hammers or cars. Your best bet is to invent some sort of security device that makes people feel safer than if they carried or owned a gun, but doesn't kill or maim. Then only hunters, hobbyists, and criminals will own guns, but every person with this new invention will have the ability to easily take down an armed assailant.
It'd be more effective than any gun control law.
Exactly. One of my many problems with my own argument is that people would need a lethal weapon to defend themselves when there ought to be another way. I am a realistic pacifist...if there is a peaceful solution, I take it. If violence is my only option, I use the absolute least amount necessary to resolve the situation. As such, we need something better to defend ourselves with.
But what? What do we use? To be honest, I have no idea. I really don't.
-
I would certainly feel safer known the person who wants to shoot me has taken courses in how to use guns.
-
I would certainly feel safer known the person who wants to shoot me has taken courses in how to use guns.
The idea behind it is so that there are few--if any--accidents--hence the gun safety--and if you actually need to use the gun to defend yourself, you know how to use it effectively. That is actually far safer than an untrained gun owner who doesn't know what they are doing with their gun.
Besides, we're talking about law-abiding citizens here. Owning a gun does not turn one into a crazed killing machine anymore than my owning a bo staff turns me into a killing machine...with a bo staff.
-
I would certainly feel safer known the person who wants to shoot me has taken courses in how to use guns.
The idea behind it is so that there are few--if any--accidents--hence the gun safety--and if you actually need to use the gun to defend yourself, you know how to use it effectively. That is actually far safer than an untrained gun owner who doesn't know what they are doing with their gun.
Besides, we're talking about law-abiding citizens here. Owning a gun does not turn one into a crazed killing machine anymore than my owning a bo staff turns me into a killing machine...with a bo staff.
You own a bo staff!? Get away from me you blood-crazed lunatic!
And don't worry, I'm not - nor do I see any reason to be - against gun training. I was just commenting on how gun training courses which probably would increase a murderers ability to kill, were forced upon them. Not that I see anything wrong with it, of course.
-
There's definitely that risk, to be sure. We should be able to avoid that by requiring proof of legal purchase in order to take the gun training courses. There's still the other gun courses out there that could be taken by those with intent to murder, but those courses will exist whether we set up these required courses or not, so that is irrelevant. I'd rather train the law-abiding citizens and run the risk of accidentely training a murderer than leaving the citizens to figure it all out for themselves and cause the kind of accidents that result in kids killing themselves with a loaded gun left lying around.
-
I don't support the idea of banning guns, but I do know that kid couldn't have killed 33 people with a knife. Maybe we should not limit the amount of guns in the country, but limit the amount of bullets available to the public, or lower the maximum legal clip size for a handgun from 19 bullets to 4 bullets. Who the hell needs 19 bullets in their gun? Besides pi.. I mean cops and soldiers?
....
....
I want a bo staff too.
-
I don't support the idea of banning guns, but I do know that kid couldn't have killed 33 people with a knife. Maybe we should not limit the amount of guns in the country, but limit the amount of bullets available to the public, or lower the maximum legal clip size for a handgun from 19 bullets to 4 bullets. Who the hell needs 19 bullets in their gun? Besides pi.. I mean cops and soldiers?
I support the idea of ammunition control, but ammunition is a lot easier to manufacture than an entire gun is, and it is a lot easier to store, ship, and smuggle in. Ammution control, while a good idea, is simply too dififcult for us to achieve, especially if we can't stop drug smuggling, which is a lot harder to smuggle than ammunition.
I want a bo staff too.
It's quite neat, and if you take a look online you can easily find several different martial arts stores that sell top-notch quality bo staffs, and other such weaponry.
-
Prove to me that it is a "new" problem. Given the xenophobic nature of your post, I'm not interested in listening to your opinions. Give me facts, or don't expect to be taken seriously.
