NationStates Jolt Archive

At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like it's that time again; a tragedy driven NS general debate on the efficacy of lax gun control in the states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm

Now I actually think the freedom of access to firearms in the States is necessary, or at least unavoidable, given the circumstances, but continued stories like this don't exactly help the argument.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Ok. I can already tell you the rest of the story. Troubled individual. Semi-auto rifle that everyone will call an AK-47 and/or "assault rifle" even though it's not, mall rule against having weapons.

Then, calls for more civilian disarmament. Using the dead for political gain.

My feelings go to the families affected.

How many times does this have to happen for something to be done?

Ok. I can already tell you the rest of the story. Troubled individual. Semi-auto rifle that everyone will call an AK-47 and/or "assault rifle" even though it's not, mall rule against having weapons.

Then, calls for more civilian disarmament. Using the dead for political gain.

Oh come on. You're going to suck all the fun out of this thread. :rolleyes:


On a serious note, my thoughts are with the victims of this tragedy and their families.

I'd like to wait for the story to actually reach the point where I have any idea what happened, but seriously how many times has this happened now?

makes you wonder if its even news anymore

Earlier in the day, President George W Bush had been in Omaha for a fundraiser, but he left the city before the shooting occurred.

Cheney must be stopped before he kills again!

Then, calls for more civilian disarmament. Using the dead for political gain.

What a baffling charge

Wonder if anyone in the mall had a firearm on them (legally).

And yeah, people are gonna blame gun laws and press for tighter restrictions, same old, same old.

Is it bad that I laughed when I read the subheading that reads "Customers Hid"? Why exactly did they point that out?

yay, another nutter who thinks that he can get remembered by killing lots of people.

In before the gun debate. (I'll be back if there is one)

And in two weeks after all of the news stations have settled down and the debate has ended everyone will go about their daily lives. Until this happens again...

Does anyone have that image of a boardgame that fits this perfectly?

Click Stand;13265748']...
Does anyone have that image of a boardgame that fits this perfectly?


no, not at all, why?

it's terrible when these things happen.
what the hell is wrong with humans!?

It baffles me that this sort of thing doesn't affect people.

In the UK it happened once and then the law was toughened even further.

It baffles me that this sort of thing doesn't affect people.

In the UK it happened once and then the law was toughened even further.

Yeah, everyone had to turn in their guns. Except criminals.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like it's that time again; a tragedy driven NS general debate on the efficacy of lax gun control in the states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm

Now I actually think the freedom of access to firearms in the States is necessary, or at least unavoidable, given the circumstances, but continued stories like this don't exactly help the argument.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Thoughts and prayers to the family first and foremost. I cannot imagine or begin to comprehend the experience.

Is your comment due to the fact that you believe that removing the freedom of access would eliminate the opportunity? Two assumptions here that are tremendously troubling: One, illegal = eliminated. Two, guns = crime.

Maybe we would also want to rid ourselves of planes, trains and automobiles, all weapons of choice in history.

Don't you think that someone of this nature would find another method of destruction. it seems hard for me to imagine that this person would have simply gone about his life if he had lived in a society with a law prohibiting gun ownership. The law prohibiting murder didn't seem to slow him down much.

Maybe the answer is to eliminate malls. This seems as logical. It would reduce the number of people concentrated in a single enclosed area, therefore reducing the opportunity. It would also reduce the stress!

The United States, as well as every other country, is littered with brutal, unfathomable crimes. I'm not for sure what can be done to stop this. Punishment is obviously not a concern, as the person committed suicide.

Horribly sad story.

Rolling squid;13265758']no, not at all, why?

because it is a pretty good representation...and I don't feel like finding it.

Yeah, everyone had to turn in their guns. Except criminals.

the last amnesty on guns where nearly 44,000 were handed in. Whether legal or not I'd rather they were not in the hands of an individual.

It baffles me that this sort of thing doesn't affect people.

In the UK it happened once and then the law was toughened even further.

There is only so much effective punishment that can be afflicted upon a person who is willing to take their own life...

Yeah, everyone had to turn in their guns. Except criminals.

And gun crime soared as all the criminals used them on the public they knew to be unarmed!

And gun crime soared as all the criminals used them on the public they knew to be unarmed!

The general public was unarmed before the handgun ban was intruduced.

Click Stand;13265748']

Does anyone have that image of a boardgame that fits this perfectly?

Life? Mouse Trap? Clue? Mr Gunman with the rifle in the foodcourt?

Thoughts and prayers to the family first and foremost. I cannot imagine or begin to comprehend the experience.

Is your comment due to the fact that you believe that removing the freedom of access would eliminate the opportunity? Two assumptions here that are tremendously troubling: One, illegal = eliminated. Two, guns = crime.

Maybe we would also want to rid ourselves of planes, trains and automobiles, all weapons of choice in history.

Don't you think that someone of this nature would find another method of destruction. it seems hard for me to imagine that this person would have simply gone about his life if he had lived in a society with a law prohibiting gun ownership. The law prohibiting murder didn't seem to slow him down much.

Maybe the answer is to eliminate malls. This seems as logical. It would reduce the number of people concentrated in a single enclosed area, therefore reducing the opportunity. It would also reduce the stress!

The United States, as well as every other country, is littered with brutal, unfathomable crimes. I'm not for sure what can be done to stop this. Punishment is obviously not a concern, as the person committed suicide.

Horribly sad story.

I find your logic fascinating, nevermind banning guns because people will find another way to run rampant in a shopping mall? So instead of preventing everybody access to weapons which are capable of inflicting a lot of death and misery lets just leave it as it is because someone might think of something else?

But you're right, everybody should have the right to bear arms and run rampant with them in be it shopping malls, postal offices or schools, or have your kid shoot itself in the face with your firearm because that's the American way, and if you don't believe in that you're obviously a commie!

the last amnesty on guns where nearly 44,000 were handed in. Whether legal or not I'd rather they were not in the hands of an individual.

Curious, if you were going to storm a mall, and try to kill as many people as possible, and your choice was a mall in a state where it was legal to carry concealed weapons, or a state where it is not legal, which would you strategically choose?

Also, could you please provide neutral reporting related to overall crime rates in your neighborhood since the 44,000 guns were removed. Please do not show evidence compared to other nations, simply the crime rate in your state/nation prior to the removal of the guns, and after. I mean, if a person is opposed to guns, so be it. However, to insinuate in an emotional circumstance such as this that guns are a primary concern seems terribly biased. Do people really believe that suggesting to the populace that they voluntarily surrender their weapons will stifle this type of action? We seem to be suggesting that this was the natural act of an individual simply overcome by the danger of a weapon. I would have a terribly hard time believing that, in the same environment, the illegal actions would be significantly reduced. This was not a rational event, in my opinion.

Maybe, without a gun, the guy strangles two or three before he is apprehended. Then again, maybe he builds a bomb, sabotages a plane, runs a vehicle through pedestrians. I mean, the gun also caused him to stop!

There is only so much effective punishment that can be afflicted upon a person who is willing to take their own life...

preferably none

And gun crime soared as all the criminals used them on the public they knew to be unarmed!

no, if there is one thing we are good at its not going on shooting rampages or generally doing anything to disrupt a line :cool:

SNIP

well now that you seem to be willing to give up the excuse that the US and UK are different

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/5.jpg

96 was the year of the Dunblane massacre so go us I guess

"Latest Mass Shooting in the US" Eight (not including the shooter) people that's not a "Mass Shooting" that's nothing. People keep over exaggerating these stories wow eight people big whoop that's 8 out of 301,139,947 Doesn't seem like such a big number now does it? Sure, this is a travesty for the family members but does it directly affect the USA or the world, No. So stop making every little death seem like it's huge. When someone manages to kill over 200 people in one of these shootings (Columbine,Vtech, that mall, Etc) then it will be a mass shooting. Oh, and guns shouldn't be out lawed or anything the people like this will still get gun through illegal trade and other means.

An interesting spin from, ironically, Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315342,00.html):

"Wednesday's shooting was the second mass shooting at a mall this year. In February, nine people were shot, five of them fatally, at Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City. The gunman, 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, was shot and killed by police."

In reality it was by an off-duty Officer who was carrying his sidearm against the rules of the mall.

"Latest Mass Shooting in the US" Eight (not including the shooter) people that's not a "Mass Shooting" that's nothing. People keep over exaggerating these stories wow eight people big whoop that's 8 out of 301,139,947 Doesn't seem like such a big number now does it?

yeah it does seeing as how people don't really die anymore and are populations are on the fall

hence why panther attacks make the news so much :)

the shooter was Robert hopkins (19), he was identified by his mother. Left a suicide note saying "He was going to go out in style". Been in trouble with the law for minor things. 9 dead 5 injured.

My condolences to the victims families and friends.

I figure if this guy didn't have a gun or was unable to buy/barrow/steal a gun he'd have just figured out a more inventive way to kill people before suiciding. Maybe we need to make a state sponsored suicide bureau to find a use for these people. An American suicide bomber to play fair with Al-Qaeda?

An interesting spin from, ironically, Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315342,00.html):

"Wednesday's shooting was the second mass shooting at a mall this year. In February, nine people were shot, five of them fatally, at Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City. The gunman, 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, was shot and killed by police."

In reality it was by an off-duty Officer who was carrying his sidearm against the rules of the mall.

According to the BBC article in the OP he committed suicide.

So a very interesting spin on it from Fox.


Curious, if you were going to storm a mall, and try to kill as many people as possible, and your choice was a mall in a state where it was legal to carry concealed weapons, or a state where it is not legal, which would you strategically choose?
This is the fatal flaw of US gun control measures, namely that they're not enforced properly. It's pointless having a state try and restrict the possession of firearms if those who wish can cross a completely open border, legally purchase a gun and bring it back.


Also, could you please provide neutral reporting related to overall crime rates in your neighborhood since the 44,000 guns were removed. Please do not show evidence compared to other nations, simply the crime rate in your state/nation prior to the removal of the guns, and after. I mean, if a person is opposed to guns, so be it. However, to insinuate in an emotional circumstance such as this that guns are a primary concern seems terribly biased. Do people really believe that suggesting to the populace that they voluntarily surrender their weapons will stifle this type of action? We seem to be suggesting that this was the natural act of an individual simply overcome by the danger of a weapon. I would have a terribly hard time believing that, in the same environment, the illegal actions would be significantly reduced. This was not a rational event, in my opinion.

The guns were further restricted, even in 1996 gun ownership was relatively rare in the UK.


Maybe, without a gun, the guy strangles two or three before he is apprehended. Then again, maybe he builds a bomb, sabotages a plane, runs a vehicle through pedestrians. I mean, the gun also caused him to stop!
Essentially, guns make it easier for him to kill people. I'm in favour of making it harder for people to kill other people. The harder it can be made with the least negative effect on people's lives, the better I like it. So while heavily restricting cars might save lives, it also negatively effects a lot of people in a significant manner.

For guns, in my most humble opinion, the ratio of lives saved compared to negative effects were guns restricted to a greater extent is a good one. But what is most important is how it's implemented, if a law is ineffectually enforced then it is worse than useless. The doubts I do have for gun control is the USA's ability (or lack thereof) to enforce it.

According to the BBC article in the OP he committed suicide.

So a very interesting spin on it from Fox.

Ah, you're misreading it. It was in reference to the shooting in February not this one.

Ah, you're misreading it. It was in reference to the shooting in February not this one.

My mistake.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like it's that time again; a tragedy driven NS general debate on the efficacy of lax gun control in the states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm

Now I actually think the freedom of access to firearms in the States is necessary, or at least unavoidable, given the circumstances, but continued stories like this don't exactly help the argument.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Gun Control Laws doesn't work. If you look at cities like Washington D.C. and Detroit, they have the highest crime rates in this country, and the strictest Gun control laws.

Curious, if you were going to storm a mall, and try to kill as many people as possible, and your choice was a mall in a state where it was legal to carry concealed weapons, or a state where it is not legal, which would you strategically choose?

Also, could you please provide neutral reporting related to overall crime rates in your neighborhood since the 44,000 guns were removed. Please do not show evidence compared to other nations, simply the crime rate in your state/nation prior to the removal of the guns, and after. I mean, if a person is opposed to guns, so be it. However, to insinuate in an emotional circumstance such as this that guns are a primary concern seems terribly biased. Do people really believe that suggesting to the populace that they voluntarily surrender their weapons will stifle this type of action? We seem to be suggesting that this was the natural act of an individual simply overcome by the danger of a weapon. I would have a terribly hard time believing that, in the same environment, the illegal actions would be significantly reduced. This was not a rational event, in my opinion.

Maybe, without a gun, the guy strangles two or three before he is apprehended. Then again, maybe he builds a bomb, sabotages a plane, runs a vehicle through pedestrians. I mean, the gun also caused him to stop!

For a start there hasn't been a mass shooting in the UK since Dumblane and thats good enough for me. Dumblane and the Hungerford shootings both happened with legal guns. in the last 20 years the UK has had two mass shootings. I know the US has around 5 times the population so it would be unfair to compare.


More news on the shooting the rifle was stolen from his step father so it could be a legal gun

Aww, those poor mall people. :(

Gun Control Laws doesn't work. If you look at cities like Washington D.C. and Detroit, they have the highest crime rates in this country, and the strictest Gun control laws.

Gun control laws are unenforcable if they can be easily brought across an open state border. If the US (or a state) wished to implement gun control laws then securing the borders (to some extent at least) is a must.

Gun control laws are unenforcable if they can be easily brought across an open state border. If the US (or a state) wished to implement gun control laws then securing the borders (to some extent at least) is a must.

The only thing Gun Control Laws do is take guns away from the law abiding citizens. Law abiding means you obey the laws. Now those who do NOT obey the laws do not abide by Gun Control. They are the ones who are getting the guns, they are the one doing the shootings, and they are the one who rob those who obey the laws because those who don't know that they don't have their guns anymore. They know that the law pretty much stripped them of any chance to defend themselves.

The only thing Gun Control Laws do is take guns away from the law abiding citizens. Law abiding means you obey the laws. Now those who do NOT obey the laws do not abide by Gun Control. They are the ones who are getting the guns, they are the one doing the shootings, and they are the one who rob those who obey the laws because those who don't know that they don't have their guns anymore. They know that the law pretty much stripped them of any chance to defend themselves.

That's like saying that the only people who steal are thieves, and only murderers kill. The point being is that we have police to make people abide by the law. The law is not supposed to be voluntary.

Sad sad day for the victims and their families.

Perhaps though, if the shooter had been properly informed that the mall was a gun-free area, this never would have happened. Maybe they need to put up bigger signs to prevent this happening again in the future?

That's like saying that the only people who steal are thieves, and only murderers kill. The point being is that we have police to make people abide by the law. The law is not supposed to be voluntary.

and the police suck, their response time in my neck of the woods suck. Police can't always be right then, and right there. Sometimes you need to let the citizen defend themselves and diffuse a bad situation.

Why do you think Gas station clerks have weapons?

Unfortunately, nine single murders is worse than a single eight-person mass shooting, even if it gets less media coverage.

"Latest Mass Shooting in the US" Eight (not including the shooter) people that's not a "Mass Shooting" that's nothing. People keep over exaggerating these stories wow eight people big whoop that's 8 out of 301,139,947 Doesn't seem like such a big number now does it?

Depends on how important the people are, if every single one of those eight people is brain surgeon it's pretty significant.

Oh, and guns shouldn't be out lawed or anything the people like this will still get gun through illegal trade and other means.

No, the people that really want to kill people will still get guns, people that just happened to have a gun lying around when life is too much probably won't bother. Or they'll use a knife, but a knife has significantly less range than a gun.

It has been reported that the shooter was just a troubled 19 year old who wanted to die, be famous and go out with a bang. Sure he went to the trouble of (allegedly) stealing his step-father's gun, but this is one of the cases where they probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of getting one through illegal trade.

and the police suck, their response time in my neck of the woods suck. Police can't always be right then, and right there. Sometimes you need to let the citizen defend themselves and diffuse a bad situation.

Why do you think Gas station clerks have weapons?

While I support gun control in principle I recognise that ineffectually implementing it is worse than not implementing it.

I would suggest looking into improving the police force. And my point was more aimed towards prevention than trying to react to incidents.

Going to bed now, pick it up tommorrow.

I would suggest looking into improving the police force. And my point was more aimed towards prevention than trying to react to incidents.

The police cannot be everywhere at once, unless you're in some sort of nanny state. The US isn't too keen on governmental restrictions (heck, it's why we had a revolution), so that's why we take a different approach to it than other countries.

A gun in your hand is gonna stop a criminal a lot faster than a call to the cops. In the US, we defend our personal rights quite strongly, and gun control is an aspect of that. I can use my personal gun to personally defend my person, instead of trusting that the cops are doing their job flawlessly. Whether or not it's right to shoot a guy who's trying to rob/assault/rape you/someone else is up to you.

I know the answer! Everyone should be armed to the teeth!

Especially the babies.

Cats too. But not dogs. Dogs are stupid.

A gun isn't a tool though it’s a weapon right? The only thing you can use it for is to propel metal into things? Why do we casually fantasise about this so much? The idea of pulling the trigger and taking an action that can't be taken back becomes a metaphor we use when we think about other things than literally shooting people, we frequently take guns away from the consequences of what they are :mp5: :sniper: but does this allow us to role play our fantasy and remove the need to actually act against the parts of society that we feel oppress our life (I mean work and peer groups and debt rather then rebellion).

Why does the population desire to be armed?

Can the state no longer protect us from criminals to such an extent that it requires target hardening? (Giving gas store clerks guns or just making sure houses have burglar alarms) Research suggests that this just shifts the target of crime onto less protected often poorer people.

And if both parties have guns doesn’t that just result in someone getting shot for sure rather then someone getting robbed at gun point. Or in the case of a mall shooting if someone else had a gun then they could have tried to 'take the guy down' but the ensuing gun fight might have resulted in even more wounded.

The police cannot be everywhere at once, unless you're in some sort of nanny state. The US isn't too keen on governmental restrictions (heck, it's why we had a revolution), so that's why we take a different approach to it than other countries.

A gun in your hand is gonna stop a criminal a lot faster than a call to the cops. In the US, we defend our personal rights quite strongly, and gun control is an aspect of that. I can use my personal gun to personally defend my person, instead of trusting that the cops are doing their job flawlessly. Whether or not it's right to shoot a guy who's trying to rob/assault/rape you/someone else is up to you.
I understand and sympathise with the notion that having an ability to defend oneself is an inalianable right, but that right does not disappear because guns are banned. I have been robbed at knifepoint and if I'm thankful for anything it's that I wasn't robbed at gunpoint, and further, that I didn't produce a gun myself. One of us would be dead and the other would be doing time. Yes, the thief violated my property rights, but sometimes pride must be proverbially swallowed.

I don't see the ineffectiveness of the police force as a compelling argument for gun ownership; it's something of an 'argument from anarchy'. It's only an argument for a better police force. By shooting someone who is trying to rob/assault/rape you or someone else, you are simply acting outside of the law yourself and condoning a very strange interpretation of justice - making individuals 'judge, jury and executioner'. The law is not just a fanciful concoction or something just to protect property rights, it's the sum total of thousands of years of trial and error. It is perhaps not perfect, but much more perfect than the justice dealt out by an individual in a charged situation. A person who committed any of the above acts would not be sentenced to grievous harm except in the most extreme cases and where capital punishment is employed. And seriously, if being killed or raped is your number #1 concern every morning, that's a society in which I don't want to live.

and the police suck, their response time in my neck of the woods suck. Police can't always be right then, and right there. Sometimes you need to let the citizen defend themselves and diffuse a bad situation.

Why do you think Gas station clerks have weapons?
Because they are protecting their financial interests? Personally I think it's pretty dumb that a clerk getting paid $20/hr or whatever is willing to put their life on the line to save whatever is in the till. It's only money, and not theirs either.

"Latest Mass Shooting in the US" Eight (not including the shooter) people that's not a "Mass Shooting" that's nothing. People keep over exaggerating these stories wow eight people big whoop that's 8 out of 301,139,947 Doesn't seem like such a big number now does it? Sure, this is a travesty for the family members but does it directly affect the USA or the world, No. So stop making every little death seem like it's huge. When someone manages to kill over 200 people in one of these shootings (Columbine,Vtech, that mall, Etc) then it will be a mass shooting. Oh, and guns shouldn't be out lawed or anything the people like this will still get gun through illegal trade and other means.