Sure. Go try and find stuff about school shootings since about the 60's (only one I can think of is UT massacre in '66). You're not going to find much. In fact, if you want a quick way, go to the "School shooting" page on Wikipedia. Almost every one of them is post 1960, and even more, the last 3 decades. Still not a problem for you, genius? As for the "xenophobe" thing, wow. It must be great to know that you can simply block out whatever you don't want to hear, thus never being challenged in any of your assumptions. Now THAT'S the way to finding out the truth!!! Ok ok, I'm done. You can return to sticking your head up your ass. Lesson is over.
-
I don't think gun control has a whole lot to do with this situation. Given the nature of his crime, a lot must have built up to it. Apparently he wrote stories about pedophilia, which suggests that he may have been molested as a child. Just speculation, I know, but my point is that he had a lot of time to think about this, and if guns werent legally available to him he would have taken that time to find one illegally. Even supposing he didnt do that, he would have found a way to hurt SOMEONE, which is still a tragedy despite the diminished scale. I'm not taking a stand on the gun control issue, I'm just saying that bad things would have happened no matter what.
I point my finger at the faculty. In case any of you havent heard the latest news, the school was evacuated again when a threatening call was made to the president. So wait... a few people are killed and business continues as usually (I'm referring to the aftermath of the first round of shootings), but when the president gets a threatening phone call suddenly its time to take things seriously? It shows who they really care about. I remember being in high school, having the faculty say things like "We only have your best interests in mind," and "We know whats best for you," when its not really about the students at all. They know whats best for them; a docile, compliant student body. These sentiments from on high are alienating and frustrating to those who value their individuality. Its not farfetched to think that putting this stress on a student could be a good part of what motivates them to do something insane. Its frightening what can happen when a person loses sense of who they are... Of course, this happened at a college, where individuality tends to be encouraged rather than doused, but I would be surprised to find that this student's high school experience wasn't similar to what I just described. If schools weren't so concerned with creating drones and were aware of the fact that their presence can be traumatizing to some kids, they would be more able to pinpoint volatile students and give them the help they need.
-
Anyone see the videos of him yet? Yeesh.
-
Gun control. So it comes down to that. There is no single policy that would have a wider-reaching, more immediate, less costly effect.
Unfortunately, though it might seem logical, history has proven otherwise. Note that here in Canada we've tried it for several years. Not only has it been ineffective (the criminals and those performing violent acts still get guns... note we had a school shooting in Montreal not too long ago with guns that were obtained under gun control), but it has been enormously expensive. Hence, it is not cheap, nor is it immediate or far reaching. So, while it seems to be a good idea in theory, it doesn't pan out, and that's proven by the actual attempt. It's simplistic to think that it would work so easily in practice.
So what have you to say to this? It is easy to argue the gun control issue from a theoretical perspective, the 'what if'... you're saying 'it'll work' and others saying 'no, it won't.' But here's where it's been actually put into practice, far surer proof that it wouldn't work than any guessing at the issue.
-
Anyone see the videos of him yet? Yeesh.
Yep. He thinks he is some kind of messiah for the poor, and outcast from the evil, an Ishmael Ax.
-
Unfortunately, though it might seem logical, history has proven otherwise. Note that here in Canada we've tried it for several years. Not only has it been ineffective (the criminals and those performing violent acts still get guns... note we had a school shooting in Montreal not too long ago with guns that were obtained under gun control), but it has been enormously expensive. Hence, it is not cheap, nor is it immediate or far reaching. So, while it seems to be a good idea in theory, it doesn't pan out, and that's proven by the actual attempt. It's simplistic to think that it would work so easily in practice.
So what have you to say to this? It is easy to argue the gun control issue from a theoretical perspective, the 'what if'... you're saying 'it'll work' and others saying 'no, it won't.' But here's where it's been actually put into practice, far surer proof that it wouldn't work than any guessing at the issue.
Even if I were to take for granted your assertion that gun control in Canada has been an expensive failure (which I don't grant in the least), I am still not convinced that your Canada is representative of the norm. Look at all the societies where guns are heavily restricted. Somebody upthread gave Japan as an example--that's the ideal case. There were something like 53 known shootings in Japan last year. Given the size of their population, that's very impressive. And it's not hypothetical. Japan is a real country.
So too are England, Singapore, Germany...and Canada. I looked it up. All of these are countries with significant gun restrictions, and all of them have a far lower rate of intentional gun violence than does the United States.
There does seem to be a cultural factor in play. Some societies are simply far more averse to gun violence than others, without regard to restrictions on guns. We have a violent, freewheeling, vigilante culture in many parts of America. But, dash it all, we also have a whole friggin' lot of guns.
-
It is, actually, one of the scandals surrounding the Liberal party. That and the so-called Sponsership scandal which wasted a heck of a lot of money. The gun registry has been seen to be a big expensive failure. I'd have to look up the numbers, but hereabouts it has come up in the news many times. At any rate, it has cost many millions of dollars and note changed gun violence at all. It is the same now as before and, simply put, the system itself is ridiculous. I recall a few years back someone was able to register their glue-gun - make: Black and Decker; calibre: 120volt. Granted, this might be Canada... and I suppose such a silly error in the system sounds stereotypically Canadian. But nonetheless, the gun registry as it exists is an expensive failure... that is indisputable. The only thing that might be up to question is whether a better system might be more effective.
However, I must say one thing further. I'm not certain on your numbers regarding other countries. I've heard it said quite the opposite in fact: that Britain, after instituting gun control, saw a rise in handgun violence, rather than a decrease. Whether or not it is lower compared to the US is irrelevant. What must be looked at is the pre/post figures. Unfortunately I don't know them myself firsthand, and in that assertion am taking a friend at his word.
See, to say 'this country has this many shootings' and compare it to the US is not a logical assertion to make. There might be other factors involved, including cultural (you might not like racial stereotypes, but certain races are more prone to violence than others... I mean, Germans are considered belligerant not without cause, and I say that as someone with mostly German blood myself.) Just because Japan has a low instance of shootings doesn't mean this is due to gun control at all - perhaps they are more prone to injuring themselves rather than others (I've heard their suicide rate is alarmingly high), which would be a cultural mindset, ie. take it out on oneself before others. No, that is a flawed way to look at gun control stats Lord J. What you really have to do is look at them pre/post in a given country, ie. what were the rates before the institution, and then after. Otherwise you're not working in a closed system. See, for any sort of logical input-output test one must have one changing variable, one responding, and the others fixed. If you change countries as the changing variable you're including a host of extra changing variables that can mess up the response. You have to keep as much constant as possible, ie. eliminate possible cultural factors. The best way of doing this is to keep the country and culture the same, and only change that singular factor of gun control, and then see the outcome.
And, from that perspective, I've heard it said that in fact gun control only has the effect of making gun violence worse. Then again, that was told to me by a friend who is very much in favour of guns, so as much as I respect his opinion, I can't be 100% on it. Nonetheless, it is a statement worth making, and should be investigated from that angle, because simply comparing countries provides misleading data.
Okay, don't blast me for referring to Wiki for the Canadian gun registry, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry
It essentially says what's been in the papers all along, and the public views on the matters. It's cost us 2 billion dollars, and there still was that school shooting in Montreal not too long ago. If that is not absolute proof of its failure, it sure provides one heck of a crack in its solidity.
And here is for the UK. Again, sorry for the Wiki, but if it's wrong, show me the before/after stats that disprove it. This is just backing up what my friend told me:
In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[16] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[17]
By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[18] New York City, with a population size similar to London and similar firearms laws with almost all firearms prohibited to normal citizens (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]
The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. [20] Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[21] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[22] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[23]
Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled[24] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[25]
If that is correct, then the institution of gun control in the UK has done at best nothing, and at worst made it worse. What is your response to this assertion?
-
My response is that you make a solid argument. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do such a thorough job myself. I will concede the point for now, but let this remain an unresolved question between us. Remind me later!
(Unless anybody else wants to tackle it...)
-
(Unless anybody else wants to tackle it...)