This is the largest amount of people killed in a single shooting incident in Nebraska to date. Please do not be an insensitive jerk about this. It was a tragic incident that affects the lives of the people of Omaha. Today was a tragic day in Nebraska.

<3

This is the largest amount of people killed in a single shooting incident in Nebraska to date. Please do not be an insensitive jerk about this. It was a tragic incident that affects the lives of the people of Omaha. Today was a tragic day in Nebraska.

<3

QFT.

"Latest Mass Shooting in the US" Eight (not including the shooter) people that's not a "Mass Shooting" that's nothing. People keep over exaggerating these stories wow eight people big whoop that's 8 out of 301,139,947 Doesn't seem like such a big number now does it? Sure, this is a travesty for the family members but does it directly affect the USA or the world, No. So stop making every little death seem like it's huge. When someone manages to kill over 200 people in one of these shootings (Columbine,Vtech, that mall, Etc) then it will be a mass shooting. Oh, and guns shouldn't be out lawed or anything the people like this will still get gun through illegal trade and other means.
You define a ratio of 8/301139947 being an acceptable one. What would an unacceptable ratio look like?

Perhaps if all the victims carried guns then they could've defended themselves. Perhaps they abandoned their duty.

I have been robbed at knifepoint and if I'm thankful for anything it's that I wasn't robbed at gunpoint, and further, that I didn't produce a gun myself. One of us would be dead and the other would be doing time.

For one, statistics show that resisting (surprisingly) reduces the chance of being hurt during a robbery, etc. Two, it isn't illegal in the US to kill someone in self defense, in the defense of another, or in the defense of your property.
You could say, however, that it's not moral to do so.

I don't see the ineffectiveness of the police force as a compelling argument for gun ownership; it's something of an 'argument from anarchy'.

It is, in a way.

By shooting someone who is trying to rob/assault/rape you or someone else, you are simply acting outside of the law yourself and condoning a very strange interpretation of justice - making individuals 'judge, jury and executioner'. The law is not just a fanciful concoction or something just to protect property rights, it's the sum total of thousands of years of trial and error. It is perhaps not perfect, but much more perfect than the justice dealt out by an individual in a charged situation. A person who committed any of the above acts would not be sentenced to grievous harm except in the most extreme cases and where capital punishment is employed.

The counterargument is that the majority of criminals are or will become repeat offenders and/or that self-defense isn't always lethal, with the addendum that firearms are the only seriously effective method. If we had a techno-magical stun gun that worked as well as a firearm would, then the argument for killing in self defense would be greatly weakened.

And seriously, if being killed or raped is your number #1 concern every morning, that's a society in which I don't want to live.

A lot of places in the US are like this, and wishing them away doesn't help the situation. Giving people the right to shoot in self-defense is merely a way to protect the victims, not a way to solve the problem.

Because they are protecting their financial interests? Personally I think it's pretty dumb that a clerk getting paid $20/hr or whatever is willing to put their life on the line to save whatever is in the till. It's only money, and not theirs either.

Most people willing to shoot a robber have some ownership in the store, or a bit of courage and an opening to act. A dead criminal can't hurt you, right? Can you blame someone faced with the threat of being hurt or killed for defending themselves?

An interesting spin from, ironically, Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315342,00.html):

"Wednesday's shooting was the second mass shooting at a mall this year. In February, nine people were shot, five of them fatally, at Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City. The gunman, 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, was shot and killed by police."

In reality it was by an off-duty Officer who was carrying his sidearm against the rules of the mall.

I'd hazard a guess that the rules of the mall allow for off duty officers to carry.

The thing that bothers me most about gun control is that is it focuses on the guns themselves, and not on the root causes of most gun-related violence. If we were to take steps to reduce poverty and racial inequality, and find help for mentally unstable individuals, I'm certain we would see a gradual drop in the number of gun-related deaths in the US.

The thing that bothers me most about gun control is that is it focuses on the guns themselves, and not on the root causes of most gun-related violence. If we were to take steps to reduce poverty and racial inequality, and find help for mentally unstable individuals, I'm certain we would see a gradual drop in the number of gun-related deaths in the US.

But it's easier and more politically expedient to blame the tool than the person wielding it.

It's official, the weapon has been identified as an SKS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS) assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle). Yes, a semi-automatic carbine is now considered an assault rifle.

The thing that bothers me most about gun control is that is it focuses on the guns themselves, and not on the root causes of most gun-related violence. If we were to take steps to reduce poverty and racial inequality, and find help for mentally unstable individuals, I'm certain we would see a gradual drop in the number of gun-related deaths in the US.

legalize drugs, that would probably end like half of all gun-related murders.

A gun isn't a tool though it’s a weapon right? The only thing you can use it for is to propel metal into things? Why do we casually fantasise about this so much? The idea of pulling the trigger and taking an action that can't be taken back becomes a metaphor we use when we think about other things than literally shooting people, we frequently take guns away from the consequences of what they are :mp5: :sniper: but does this allow us to role play our fantasy and remove the need to actually act against the parts of society that we feel oppress our life (I mean work and peer groups and debt rather then rebellion).

I used to play G.I. Joe when I was 8 years old, but anyone who seriously wants to shoot people should be quarantined.



Why does the population desire to be armed?

Can the state no longer protect us from criminals to such an extent that it requires target hardening? (Giving gas store clerks guns or just making sure houses have burglar alarms) Research suggests that this just shifts the target of crime onto less protected often poorer people.

It comes down to this. I want to be armed because I want to be free. The more we trust our government to protect us, the more we forfeit our freedoms. In my opinion, poor people need guns more than anyone else because of the areas they tend to live in. Maybe the NRA should donate pistols to people who cannot afford them for home defense?



And if both parties have guns doesn’t that just result in someone getting shot for sure rather then someone getting robbed at gun point. Or in the case of a mall shooting if someone else had a gun then they could have tried to 'take the guy down' but the ensuing gun fight might have resulted in even more wounded.

Yeah but if the criminal gets shot, he, and his friends, and everybody who sees what happened on the news, will seriously reconsider trying to rob a gas station. Its easy to measure gun violence. Its harder to measure violence avoided because would-be criminals know that honest citizens have guns.

In the case of the mall: I personally wish that I had been there to put one between that lunatic's eyes. Could more people have been hurt? Yes, its possible. Could less people have been hurt? Yes to that as well. People with guns may still chose to run away but at least they have a fighting chance if they run out of options.

But it's easier and more politically expedient to blame the tool than the person wielding it.

Sickeningly true. A quick and easy "solution" to appease the masses and make it appear that something is being done, so that politicians can remain in office.

Sickeningly true. A quick and easy "solution" to appease the masses and make it appear that something is being done, so that politicians can remain in office.

Yeah, like the state is going to take away my gun rights because of what this little piss of a man did. :headbang:

My feelings go to the families affected.

How many times does this (mass murder) have to happen for something to be done?

"A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." -Stalin

Infinity times, I suppose. Not that it is possible to reach infinity...

Yeah, like the state is going to take away my gun rights because of what this little piss of a man did. :headbang:

They might actually try.

I understand and sympathise with the notion that having an ability to defend oneself is an inalianable right, but that right does not disappear because guns are banned. I have been robbed at knifepoint and if I'm thankful for anything it's that I wasn't robbed at gunpoint, and further, that I didn't produce a gun myself. One of us would be dead and the other would be doing time. Yes, the thief violated my property rights, but sometimes pride must be proverbially swallowed.
And I'm thankful to live in a society that wouldn't put one away for defending oneself.

Plus..

Robbed at gunpoint and having a gun =/= someone being shot, or a gun even being fired.
-
Shot =/= dead.


I don't see the ineffectiveness of the police force as a compelling argument for gun ownership; it's something of an 'argument from anarchy'. It's only an argument for a better police force.
But at what cost, for 100% effectiveness? How big, be it monetary, or to our rights and freedoms?! A police state.

When you look at the facts, it's clear that with the absence of 100% complete guaranteed protection, at ALL times, (24-7-365) there is no compelling argument to be made against such justification for ownership. (police ineffectiveness)

Which, in any event, is only one of many reasons (justifications) for ownership to begin with.


By shooting someone who is trying to rob/assault/rape you or someone else, you are simply acting outside of the law yourself and condoning a very strange interpretation of justice - making individuals 'judge, jury and executioner'. The law is not just a fanciful concoction or something just to protect property rights, it's the sum total of thousands of years of trial and error. It is perhaps not perfect, but much more perfect than the justice dealt out by an individual in a charged situation. A person who committed any of the above acts would not be sentenced to grievous harm except in the most extreme cases and where capital punishment is employed.
Wait! Are you seriously arguing now that shooting some scumbag criminal, in the life or death defense of yourself, your family or friends, your home/property or anyone else. Is some newly defined form of extrajudicial vigilanteism?!

I am REALLY, EXTREMELY thankful to NOT live in a society run like that. I could see it now.. Death/Life for defending oneself!


And seriously, if being killed or raped is your number #1 concern every morning, that's a society in which I don't want to live.
Yeah, because you would have to live in a real hellhole, in order to feel the need to simply take a few precautions and preparations... not be left defenseless.



*EDIT: Sorry about the rant, I get like this when I've been up too long sometimes.

Yeah, everyone had to turn in their guns. Except criminals.

Heh I love this little debate, we get the same old lines trotted out, time and time again.

The thing here though, again, is that it is not the criminals doing this huh. In fact how many times have you had to use a gun to defend yourself against criminals? How many times have you had to use a gun to stop a break in at your house?

At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like it's that time again; a tragedy driven NS general debate on the efficacy of lax gun control in the states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm

Now I actually think the freedom of access to firearms in the States is necessary, or at least unavoidable, given the circumstances, but continued stories like this don't exactly help the argument.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Think of how quickly this could have ended if some of the shoppers were armed...

Think of how quickly this could have ended if some of the shoppers were armed...

Or.

Think how this would never have happened if he couldn't get his hands on a gun......

Think of how quickly this could have ended if some of the shoppers were armed...

Think of how it wouldn't have happened if his step-father hadn't had a gun to steal.

EDIT: Damn, beaten to it.

Think of how quickly this could have ended if some of the shoppers were armed...

Yeah a mass free for all of lots of people shooting each other because they mistook the person shooting the original assailant for another assailant. That would really work out fantastically.

Or.

Think how this would never have happened if he couldn't get his hands on a gun......

Well, THAT would require a constitutional Amendment; so I'll merely work within the present powers.

Yeah a mass free for all of lots of people shooting each other because they mistook the person shooting the original assailant for another assailant. That would really work out fantastically.

Or, they work together and take out the assailant.....

Bah, I still say the most efficient way to kill yourself and commit mass death at the same time is to blow up an oil tanker in harbour. :p

Well, THAT would require a constitutional Amendment; so I'll merely work within the present powers.

Heh that's just damn lazy if you ask me. Go on change the law, people do it every day you know, it is not unheard of.

Or, they work together and take out the assailant.....

Or.

This....

Or.

That....


What a handy word umm!

Heh that's just damn lazy if you ask me. Go on change the law, people do it every day you know, it is not unheard of.

Yep, but I happen to agree with the Amendment, so I would not seek to repeal it...

Or, they work together and take out the assailant.....

Or they work together to take out someone they've mistaken for the assailant.

Or.

Think how this would never have happened if he couldn't get his hands on a gun......

Yay, we're going to happy fantasy land!!!

Heh that's just damn lazy if you ask me. Go on change the law, people do it every day you know, it is not unheard of.

So you don't know the difference between passing an amendment and a law. Can you tell me the last time an amendment was passed?

Or, they work together and take out the assailant.....

Considering that this is the common argument, I'm surprised that it never seems to happen.

So you don't know the difference between passing an amendment and a law. Can you tell me the last time an amendment was passed?

I can, 1992.... Of course it was initially submitted in 1789... So it took 202 years for it to get ratified.

An amendment may be submitted with the approval of either 2/3 rd's of the state legislators, or 2/3 rd's of the senate's approval.... It then needs to be ratified by 3/4 th's of the states to be "official" (at present that means 38 states).

A law requires simple majority approval by house and senate... And then submission to President... If President does not approve, it is resubmitted to congress, where it then requires a 2/3 rd's majority for passage...

The bar for the passage of an Amendment to the Constitution is much higher than that for a simple law...

You could pass a law "banning" guns from the populace; but such laws will be up to judicial scrutiny... That is, SCOTUS could invalidate, under constitutional grounds, gun bannings... The only way to actually ban guns complete from civilians in the US is to pass a constitutional amendment, repealing the 2nd amendment, and then enacting laws banning guns.

Ok. I can already tell you the rest of the story. Troubled individual. Semi-auto rifle that everyone will call an AK-47 and/or "assault rifle" even though it's not, mall rule against having weapons.

Then, calls for more civilian disarmament. Using the dead for political gain.


Did you notice some news outlets are calling him a child even though he was 19?

Did you notice some news outlets are calling him a child even though he was 19?

Hadn;t noticed that yet. I did notice that not a single report has mentioned the mall has a "no weapons allowed" policy .

Yep, but I happen to agree with the Amendment, so I would not seek to repeal it...

Heh backtracking?

Yay, we're going to happy fantasy land!!!

Well then I'm glad for you. I hope you enjoy your stay there.

So you don't know the difference between passing an amendment and a law. Can you tell me the last time an amendment was passed?

Nope and nope. And you?

I can, 1992.... Of course it was initially submitted in 1789... So it took 202 years for it to get ratified.

An amendment may be submitted with the approval of either 2/3 rd's of the state legislators, or 2/3 rd's of the senate's approval.... It then needs to be ratified by 3/4 th's of the states to be "official" (at present that means 38 states).

A law requires simple majority approval by house and senate... And then submission to President... If President does not approve, it is resubmitted to congress, where it then requires a 2/3 rd's majority for passage...

The bar for the passage of an Amendment to the Constitution is much higher than that for a simple law...

You could pass a law "banning" guns from the populace; but such laws will be up to judicial scrutiny... That is, SCOTUS could invalidate, under constitutional grounds, gun bannings... The only way to actually ban guns complete from civilians in the US is to pass a constitutional amendment, repealing the 2nd amendment, and then enacting laws banning guns.

Which is all a long winded way to say.

'Shit! We were buggered up right from the start, damn those founding fathers damn them!'

Nope and nope. And you?


OK. Just making sure you knew you had no idea what you were talking about.

OK. Just making sure you knew you had no idea what you were talking about.

Bwhahaha since when has knowledge of the subject matter been compulsory for internet forums?

Which is all a long winded way to say.

'Shit! We were buggered up right from the start, damn those founding fathers damn them!'

Now we've gone into the "US Sucks" type of posts. Get some new material.

You could pass a law "banning" guns from the populace; but such laws will be up to judicial scrutiny... That is, SCOTUS could invalidate, under constitutional grounds, gun bannings... The only way to actually ban guns complete from civilians in the US is to pass a constitutional amendment, repealing the 2nd amendment, and then enacting laws banning guns.

You forgot the other option. SCOTUS could and has plans this session to redefine the meaning of the 2nd amendment

Bwhahaha since when has knowledge of the subject matter been compulsory for internet forums?

It's compulsory for not looking like a total fool.......

Heh backtracking?

It's backtracking to say I'd rather work within the powers, and then state an agreement with the amendment? Well, if I agree with the amendment I WOULD work within the powers... Seems more like consistency to me...

Oh, if you think 2/3 rd's of the senate and 3/4 th's of the states will agree with you, be my guest in changing the constitution... Until then, you can stop dealing with a fantasy world where you can legislate away guns.

Now we've gone into the "US Sucks" type of posts. Get some new material.

Ahhh I didn't mean it like that. I'm talking purely about the fucked up gun situation you chaps have.

It's compulsory for not looking like a total fool.......

*shrug* meh! :rolleyes:

You forgot the other option. SCOTUS could and has plans this session to redefine the meaning of the 2nd amendment

Yea, between their previous precedent of it being a "collective" right held by states against Federal interference, and it being an "individual" right by the people... Basically it's nothing more than a "states powers" vs. "individual liberties" case... If the court remains with the collective rights position; nothing changes from present... If it shifts to an individual liberties standpoint; every gun-control law on the books is in jeopardy...

Ahhh I didn't mean it like that. I'm talking purely about the fucked up gun situation you chaps have.

Gun crime is actually at the lowest level in 30 years even w/ the slight uptick last year. That means, even w/ CCW in 48 states and (at worst) the same number of people owning firearms, all the anti-gun laws passed did nothing to curb crime.

Yea, between their previous precedent of it being a "collective" right held by states against Federal interference, and it being an "individual" right by the people... Basically it's nothing more than a "states powers" vs. "individual liberties" case... If the court remains with the collective rights position; nothing changes from present... If it shifts to an individual liberties standpoint; every gun-control law on the books is in jeopardy...

I'll disagree w/ you here. If you look at the question that the SCOTUS is going to respond to, it will actually only effect a number of the most extreme laws such as DC and Chicago's gun bans if the appellate ruling us upheld. It would still take a lot of work to overturn the various AWB's.

Gun crime is actually at the lowest level in 30 years even w/ the slight uptick last year. That means, even w/ CCW in 48 states and (at worst) the same number of people owning firearms, all the anti-gun laws passed did nothing to curb crime.

Which shows how you havn't got a fucked up gun situation?

Which shows how you havn't got a fucked up gun situation?

Which shows that "fucked up" is a relative term.

Which shows that "fucked up" is a relative term.

Granted.

my prayers are with the families and all those affected by this.

one question hat I have not seen asked it this How did this kid get the rifle in to the mall in the first place?? A rife is very very out of place in a mall and its one of those things that it seems like it would immediately be cause for a lot of concern.

:(:(:confused::confused:

my prayers are with the families and all those affected by this.

one question hat I have not seen asked it this How did this kid get the rifle in to the mall in the first place?? A rife is very very out of place in a mall and its one of those things that it seems like it would immediately be cause for a lot of concern.

:(:(:confused::confused:

A duffle bag or heavy coat would be the most logical answers.

Which shows how you havn't got a fucked up gun situation?

Personally, I don't think that the guns themselves are the real problem. We should instead focus on the things that can lead to somebody committing an act of violence, regardless of their weapon of choice. As I stated earlier, if we were to reduce poverty and racial inequality, and get help for mentally unstable individuals, we could see a significant drop in violent crime.

I'll disagree w/ you here. If you look at the question that the SCOTUS is going to respond to, it will actually only effect a number of the most extreme laws such as DC and Chicago's gun bans if the appellate ruling us upheld. It would still take a lot of work to overturn the various AWB's.

It would be interesting to see if it would have any effect on NYC gun permits. They arnt banned in NYC just highly restricted. A pistol licence is a state issued licence, yet my pistol permit that is legal in most every other county in NY is not valid in NYC for some reason. I wonder if this could also force a lessing of permit standards or if States could continue to use overly restrictive standards to maintain a defacto ban.

A duffle bag or heavy coat would be the most logical answers.

That they would, the coat more so than the bag I think.
I guess I'm surprised that it has not be mentioned.

Personally, I don't think that the guns themselves are the real problem. We should instead focus on the things that can lead to somebody committing an act of violence, regardless of their weapon of choice. As I stated earlier, if we were to reduce poverty and racial inequality, and get help for mentally unstable individuals, we could see a significant drop in violent crime.

All of which is true, but the gun situation IS still a major contribution. You have a whole culture built around the gun.

We here in the UK don't, yet as somebody will surly point out, anybody here can easily get a gun. Why, when we also have poverty, mental illness, and racial inequality, does this sort of thing rarely happen over here?

I'll disagree w/ you here. If you look at the question that the SCOTUS is going to respond to, it will actually only effect a number of the most extreme laws such as DC and Chicago's gun bans if the appellate ruling us upheld. It would still take a lot of work to overturn the various AWB's.

Don't ruin my hopes and dreams. :(

/still wishes for a day that he can legally put a pre-ban upper on his 2 year old lower receiver in CT.

All of which is true, but the gun situation IS still a major contribution. You have a whole culture built around the gun.

We here in the UK don't, yet as somebody will surly point out, anybody here can easily get a gun. Why, when we also have poverty, mental illness, and racial inequality, does this sort of thing rarely happen over here?

Hell if I know; but I still don't believe that simply removing guns will have any meaningful effect on crime, so long as the factors that lead to crime remain in place.