This is where the scientist in me comes out and points out that's it's absolutely impossible to determine what causes the lower level of gun violence in some countries over others, because there's no way to run a controlled experiment, or even just compare countries that differ in only one manner. The best we can do is hypothesize, then try to test it by changing our own country in the manner we think makes sense.
As for Japan, I was the one who brought it up earlier, and I'd like to make an extension: Look at the rate of violent crime in Japan that utilizes bladed weapons. It's a fair bit higher than most other countries, and the reason for this is likely the tight gun control. Gun control didn't stop violence; it just changed it's form. Hell, Japan still has it's own active mobs that put the US to shame, so it's hardly a case of their culture leading them away from violent crime. However, this change of form alone can be seen as a victory, as it's a lot harder to commit a mass killing with a knife, and they see a lot fewer of them in Japan.
-
(Unless anybody else wants to tackle it...)
This is where the scientist in me comes out and points out that's it's absolutely impossible to determine what causes the lower level of gun violence in some countries over others, because there's no way to run a controlled experiment, or even just compare countries that differ in only one manner. The best we can do is hypothesize, then try to test it by changing our own country in the manner we think makes sense.
As for Japan, I was the one who brought it up earlier, and I'd like to make an extension: Look at the rate of violent crime in Japan that utilizes bladed weapons. It's a fair bit higher than most other countries, and the reason for this is likely the tight gun control. Gun control didn't stop violence; it just changed it's form. Hell, Japan still has it's own active mobs that put the US to shame, so it's hardly a case of their culture leading them away from violent crime. However, this change of form alone can be seen as a victory, as it's a lot harder to commit a mass killing with a knife, and they see a lot fewer of them in Japan.
So...what can we do?
-
The only option I can offer up, again, is training in both safety and use. I now point to Switzerland, which has far more guns than they know what to do with yet their violent crime right is nigh nil. Similarly, as pointed out by Leebot, Japan has almost no guns whatsoever, so instead violent crime with bladed weapons soars dramatically.
It has to be cultural...something in specific cultures breeds more violence than other cultures. Something about the way society acts, the psyche of the individual, and whatnot. It could be what I pointed out earlier with the macho man societal outlook--Japan rates quite highly on that scale, most assuredly--but I doubt that is the whole story.
So, what can we do? The best we can do is raise our children not to use violence except as a last resort--and then the absolute minimum necessary--and to target and eliminate the causes of violent crime, such as poverty. Until we can truly examine ourselves more closely that's the best we can do.
-
I agree with you on that note in that, and offer this quote from J from MIB, "people, no people are voilent, stupid, and unable to handle themselves" or something of that matter, and also I would like to state that violence with swords sounds better then with guns but that's just me.
-
Would it be? A gunshot directed to the correct place kills almost instantly, ensuring little if any pain. Gunshot wounds to other parts of the body can result in a much more painful death, but they tend to pale compared to the damage and pain a sword or other bladed weapon can inflict, since even the quickest possible death through bladed weapons--decapitation--is not as quick as it might appear.
-
since even the quickest possible death through bladed weapons--decapitation--is not as quick as it might appear.
If you survive a decapitation some day, send me a postcard whenever you have the free time.
In response to VT, the media needs to stay the hell out of the students lives for the time being. These kids are shaken up, some lost friends, one lost a sibling, (some don't care) and the media comes to the rescue by interviewing them as they struggle through a conversation as tears are running down their faces with slurred speech. Not only that, but "oh yea thats right, our news company must be the first with news coverage of this incident, massacre, or tragedy, Tragedy!! oh it's brilliant!!!". On that day, you know how many different stories were conjured up from the many different media sources? It's sickening if you think hard about the implications. More food for the media though. The VT incident will die down eventually and people will soon forget about it. It's hot right now, because the media made it hot. The whole happening was unfortunate. This South Korean kid shot a professor with cerebral palsy. Low... very low...