All of which is true, but the gun situation IS still a major contribution. You have a whole culture built around the gun.

We here in the UK don't, yet as somebody will surly point out, anybody here can easily get a gun. Why, when we also have poverty, mental illness, and racial inequality, does this sort of thing rarely happen over here?

You are equating "violence" with "gun culture". You may notice that the other 60 million plus people here with firearms don't go on shooting sprees (except at the range) very often.

I will admit that the US (and the UK is following) with a "culture of violence" among youth especially.

You are equating "violence" with "gun culture". You may notice that the other 60 million plus people here with firearms don't go on shooting sprees (except at the range) very often.

I will admit that the US (and the UK is following) with a "culture of violence" among youth especially.

No not at all. You are thinking that is what I'm talking about.

In the USA you have a gun culture, which has been with you since the very beginning. Are you going to say that this has nothing to do with the fact that you have just had another one of these killings, and that instead the reasons are many and varied, but it's got nowt to do with the gun culture here, honest guv?

Hell if I know; but I still don't believe that simply removing guns will have any meaningful effect on crime, so long as the factors that lead to crime remain in place.

Who's talking about crime? The topic of this here thread says 'Latest mass shooting in the US'

No not at all. You are thinking that is what I'm talking about.

In the USA you have a gun culture, which has been with you since the very beginning. Are you going to say that this has nothing to do with the fact that you have just had another one of these killings, and that instead the reasons are many and varied, but it's got nowt to do with the gun culture here, honest guv?

I'm pretty sure that this particular incident was the result of one guy who hated his life and was angry at the world in general. I don't think that the "gun culture" was a significant factor here; he just wanted to hurt people and felt that using a gun would be the best way to accomplish this.

Who's talking about crime? The topic of this here thread says 'Latest mass shooting in the US'

A mass shooting counts as a pretty serious crime. This incident was the end result of all of the issues this guy had to deal with; if something had been done about those issues, I'm quite confident that this thread would not exist.

I'll disagree w/ you here. If you look at the question that the SCOTUS is going to respond to, it will actually only effect a number of the most extreme laws such as DC and Chicago's gun bans if the appellate ruling us upheld. It would still take a lot of work to overturn the various AWB's.

Well, I was primarily dealing with the ban issues posed by states/localities being in jeopardy... SCOTUS has upheld state gun regulations under the "collective right" viewpoint. If they shift to an individual right viewpoint; then you open an entire new can of worms on the issue of these bans imposed by state and local governments... It's an interesting thing to watch none-the-less... Especially since I've known former "collectivists" who have shifted to the "individualist" boat in recent years after closer readings of the 2nd amendment and its original intent.

I'm pretty sure that this particular incident was the result of one guy who hated his life and was angry at the world in general. I don't think that the "gun culture" was a significant factor here; he just wanted to hurt people and felt that using a gun would be the best way to accomplish this.


And you don't think that if there was not a gun culture he may have thought of a different way?



A mass shooting counts as a pretty serious crime. This incident was the end result of all of the issues this guy had to deal with; if something had been done about those issues, I'm quite confident that this thread would not exist.

Granted yes, of course it is a crime to shoot people.

And you don't think that if there was not a gun culture he may have thought of a different way?

I highly doubt that the "gun culture" had any effect whatsoever; he just wanted to hurt people.

I highly doubt that the "gun culture" had any effect whatsoever; he just wanted to hurt people.

Fair enough, but then why is he not the only one to do this? How many incidents like this have there been in the US, this year alone? Compared to none in the UK?
And why is it that none of these people walked into the crowded places with a knife? Why did they all grab a gun?

I highly doubt that the "gun culture" had any effect whatsoever; he just wanted to hurt people.

Nope I believe you are wrong.

Fair enough, but then why is he not the only one to do this? How many incidents like this have there been in the US, this year alone? Compared to none in the UK?
And why is it that none of these people walked into the crowded places with a knife? Why did they all grab a gun?

a gun is more effective.
and they know that it will gain national attention.
it has become a "popular" thing to do.

a gun is more effective.
and they know that it will gain national attention.
it has become a "popular" thing to do.

Heh nowt to do with a culture of gun ownership, and more to do with fashion huh?

Who's talking about crime? The topic of this here thread says 'Latest mass shooting in the US'

I'm pretty sure that a mass shooting is a crime.

Heh nowt to do with a culture of gun ownership, and more to do with fashion huh?

And here was me thinking fashion was an aspect of culture... ;)

Heh nowt to do with a culture of gun ownership, and more to do with fashion huh?

Um, I have an off topic question. What the hell does nowt mean?

Um, I have an off topic question. What the hell does nowt mean?

Nowt = Nothing

Heh nowt to do with a culture of gun ownership, and more to do with fashion huh?

In the United States gun ownership is "normal", however with in the community of those who (legally) own guns safety is paramount, or it is for the overwhelming majority.

It has become popular, in the last 2 decades, to go on a shooting spree before killing ones self. If you hate life and want to commit suicide, you want to take a s many people as you can with you;a gun in a crowded place does the trick quite nicely.:(

Fair enough, but then why is he not the only one to do this? How many incidents like this have there been in the US, this year alone? Compared to none in the UK?
And why is it that none of these people walked into the crowded places with a knife? Why did they all grab a gun?

Why would a potential mass murderer typically prefer a gun over a knife? It's quite simple really; a gun is a much more effective weapon than a knife. For starters, any gun will have a significantly greater effective range than a knife.

Nope I believe you are wrong.

Why, exactly, do you believe that I am wrong?

Nowt = Nothing

Do you mean naught?

In the United States gun ownership is "normal", however with in the community of those who (legally) own guns safety is paramount, or it is for the overwhelming majority.

It has become popular, in the last 2 decades, to go on a shooting spree before killing ones self. If you hate life and want to commit suicide, you want to take a s many people as you can with you;a gun in a crowded place does the trick quite nicely.:(

Okay now that is fair point.

Why would a potential mass murderer typically prefer a gun over a knife? It's quite simple really; a gun is a much more effective weapon than a knife. For starters, any gun will have a significantly greater effective range than a knife.

Or.

Would a depressed suicidal, think about mass murder if guns were not easy to come by? Or would he instead just kill himself?

Why would a potential mass murderer typically prefer a gun over a knife? It's quite simple really; a gun is a much more effective weapon than a knife. For starters, any gun will have a significantly greater effective range than a knife.

Way to go to miss the point entirely ;)
That was a rethorical question. I was trying to make you realise that the easy availability of guns in the US has led to a quite vibrant gun culture, one offshoot of which is the by now more or less commonplace killing spree in a school or another crowded place.

Do you mean naught?

Yeah I guess it could be a bastardisation of that word, it does sorta have the same connotations.

I really have no idea, when or how it's usage became popular, only that it's a north of England bit of slang. We have a long running bread manufacturers advert over here the slogan of which is 'nowt taken out' it is obviously wholemeal bread.

Or.

Would a depressed suicidal, think about mass murder if guns were not easy to come by? Or would he instead just kill himself?

It's difficult to say. There are other methods of endangering large groups of people; for instance, one could start a fire or something.

Or.

Would a depressed suicidal, think about mass murder if guns were not easy to come by? Or would he instead just kill himself?

Well, that's what they seem to be doing in Europe for the most part... but if this is to do with the physical availability of guns (which certainly does help, but I doubt it's the cause) or the mental culture of gun violence combined with the desire to be regarded as tough and strong, is really difficult to say.

Or.

Would a depressed suicidal, think about mass murder if guns were not easy to come by? Or would he instead just kill himself?

I think that if a gun were not easy to come by they would turn to some thing else.
It is possible that they would just kill them self, but I think that if they have this mind set, they would use what ever means possible to get to the end they are looking for.

Way to go to miss the point entirely ;)
That was a rethorical question. I was trying to make you realise that the easy availability of guns in the US has led to a quite vibrant gun culture, one offshoot of which is the by now more or less commonplace killing spree in a school or another crowded place.

That's great and everything, but there are other, more significant factors involved. Gun culture alone will not drive a man to kill.

And I'm thankful to live in a society that wouldn't put one away for defending oneself.
I didn't say that people should be locked up for defending themselves, rather that banning gun ownership does not preclude one from defending oneself. I did say that in my particular incident one of us would be dead (or critically injured) and the other behind bars had it turned into a gunfight. I stand by this claim. Had that person shot me, they would definitely be behind bars. Had I shot them, I would have in the least used a disproportionate amount of force. The person clearly has no intention of killing me hitman style, they simply want my property. If I then threaten them with a weapon, I have then given them a reason to cripple me. Or put another way, would the situation have been resolved in the best way possible if I produced a knife as well? This isn't hollywood.

Robbed at gunpoint and having a gun =/= someone being shot, or a gun even being fired.
-
Shot =/= dead.
Granted, but I think I'll stick to the safe bet and try to avoid being shot altogether. I'd hand over the money. Just think of the medical expenses and potential jail time.

But at what cost, for 100% effectiveness? How big, be it monetary, or to our rights and freedoms?! A police state.

When you look at the facts, it's clear that with the absence of 100% complete guaranteed protection, at ALL times, (24-7-365) there is no compelling argument to be made against such justification for ownership. (police ineffectiveness)

Which, in any event, is only one of many reasons (justifications) for ownership to begin with.
Here's a few brief ones. 100% gun ownership would not guarantee safety either, it just means that more implements designed for the sole purpose of very harmful or lethal force are in the hands of people I wouldn't even trust to obey the road laws. Further, saying that the police force is ineffectual and needs more resources is not a slippery-slope for the abolishment of rights. I don't have stats to back this next claim up, but I would fairly confidently say that most crime is property-related and not from an outright intent to kill or harm. Overwhelmingly so. In actuality, gun ownership appeals to a minority of criminal acts. You don't need 100% guaranteed protection all the time to argue against gun ownership - if only a very small number of crimes are driven from an outright intent to kill or harm, I would say that hardly justifies the millions of guns in possession of the public.

Wait! Are you seriously arguing now that shooting some scumbag criminal, in the life or death defense of yourself, your family or friends, your home/property or anyone else. Is some newly defined form of extrajudicial vigilanteism?!
I am most certainly saying that shooting someone for the sake of property is extra-judicial vigilantism. The use of lethal force to counter lethal and life-threatening force is acceptable under most laws it seems, but this is not an argument FOR gun ownership. Where are guns or shooting mentioned anywhere here? What if you get into a heated argument with someone and they pull a gun on you, does that give you a right to pull a gun on them? If either of you shot the other, the one who pulled the trigger would be in deep trouble regardless of who grabbed their gun first. The smart thing to do would be to swallow your pride, kiss their arse, get the hell out of there and call the police to report an illegal use of a firearm.

I do acknowledge that the world is not clockwork and there will be times that even in a society with strict gun control, you MAY fall victim to a gun-wielding bandit. But now we are talking real minority percentages when you factor-in those crimes that are motivated solely from an intent to kill or harm. I feel much safer knowing that a few insane people have illegal guns rather than an entire frantic, frustrated, stressed and jumpy society having state-sanctioned vigilantism.

Yeah, because you would have to live in a real hellhole, in order to feel the need to simply take a few precautions and preparations... not be left defenseless.
I sympathise with those who do need to exercise discretion in certain areas. I live in one of them and I do myself. If there is a God, I thank it for not giving the trash that live around my area access to guns. Taking good precautions begins with using one's head.

That's great and everything, but there are other, more significant factors involved. Gun culture alone will not drive a man to kill.

Well, then, what other explanations do you offer for the vast difference in the occurence of school shootings and shootings in crowded places between the US and Europe/Japan?

Well, then, what other explanations do you offer for the vast difference in the occurence of school shootings and shootings in crowded places between the US and Europe/Japan?

simple presence of violence in general. and a home life thats not going so well and a bad sense of community and a large sense of isolationism .

Why, exactly, do you believe that I am wrong?

Logically you can you can see the correlation between a culture of gun ownership, and the number mass shooting/suicide events in the US. To then claim that there is no such correlation is wrong; you do claim there is no such correlation, you are wrong.

simple presence of violence in general. and a home life thats not going so well and a bad sense of community and a large sense of isolationism .

Guess what? You will find the exact same in every single European country. The difference must be elsewhere.

Logically you can you can see the correlation between a culture of gun ownership, and the number mass shooting/suicide events in the US. To then claim that there is no such correlation is wrong; you do claim there is no such correlation, you are wrong.

Correlation is fine. Along that lines we could then say there is a correlation to mass shootings/suicide and global warming.

Now prove causality.

I find some of the points of view in this thread frankly disgusting.
"Gun Control is unenforcable"
"Gun Control laws leads to higher levels of gun crime."

The most bizarre statements I've ever seen.

Well, then, what other explanations do you offer for the vast difference in the occurence of school shootings and shootings in crowded places between the US and Europe/Japan?

Well, as far as school shootings go, US schools are pretty well known for being absolute crap, so that could lead to some frustration. There really is a lack of support for troubled students. Personally, I pretty much hated every minute of school, even though I liked to learn new things and read books.

Being alone and angry during such a stressful part of life can do some nasty things to a person, and can affect someone for the rest of their life.

Guess what? You will find the exact same in every single European country. The difference must be elsewhere.

I will not deny that the fact that gun owner ship is legal in the states plays a part, how big that part is I don't know.
However there is crime every where, and people will use what ever is redly available to get to the end they are looking for.
I think that the culture of violence is more prevalent in the states than it is in europe.
I think that its wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns in in America.

I find some of the points of view in this thread frankly disgusting.
"Gun Control is unenforcable"
"Gun Control laws leads to higher levels of gun crime."

The most bizarre statements I've ever seen.

Well, the second is inherently questionable... The first however is a valid viewpoint, given the nature of how our government operates. Sodomy laws are still on the books; and yet are unenforceable, for the same reason gun control may end up being unenforceable.

Well, as far as school shootings go, US schools are pretty well known for being absolute crap, so that could lead to some frustration. There really is a lack of support for troubled students. Personally, I pretty much hated every minute of school, even though I liked to learn new things and read books.

Being alone and angry during such a stressful part of life can do some nasty things to a person, and can affect someone for the rest of their life.

Interestingly, you will find that where performance in school is concerned, Germany on average is far worse that the US.
Regarding pressure, the US schools have nothing on Japanese schools, which I believe still have the highest suicide rate among students in the world.

While I don't doubt that stress is a factor that makes some people snap and commit crimes like these, it can't be the main difference between a simple suicide and a mass shooting.

Interestingly, you will find that where performance in school is concerned, Germany on average is far worse that the US.
Regarding pressure, the US schools have nothing on Japanese schools, which I believe still have the highest suicide rate among students in the world.

While I don't doubt that stress is a factor that makes some people snap and commit crimes like these, it can't be the main difference between a simple suicide and a mass shooting.

In this particular incident, the motive was clear. He had a crappy life and wanted to be (in)famous.

Logically you can you can see the correlation between a culture of gun ownership, and the number mass shooting/suicide events in the US. To then claim that there is no such correlation is wrong; you do claim there is no such correlation, you are wrong.

I never made any such claim; I merely stated that there are other factors in play here.

For one, statistics show that resisting (surprisingly) reduces the chance of being hurt during a robbery, etc. Two, it isn't illegal in the US to kill someone in self defense, in the defense of another, or in the defense of your property.
You could say, however, that it's not moral to do so.
I find it very hard to believe that the law permits "killing in defense of property". There may be certain extreme cases, or I may simply be wrong altogether. I would be interested to see these stats if you have them handy. The guy who robbed my movie camera from me only lunged at me and started to cut the thing off my neck when I started resisting, and went on his merry way when I handed it to him upon doing so.
And you are correct, I do not believe it would be moral to kill in defense of property as well :)

It is, in a way.
That it would seem. But it's a bit like saying that it's better to give individuals surgical equipment than have them go to the underfunded hospital. It would seem that the best ways of fixing the problem would be to fix the hospital and any underlying causes for peoples' illnesses.

The counterargument is that the majority of criminals are or will become repeat offenders and/or that self-defense isn't always lethal, with the addendum that firearms are the only seriously effective method. If we had a techno-magical stun gun that worked as well as a firearm would, then the argument for killing in self defense would be greatly weakened.
Although it is the case that self-defense is not always lethal, it is being argued that lethal means are acceptable in many different cases of threats (here, we could get bogged-down in a tedious case-by-case analysis of every possible circumstance, but I will say simply that sanctioning mass gun ownership is not the best way to go for a vast majority of cases). I argue that it is not acceptable in defense of most property, and even granted that it is acceptable in cases of life and death, that it is not an argument FOR gun ownership. Guns, as you say, are a nasty side-effect. Even if the majority of criminals are or will become repeat offenders (which I do tend to agree with, I remember seeing some figures to this effect), this is a criticism of the criminal justice system and not an argument for the need for guns; repeat offenders of what? Are we including things like petty theft? Most of the murderers are locked up for well over 20 years and many sex offenders here are required to register on a police national database. Of the ones who do get released and the ones who do savagely re-offend, does this small percentage really justify mass gun ownership?

A lot of places in the US are like this, and wishing them away doesn't help the situation. Giving people the right to shoot in self-defense is merely a way to protect the victims, not a way to solve the problem.
Another effective way to harm others in anger too.

Most people willing to shoot a robber have some ownership in the store, or a bit of courage and an opening to act. A dead criminal can't hurt you, right? Can you blame someone faced with the threat of being hurt or killed for defending themselves?
I don't blame them as such, but I think they're very foolish if they value their takings for the night above their life. At almost every place I've worked at we've had strict protocols for loss minimisation and security. Pulling a gun yourself I can't bring myself to see as a good security measure.

I will not deny that the fact that gun owner ship is legal in the states plays a part, how big that part is I don't know.
However there is crime every where, and people will use what ever is redly available to get to the end they are looking for.
I think that the culture of violence is more prevalent in the states than it is in europe.
I think that its wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns in in America.

Ohh I agree, not with the level of violence, but that it is wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns.

When I say gun culture, I'm not talking about how many guns you have, nor how easy it is to get them I mean how guns are seemingly an integral part of the US culture. You have always had the right to bear arms, it IS part of your culture, and so guns, gun ownership, gun usage is common place to you.

This I believe is at the root of these suicide/murders. Note I say root here, not cause, not sole reason.

We here in the UK though do not have the same sort of gun culture, we certianly have the same sort of problems, but our own suicides are not in the habit of using a gun to take others with them.

Up in Scotland, we can see a comparison to the US gun culture in the knife culture. And guess what, the number of stabbings and knife related crime up there is greater than down here in London.

Now if a Scottish man where to start telling me that this had nowt to do with the knife culture in Scotland and there where other reasons, I'd be saying the same to him as I am saying to you. Your culture of gun ownership, certainly has a big part in all of this.

I never made any such claim; I merely stated that there are other factors in play here.

Ohh really!:D


I highly doubt that the "gun culture" had any effect whatsoever; he just wanted to hurt people.

Note that word 'whatsoever'.

In this particular incident, the motive was clear. He had a crappy life and wanted to be (in)famous.

The US is having too many of these incidents to keep treating them as one-time-only events.
That's like excusing road rage with saying "In this particular incident the driver was pissed off and in a hurry". It's a social phenomenon and needs to be recognised as such.

Ohh I agree, not with the level of violence, but that it is wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns.

When I say gun culture, I'm not talking about how many guns you have, nor how easy it is to get them I mean how guns are seemingly an integral part of the US culture. You have always had the right to bear arms, it IS part of your culture, and so guns, gun ownership, gun usage is common place to you.

This I believe is at the root of these suicide/murders. Note I say root here, not cause, not sole reason.

We here in the UK though do not have the same sort of gun culture, we certianly have the same sort of problems, but our own suicides are not in the habit of using a gun to take others with them.

Up in Scotland, we can see a comparison to the US gun culture in the knife culture. And guess what, the number of stabbings and knife related crime up there is greater than down here in London.

Now if a Scottish man where to start telling me that this had nowt to do with the knife culture in Scotland and there where other reasons, I'd be saying the same to him as I am saying to you. Your culture of gun ownership, certainly has a big part in all of this.
Quite an interesting comparison.

I find your logic fascinating

I would say the same of yours. For example, this idiotic strawman fallacy:

But you're right, everybody should have the right to bear arms and run rampant with them in be it shopping malls, postal offices or schools, or have your kid shoot itself in the face with your firearm because that's the American way, and if you don't believe in that you're obviously a commie!