You know, some teachers like having conversations like these with their students and having a "reflection" time for it. If we never had school shootings and terrorists attack, wars, etc... some of the individuals these days would have no clue what humanity, morals, and ethics are that apply to everyones life. You can't stop these school shootings, unless George Orwell's 1984 scenario is enabled.
There is a never ending chaos in this land that has yet to be stopped. It will never cease...
-
If you survive a decapitation some day, send me a postcard whenever you have the free time.
I did not mean to imply that decapitation did not result in death, merely that death via decapitation is just not as quick as you think. You do not instantly die when your head is cut off--you are aware of what is happening for at least a few seconds.
In response to VT, the media needs to stay the hell out of the students lives for the time being. These kids are shaken up, some lost friends, one lost a sibling, (some don't care) and the media comes to the rescue by interviewing them as they struggle through a conversation as tears are running down their faces with slurred speech. Not only that, but "oh yea thats right, our news company must be the first with news coverage of this incident, massacre, or tragedy, Tragedy!! oh it's brilliant!!!". On that day, you know how many different stories were conjured up from the many different media sources? It's sickening if you think hard about the implications. More food for the media though. The VT incident will die down eventually and people will soon forget about it. It's hot right now, because the media made it hot. The whole happening was unfortunate. This South Korean kid shot a professor with cerebral palsy. Low... very low...
That's the media for you, at least corporate media. They make their money from ratings, and coverage of stories like this are always thrown in people's faces. I was interviewed on the scene by a local news authority and I quite literally punched the guy in the face thanks to his excessive and insenstive questioning of me...he just wanted a brief clip to show on the network, and I wouldn't have any of that.
You know, some teachers like having conversations like these with their students and having a "reflection" time for it. If we never had school shootings and terrorists attack, wars, etc... some of the individuals these days would have no clue what humanity, morals, and ethics are that apply to everyones life. You can't stop these school shootings, unless George Orwell's 1984 scenario is enabled.
There is a never ending chaos in this land that has yet to be stopped. It will never cease...
Is there a way? Yes, there actually is. We simply have to provide food, water, shelter--all the neccesities of life--to all freely, without running out of any of that. That alone would cut poverty significantly.
Unfortunately, the sheer amount and sophistication of the technology required to produce this freely is simply too far beyond us right now. We can simply do the best we can with what we do have.
-
So, what can we do? The best we can do is raise our children not to use violence except as a last resort--and then the absolute minimum necessary--and to target and eliminate the causes of violent crime, such as poverty. Until we can truly examine ourselves more closely that's the best we can do.
That - "as a last resort" - is the problem. Many automatically think that all other possible solutions have been exhausted, and then go to use violence.
But yes, it probably is a cultural thing. Bigotry and class distinctions won't go away for a while, and neither will wealth gap.
-
That - "as a last resort" - is the problem. Many automatically think that all other possible solutions have been exhausted, and then go to use violence.
But yes, it probably is a cultural thing. Bigotry and class distinctions won't go away for a while, and neither will wealth gap.
The two are linked...different cultures and subcultures will affect how people react towards others. I, for instance, am pacifistic because I believe that all sentient beings are deserving of life, equal opportunity in that life, and are never beyond redemption. I was raised that way, or at least in that direction. Others are raised differently, and thus react towards people accordingly.
As for this specific case, the shooter showed various signs of mental illness. I frankly believe that one definite restriction upon firearms--and other weaponry--should be the illegalization of the mentally ill owning firearms, as they would not be able to own them without risking harm to themselves or others, as we have seen in the case of this massacre.
That said, we'd probably want to establish somewhat of a tiered system for defining mental illness, the amount of mental illness--say, you have merely minor hallucinations at random times versus full on schizophrenia--and the resulting ability to own firearms safely, and thus judge what firearms might be available accordingly, so we do not disenfranchise those who may only have slight traces of a mental illness.