No one who ever argued for the right to bear arms argues for the right to commit homicide... let alone anyone in this particular thread.

I think you do get the honour of being the first anti-gun nut to make an illogical, emotionally-charged and vapid argument in this thread though.

Ohh I agree, not with the level of violence, but that it is wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns.

When I say gun culture, I'm not talking about how many guns you have, nor how easy it is to get them I mean how guns are seemingly an integral part of the US culture. You have always had the right to bear arms, it IS part of your culture, and so guns, gun ownership, gun usage is common place to you.

This I believe is at the root of these suicide/murders. Note I say root here, not cause, not sole reason.

We here in the UK though do not have the same sort of gun culture, we certianly have the same sort of problems, but our own suicides are not in the habit of using a gun to take others with them.

Up in Scotland, we can see a comparison to the US gun culture in the knife culture. And guess what, the number of stabbings and knife related crime up there is greater than down here in London.

Now if a Scottish man where to start telling me that this had nowt to do with the knife culture in Scotland and there where other reasons, I'd be saying the same to him as I am saying to you. Your culture of gun ownership, certainly has a big part in all of this.

Well, I would say it is the root of suicide by gun; but not for the suicide rate itself... If someone becomes suicidal they are going to seek out a way to kill themselves... Having a gun based culture merely makes the "gun" an easy tool to acquire to carry out the act... But without access to a gun, the rate would likely not be effected, the second most prevalient method in the US (hanging, suffocation) would merely become more commonplace... I think what he is talking about, is if you want to effect the suicide rate, you do not seek to do so by banning methods (which is nothing but a SYMPTOM) but rather tackle the reasons people seek suicide.

Quite an interesting comparison.

Heh yeah obviously not 100% but close enough to indicate what I mean.

CNN, in an apparent attempt to keep ratings up, have changed the headlines from it being an SKS to it being an "AK-47 Assault Rifle (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mall.shooting/index.html)" w/

"Warren said Hawkins' body and the AK-47 with SKS 7.66 mm ammunition were found on the store's third floor."

They use the exact same ammo and it's 7.62. I guess SKS didn't garner enough google hits for them.

Accuracy in the media. :rolleyes:

The US is having too many of these incidents to keep treating them as one-time-only events.
That's like excusing road rage with saying "In this particular incident the driver was pissed off and in a hurry".

No one is "excusing" the crime. Identifying a motive instead of looking to blame some segment of the population could be helpful though. From a, you know, rational viewpoint.

It's a social phenomenon and needs to be recognised as such.

What is NOT a "social phenomenon?"

What do you expect to gain from using that label? See, I think you are the one trying to excuse the crime. Hey, it's not his fault - "gun culture" and "social phenomena" did it. NRA did it. Gun rights advocates did it. Etc.

Ohh really!:D



Note that word 'whatsoever'.

I had a feeling that you would use that particular post to support your claim; in that post I was specifically referring to the recent incident that inspired this thread.

Well, I would say it is the root of suicide by gun; but not for the suicide rate itself... If someone becomes suicidal they are going to seek out a way to kill themselves... Having a gun based culture merely makes the "gun" an easy tool to acquire to carry out the act... But without access to a gun, the rate would likely not be effected, the second most prevalient method in the US (hanging, suffocation) would merely become more commonplace... I think what he is talking about, is if you want to effect the suicide rate, you do not seek to do so by banning methods (which is nothing but a SYMPTOM) but rather tackle the reasons people seek suicide.

Yes that makes a lot of sense, also it is easy enough for a suicidal man to to think let me take a few others with me, but without the gun culture, then the inclation for this thought easily passes and plain old suicide is left with out it's mate mass murder.

I had a feeling that you would use that particular post to support your claim; in that post I was specifically referring to the recent incident that inspired this thread.

It seems you feeling was right, but whatever you where referring to it still shows that you did in fact make the claim which you later claimed you did not.

Man a lot of claims there!:D

Yes that makes a lot of sense, also it is easy enough for a suicidal man to to think let me take a few others with me, but without the gun culture, then the inclation for this though easily passes and plain old suicide is left with out it's mate mass murder.

You do realize that there are other means of hurting large amounts of innocent people, right? Someone could make a bomb, or drive a car through a crowd, or something. Guns are not a prerequisite for murder on a large scale.

You do realize that there are other means of hurting large amounts of innocent people, right? Someone could make a bomb, or drive a car through a crowd, or something. Guns are not a prerequisite for murder on a large scale.

Yes of course. Lets then take a look at the number of suicide/murders using such other weapons and see if the culture of the people perpetrating them this has had any hand in them humm!

CNN, in an apparent attempt to keep ratings up, have changed the headlines from it being an SKS to it being an "AK-47 Assault Rifle (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mall.shooting/index.html)" w/

"Warren said Hawkins' body and the AK-47 with SKS 7.66 mm ammunition were found on the store's third floor."

They use the exact same ammo and it's 7.62. I guess SKS didn't garner enough google hits for them.

Accuracy in the media. :rolleyes:

OMG an AK-47! That's what the terrorists use! Quick, everybody panic!

OMG an AK-47! That's what the terrorists use! Quick, everybody panic!

Not just terrorists. Insurrectionists! And communists! It is inherently evil!

Yes that makes a lot of sense, also it is easy enough for a suicidal man to to think let me take a few others with me, but without the gun culture, then the inclation for this thought easily passes and plain old suicide is left with out it's mate mass murder.

True, at least with a gun, in the open... But suppose the man decides to do so by poisoning
(#3 on the US suicide methods)... Then it could be done "quietly", at first anyway.

I still consider tackling the root cause of suicide as more important, in my book, to tackling symptoms.

Yes of course. Lets then take a look at the number of suicide/murders using such other weapons and see if the culture of the people perpetrating them this has had any hand in them humm!

Have you considered any other aspects of US society and culture when forming your opinions?

Not just terrorists. Insurrectionists! And communists! It is inherently evil!

*burns his AK-47 at the stake*

Ohh I agree, not with the level of violence, but that it is wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns.

When I say gun culture, I'm not talking about how many guns you have, nor how easy it is to get them I mean how guns are seemingly an integral part of the US culture. You have always had the right to bear arms, it IS part of your culture, and so guns, gun ownership, gun usage is common place to you.

This I believe is at the root of these suicide/murders. Note I say root here, not cause, not sole reason.

We here in the UK though do not have the same sort of gun culture, we certianly have the same sort of problems, but our own suicides are not in the habit of using a gun to take others with them.

Up in Scotland, we can see a comparison to the US gun culture in the knife culture. And guess what, the number of stabbings and knife related crime up there is greater than down here in London.

Now if a Scottish man where to start telling me that this had nowt to do with the knife culture in Scotland and there where other reasons, I'd be saying the same to him as I am saying to you. Your culture of gun ownership, certainly has a big part in all of this.

I can agree with that.

Have you considered any other aspects of US society and culture when forming your opinions?

How does that answer my previous post?

CNN, in an apparent attempt to keep ratings up, have changed the headlines from it being an SKS to it being an "AK-47 Assault Rifle (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mall.shooting/index.html)" w/

"Warren said Hawkins' body and the AK-47 with SKS 7.66 mm ammunition were found on the store's third floor."

They use the exact same ammo and it's 7.62. I guess SKS didn't garner enough google hits for them.

Accuracy in the media. :rolleyes:

ugh that is sick!!! I hope that some one calls them out on it!:(

ugh that is sick!!! I hope that some one calls them out on it!:(Meh. Just shows what a desolate state the US media is in...

How does that answer my previous post?

It doesn't, but I'll get back to it soon. I'm just trying to say that the gun culture is just part of the whole of American culture and history. I'm also trying to understand how you formed your beliefs in the first place.

Besides, as I'm sure you're aware, many Americans absolutely detest guns.

ugh that is sick!!! I hope that some one calls them out on it!:(

It was actually an SKS rifle (7.62mm) with an AK-47 magazine mod (to use the larger AK-47 clips) which were tapped together for quick reload... It's still a SEMI-auto rifle (even with the mod), but merely means more shots per load, and quicker reload times... Still a dishonest tactic for the media to use.

Meh. Just shows what a desolate state the US media is in...

I know..doesn't change that s wrong/sick though:(

I know..doesn't change that s wrong/sick though:(Of course not. But it really isn't out of the ordinary.

It was actually an SKS rifle (7.62mm) with an AK-47 magazine mod (to use the larger AK-47 clips) which were tapped together for quick reload... It's still a SEMI-auto rifle (even with the mod), but merely means more shots per load, and quicker reload times... Still a dishonest tactic for the media to use.

I know it was a SKS, but the fact that it had a AK-47 mod doesn't change the fact that its a SKS..just makes it a modified SKS.

OMG JUST FOUND OUT!!! I have family in Omaha and they always go to Westroads Mall... I hope they're OK

Of course not. But it really isn't out of the ordinary.

CNN is the same news media that showed a sheriff from florida shoot a fully auto AK (yes, a real one) into some bricks, destroying them, then showed him shoot a semi-auto into the bricks doing nothing. They claimed the '94 AWB banned the full auto weapon while the semi-auto remained legal.

In fact, he fired the semi-auto into the dirt, they use the same ammo, and the AWB covered semi's not full auto firearms.

It doesn't, but I'll get back to it soon. I'm just trying to say that the gun culture is just part of the whole of American culture and history. I'm also trying to understand how you formed your beliefs in the first place.

Besides, as I'm sure you're aware, many Americans absolutely detest guns.

Ahh fair enough then. Yes I realise, but do you realise that all I am saying here, is that the US gun culture has a lot to do with the number of suicide/murders you have over there, and I'm frankly amazed when people deny this.

I guess I shouldn't be that amazed though, any talk which in any way suggests a bad thing about any aspect of any culture, is bound to be seen as an attack of some sort.

Ahh fair enough then. Yes I realise, but do you realise that all I am saying here, is that the US gun culture has a lot to do with the number of suicide/murders you have over there, and I'm frankly amazed when people deny this.

I guess I shouldn't be that amazed though, any talk which in any way suggests a bad thing about any aspect of any culture, is bound to be seen as an attack of some sort.