-
CNN hosted an editorial face-off between some guy with the last name Plate and Ted Nugent. Plate wants to totally eliminate the right to bear arms:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html
The Nuge wants to totally allow the right to bear arms anywhere:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
What's interesting here is that Plate seems to make an appeal to emotion or empathy, but provides no evidence or solutions, or forethought for a gun solution. Nugent, on the other hand (who has his own share of problems), brings up several cases in which a legally armed person stopped a shooting spree.
Now, I can't make this post without appearing to endorse one side, but my point is, I'd like to see more science and constructive solutions. For being an extreme right-winger, Nugent is making a valid point, and Krispin's evidence of program failure is pretty compelling.
As a person totally uninitiated to the gun control issue, I'm surprised that empirical evidence is cutting through one side of the argument so effortlessly. Is there something I'm missing?
-
Liberal versus Conservative
The liberal talking heads have been emphasizing gun control pretty much down the line. Nothing very creative from them, although one Seattle liberal radio talk show host pointed out that it would have taken a very, very strict set of gun laws to have thwarted this particular shooting, because of the particulars. However, the Mayor noted what I said yesterday: Gun control might not be able to prevent a particular shooting from occurring, but over time it will save lives statistically. A ban (partial or total) would have some net positive effect.
On gun-related crime, yes. What about other crimes?
Suppose you banned guns entirely. It becomes much harder to get guns, and gun-related crime goes down. Meanwhile, the number of crimes that could have been stopped by a gun skyrockets, since many of them don't actually require a gun to commit. Is that a price worth paying?
The conservatives have been emphasizing the immigration angle, and, apparently as a defense to the attacks on gun rights now underway, they have also been spinning the murder as overhyped. One right-wing radio talk show host in Seattle said today that people are driving this event way out of proportion, because more people die every day in this country from things like car wrecks than they do from shootings. So, he reasoned, what is all the fuss? (He's actually got a point, except for two things. One, a more calm public reaction will do nothing to prevent these shootings from happening. Two, the "fuss" is that premeditated murder is a more culturally harmful event than a car wreck.) A few minutes later the radio host started saying that illegal immigrants come into the country, infest our cities with crime, shoot police officers, and who knows what else--because at that point I turned off the radio. He's a bullshitting bastard, and it is scary that so many people feel the same way as him right now.
Here in Texas, we see a lot of illegal immigration. And I hate to break it to you, but the guy has a point on the crime angle. Though given the fact that such a comment was immediately followed by "shoot police officers," you're quite right in assuming that the only reason he's saying that is because he's a retarded fuck.
Dehumanizing Diversions
It came out today that the killer left a letter raging against women, rich kids, campus debauchery, and perhaps some other things. I suggest to you all that these elements of the story are a diversion. They are meant to dehumanize the criminal and make it easier for us to think less critically about why this shooting occurred and how it can be prevented. In other words, the hype surrounding these details is our pop culture's own numbskulled attempt to cope with the tragedy in its own numbskulled way. Don't fall for it. We should assume that the killer was a human being just like the rest of us, and that whatever grievances drove him to this crime were at least somewhat based in society. I am not saying that we should absolve him of his legal responsibility for these crimes, but I am saying that a wiser society will look first at itself when one of its people goes bad, and only second will it look at the person who committed the crime.
This is another thing I hate to say, but the killer actually has a bit of a point; to some degree, it is society's fault. That hardly constitutes a reason to commit mass murder, but according to everything I've read about him, he was shunned and mistreated constantly throughout his life. There's only so far you can push someone before they'll snap. Unfortunately, this is a problem that has to be fixed at the social level.
The Second Amendment
Scrap it. If people want to have guns, let them damn submit to some regulation. I don't necessarily support a total gun ban, but neither do I support a Constitutional Amendment worded so broadly that right-wingers (and libertarians) falsely construe it to mean that private citizens should check their own government with the threat of violence. That is absurd in today's world.
Given the size of our country and the probable mass of defections, it might actually be possible to contest the government with guerrilla warfare to some extent, though I don't hold out much hope for such a revolution actually toppling it. If anything, by becoming an outfit of tyranny the government would end up virtually shutting down the economy, bringing its scheme to a grinding halt in fairly short order. Violence may be a solution, but it's rarely the best one.
Illegal Guns
To those who keep arguing that outlawing guns will give criminals absolute power over the rest of us, stop being deliberately dense. For one thing, the authorities would still be armed, and they are ones best equipped to deal with all of this. For another thing, the implicit argument behind arming private citizens is that they will be able to defend themselves and others against armed criminals. Gun battles between private citizens is a very bad solution! Most people would be overwhelmed by adrenaline and would make bad decisions in the heat of a gun battle. I know many of you around here feel bold, smart, and able to function well under pressure. I also know that many of you are none of those things. So it is with the rest of society. If more people brought guns to a shootout, unintentional shootings would soar. Think of the chaos! At the time of the shooting, you have no information about what is going on...yet you expect to make sound decisions about who to shoot? Bullshit. Life is seldom that easy.
The implicit argument behind letting the authorities handle everything is that they know best in every situation. All one has to do is look at the violence that goes on in many of our major cities to see that this is hardly the case. Of course, I don't trust other people to make those types of decisions, either, which is why I believe that mandatory gun training really ought to be instituted in order to purchase firearms.
So too are England, Singapore, Germany...and Canada. I looked it up. All of these are countries with significant gun restrictions, and all of them have a far lower rate of intentional gun violence than does the United States.
And all feature cultures that are quite different from ours. If I lived in one of those countries, I wouldn't mind not being able to arm myself, since I probably wouldn't need to. Over here? Not a chance. I don't know why, but this country seems to be particularly vicious even when guns aren't involved.
There does seem to be a cultural factor in play. Some societies are simply far more averse to gun violence than others, without regard to restrictions on guns. We have a violent, freewheeling, vigilante culture in many parts of America. But, dash it all, we also have a whole friggin' lot of guns.
I was about to mention that. Japan's culture is quite subdued, generally speaking. People are more focused on not fucking up their entire lives at the age of 15 to be bothered with the fine art of busting a cap in someone's ass.
Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.
And, statistically, you're more likely to use those home-protection guns to shoot a friend or family member than a burglar.
Even if I didn't have a great deal of trouble believing this, the mere presence of a gun is often enough to scare a criminal away. In fact, this is what happens far more than the criminal actually getting shot.
-
Your last statement is true in that guns instell fear in those that are at the end of said gun, at the same time, those that obtain guns with the intent on purposely hurting innocent people for thier own selfish gain are empowered by the fact that they are holding fear in thier hands. In a worst case senario, the one holding the gun with the intent to harm/kill a person has absolved all fear of anything in their heart and mind, thus allowing them to cross ethic boundries hardwired into the very nature of our being to the point where they are no longer a human, but a blood thirsty animal on the path to self destruction resulting in their emminent death upon subjugation of thier person......I have my smart moments of large words to 8)
-
In those cases, wouldn't the logical option be to have guns ready to deal with them before they commit massacres on this scale?
-
Though Ted Nugent brings up a good point that guns can stop gun related crime, it is a well known fact that prevention is better than cure. If gun control was far stricter, then I doubt the 8th grader would've been able to obtain a gun, and therefore there would've been no fatalities.
And what's he trying to say, take away the status of schools as gun-free zones? You don't need a gun to stop a shooter. Like he said in the one of his paragraphs, a good tackle could've stopped him in his tracks. I'm not sure what gun he was carrying, but I doubt it could hold more than 8 bullets, and I highly doubt he was such a good shot that he could've killed 8 people in that time (I'm talking about the second shooting).
This Ted Nugent guy seems like a fuck. "God-given rights"? "Pursuing the American Dream"? This guy is so right wing it makes Margaret Thatcher look like Lenin.
But seriously, I wouldn't feel safe at all if there were people carrying guns around in my school, just like how I wouldn't feel safe if there were security guards with guns on my plane.
-
Yes, he's radically right wing. That's what I alluded to when I said "has his own problems." There is a great leap of courage between shooting someone and tackling someone shooting at you and others.
Krispin has presented good evidence that prevention is not as easily obtainable as one might think.
-
Fair enough. But something just came to me. Didn't Cho get counseling for strange behaviour (stalking, voyeur photoes etc.), and didn't his teacher call the authority on his writings? I'm sure this is enough to not sell someone a gun.
EDIT: By the way, do we really need guns? What about tasers and other weapons that don't kill?
-
Fair enough. But something just came to me. Didn't Cho get counseling for strange behaviour (stalking, voyeur photoes etc.), and didn't his teacher call the authority on his writings? I'm sure this is enough to not sell someone a gun.
He was actually involuntarily committed at one point, and judged by professionals. They indeed saw that there were problems with him and declared him a danger to himself and/or others. They decided that the best course of action was to treat him on an out-patient basis. This basically means that he wasn't confined to an asylum or hospital and could mostly go on with his life as normal, but had to see a psychologist/iatrist regularly.
And here's the problem: The law in Virginia prevents you from purchasing a gun if you've been committed and held - but not if you've been committed and released on an out-patient basis; even if you were declared a danger to yourself and/or others. You can see right here the problem with the law, and I highly suspect that this will change as a result.
EDIT: By the way, do we really need guns? What about tasers and other weapons that don't kill?
I've been pushing for that idea for a while; my particular favorite is guns that shoot tranquilizer darts. They fulfill the need for self-protection without posing a lethal threat. They don't fit the need for rebellion, but given the arms gap between the populace and the government anyway, it's not that big a difference.
-
Fair enough. But something just came to me. Didn't Cho get counseling for strange behaviour (stalking, voyeur photoes etc.), and didn't his teacher call the authority on his writings? I'm sure this is enough to not sell someone a gun.
He was actually involuntarily committed at one point, and judged by professionals. They indeed saw that there were problems with him and declared him a danger to himself and/or others. They decided that the best course of action was to treat him on an out-patient basis. This basically means that he wasn't confined to an asylum or hospital and could mostly go on with his life as normal, but had to see a psychologist/iatrist regularly.
And here's the problem: The law in Virginia prevents you from purchasing a gun if you've been committed and held - but not if you've been committed and released on an out-patient basis; even if you were declared a danger to yourself and/or others. You can see right here the problem with the law, and I highly suspect that this will change as a result.
Too bad a massacre like this was needed for people to realize the fault in the rule.
EDIT: By the way, do we really need guns? What about tasers and other weapons that don't kill?
I've been pushing for that idea for a while; my particular favorite is guns that shoot tranquilizer darts. They fulfill the need for self-protection without posing a lethal threat. They don't fit the need for rebellion, but given the arms gap between the populace and the government anyway, it's not that big a difference.
I was thinking about that, but wouldn't tranquilizer darts be very expensive? (Not that tazers wouldn't)
-
Krispin has presented good evidence that prevention is not as easily obtainable as one might think.
The pain and guilt at being bested in argument by (the noble and intelligent) Daniel Krispin has inspired me to look more into this. I still don't have the time to work it all out, so for now I shall have to snuggle with defeat, but I don't think his argument is quite as watertight as you give it credit for. There is a more complicated picture here, and what I see shows promise for the gun control factions.
He is right, though, that Canada had a program to restrict firearms that went over budget by several orders of magnitude (!), and that it became a national disgrace. But that's not an argument against gun control; that's a monument to ineffective government.
More to come; do not let the jury speak yet!
-
Let's see... pay through the nose or a few hundred extra deaths? The cost is worth it, especially when you consider that if you're using it for defense, you'd never expect to use more than a handful of shots ever. Now, I'd of course make an exception to the gun laws for hunters and farmers who might need to shoot pests, but they could only use guns appropriate for the task.
-
The Canadian situation reminds me of the Post-Port McArthur Massacre Australia. Gun control was hugely tightened, costing heaps, but apparently it didn't really help the already decreasing gun violence rate. The gun control and amnesty was more of a symbolic gesture.