I don't that that I has to do with the number of suicides that take place in America. But it does have something to do with the shootings/murder(homicide) rate.

you do have to remember that there are more people in the states than the uk.there are bound to be more deaths

Ahh fair enough then. Yes I realise, but do you realise that all I am saying here, is that the US gun culture has a lot to do with the number of suicide/murders you have over there, and I'm frankly amazed when people deny this.

Maybe we deny it because of our culture of skepticism, especially towards unsupported criticisms from a culture of arrogant has-beens.

Do you know how insulting it is to be treated as "culture" instead of a person?

I guess I shouldn't be that amazed though, any talk which in any way suggests a bad thing about any aspect of any culture, is bound to be seen as an attack of some sort.

Yeah it's not that amazing when you attack someone and they see it as an attack. Not that *you* were attacking anyone, but your culture did. Wah.

I know it was a SKS, but the fact that it had a AK-47 mod doesn't change the fact that its a SKS..just makes it a modified SKS.

Yes, sorry, that was my point... It was not an AK-47 (CNN story); not anywhere near an AK-47 (which is a full-auto capable rifle)....

The local news has already tried to pin it on video game violence. im sure it wont be long now before Hillary Clinton jumps back on to her Video games are bad band wagon and uses that in her campaign.

Ahh fair enough then. Yes I realise, but do you realise that all I am saying here, is that the US gun culture has a lot to do with the number of suicide/murders you have over there, and I'm frankly amazed when people deny this.

I guess I shouldn't be that amazed though, any talk which in any way suggests a bad thing about any aspect of any culture, is bound to be seen as an attack of some sort.

I don't view it as an attack at all; after all, there are quite a few things wrong with this country, but I still kind of like it here.

I think the main difference between the two of us is that we disagree on the amount of influence the gun culture has on incidents like this. You think that Americans will naturally gravitate towards the gun, due to the culture, but I have a more utilitarian view here; i.e., a gun is can be an effective tool for destruction, which would make it an obvious choice for someone seeking to injure as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

Maybe we deny it because of our culture of skepticism, especially towards unsupported criticisms from a culture of arrogant has-beens.

What are you talking about? Show me where I have been deliberately insulting, as opposed to having my words misconstrued.


Do you know how insulting it is to be treated as "culture" instead of a person?

Again show me where I have done this.



Yeah it's not that amazing when you attack someone and they see it as an attack. Not that *you* wer
attacking anyone, but your culture did. Wah.

I don't know what you mean. If you are trying to insult my culture, as some form of revenge for what you perceive as my own cultural attacks, then don't bother, I really don't have a patriotic bone in my body, say what you like about the UK and it's inhabitants.

Yes, sorry, that was my point... It was not an AK-47 (CNN story); not anywhere near an AK-47 (which is a full-auto capable rifle)....

Odd, my AK-47 isn't full-auto capable...

The local news has already tried to pin it on video game violence. im sure it wont be long now before Hillary Clinton jumps back on to her Video games are bad band wagon and uses that in her campaign.

Dammit, this is asinine! More useless scapegoating to distract the public from the important issues!

I don't view it as an attack at all; after all, there are quite a few things wrong with this country, but I still kind of like it here.

I think the main difference between the two of us is that we disagree on the amount of influence the gun culture has on incidents like this. You think that Americans will naturally gravitate towards the gun, due to the culture, but I have a more utilitarian view here; i.e., a gun is can be an effective tool for destruction, which would make it an obvious choice for someone seeking to injure as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

You are wrong in that assumption. I know that people are different the world over, I'm not talking about Americans, or even American culture.

I'm talking about what I believe to be a massive contributing factor in what this tread is about.

I think Peepelonia has expressed his/her viewpoint well, and may disagree with many of ours... But I have not viewed this as disrespectful (nor an attack at) US people...

I guess I shouldn't be that amazed though, any talk which in any way suggests a bad thing about any aspect of any culture, is bound to be seen as an attack of some sort.
True enough, in the main. For example, I must confess that my patriotism was stung a little when I read this post of yours:
Up in Scotland, we can see a comparison to the US gun culture in the knife culture. And guess what, the number of stabbings and knife related crime up there is greater than down here in London.
You're absolutely right that there is a greater level of knife-related crime in certain parts of Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and I wouldn't seek to deny it. However, I think that it is a false comparison to use it as a corollary to the gun culture in the USA.

The USA's gun culture is countrywide, rather than being concentrated in gangs in certain cities, and is firmly rooted in the minds of the populace as an inherent right that they have as US citizens. It is stretching things a bit too far to try to equate illegal knife carrying with legal gun ownership.

Odd, my AK-47 isn't full-auto capable...

Not all are, same way with the M-16, which has non full-auto versions (The Navy uses one that lacks full auto capability, rather has semi-auto and 3-round burst modes only)... But the muzzle velocity of an AK-47 is far different than the muzzle velocity of the SKS... They use the same caliber ammo... But the similarity ends there.

You are wrong in that assumption. I know that people are different the world over, I'm not talking about Americans, or even American culture.

I'm talking about what I believe to be a massive contributing factor in what this tread is about.

Wait, what? Didn't you claim earlier that the probable reason that murder/suicide rates are higher in the US than in the UK was due to the influence of US gun culture?

Yes, sorry, that was my point... It was not an AK-47 (CNN story); not anywhere near an AK-47 (which is a full-auto capable rifle)....

I know what you meant..I'm just frustrated so I'm ranting...sorry :(

You're absolutely right that there is a greater level of knife-related crime in certain parts of Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and I wouldn't seek to deny it. However, I think that it is a false comparison to use it as a corollary to the gun culture in the USA.

The USA's gun culture is countrywide, rather than being concentrated in gangs in certain cities, and is firmly rooted in the minds of the populace as an inherent right that they have as US citizens. It is stretching things a bit too far to try to equate illegal knife carrying with legal gun ownership.

Yeah I agree, which is why I posted this shortly after.

Heh yeah obviously not 100% but close enough to indicate what I mean.

Lets say then that is was meant more as an allegory than a true comparison.

Wait, what? Didn't you claim earlier that the probable reason that murder/suicide rates are higher in the US than in the UK was due to the influence of US gun culture?

I don't think so, but please go back through the thread and see if you can find it.

Yeah I agree, which is why I posted this shortly after.
Heh yeah obviously not 100% but close enough to indicate what I mean.
Lets say then that is was meant more as an allegory than a true comparison.
Bah, must have missed that one in a haze of tartan temper.

My apologies. Carry on :p

Not all are, same way with the M-16, which has non full-auto versions (The Navy uses one that lacks full auto capability, rather has semi-auto and 3-round burst modes only)... But the muzzle velocity of an AK-47 is far different than the muzzle velocity of the SKS... They use the same caliber ammo... But the similarity ends there.

Actually, the only M16 that is full auto is the M16A1. During my time in the Army I used the M16A2, M16A4, M4 and the M4 MWS, all of which have burst instead of auto.

I have an AK-47 (a WASR-10 to be precise) and an SKS (Yugoslavian M59/66), so I'm well aware of the differences there. I just took issue with your apparent claim that AK-47=full auto.

Ohh I agree, not with the level of violence, but that it is wrong to lay the blame solely on the presence of guns.

When I say gun culture, I'm not talking about how many guns you have, nor how easy it is to get them I mean how guns are seemingly an integral part of the US culture. You have always had the right to bear arms, it IS part of your culture, and so guns, gun ownership, gun usage is common place to you.

This I believe is at the root of these suicide/murders. Note I say root here, not cause, not sole reason.

We here in the UK though do not have the same sort of gun culture, we certianly have the same sort of problems, but our own suicides are not in the habit of using a gun to take others with them.

Up in Scotland, we can see a comparison to the US gun culture in the knife culture. And guess what, the number of stabbings and knife related crime up there is greater than down here in London.

Now if a Scottish man where to start telling me that this had nowt to do with the knife culture in Scotland and there where other reasons, I'd be saying the same to him as I am saying to you. Your culture of gun ownership, certainly has a big part in all of this.

Is this post sufficient?

Actually, the only M16 that is full auto is the M16A1. During my time in the Army I used the M16A2, M16A4, M4 and the M4 MWS, all of which have burst instead of auto.

I have an AK-47 (a WASR-10 to be precise) and an SKS (Yugoslavian M59/66), so I'm well aware of the differences there. I just took issue with your apparent claim that AK-47=full auto.

Then you own a WASR-10 that has physical similarities to an AK-47. Not an AK-47. Just like I own an SAR-1 that has physical similarities to an AK-47 but is not.

By encouraging the use of AK-47 to describe a semi-auto rifle, it encourages more confusion among those who don't know the difference, the same thing the VPC supports.

Is this post sufficient?

Sufficient to what show that this is so:

Wait, what? Didn't you claim earlier that the probable reason that murder/suicide rates are higher in the US than in the UK was due to the influence of US gun culture?

Where do see it that way? Can you point out which sentence or phrase you mean?

PSH and outright fabrications Down Under (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882648-2703,00.html):

"NEBRASKA, the farming state with the highest per capita gun ownership in the US, began the year with LB-454, a new state law allowing people 21 years and over to carry a concealed handgun pretty much wherever they go.

Applicants must pass a routine police check, complete a basic handgun training course (most are run by ex-cops) and pay $US100 ($115) for a five-year permit. It’s as simple as that.

Nebraska marked the end of the year yesterday with a bloodbath at the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha, the state’s largest city. Eight people were shot dead and several others are fighting for their lives. "

Concealed Carry Permit? Nope.
21 or Over? Nope.
CCW issued in Omaha? Nope.
Could carry in the Mall?Nope.

Throw in the usual ad hominems and red herrings and you have the typical media disinformation campaign on firearms.

When I say gun culture, I'm not talking about how many guns you have, nor how easy it is to get them I mean how guns are seemingly an integral part of the US culture. You have always had the right to bear arms, it IS part of your culture, and so guns, gun ownership, gun usage is common place to you.

This I believe is at the root of these suicide/murders. Note I say root here, not cause, not sole reason.

We here in the UK though do not have the same sort of gun culture, we certianly have the same sort of problems, but our own suicides are not in the habit of using a gun to take others with them.

Your culture of gun ownership, certainly has a big part in all of this.

I've removed the bits about Scotland, but everything else here seems to prove my point.

PSH and outright fabrications Down Under (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882648-2703,00.html):

"NEBRASKA, the farming state with the highest per capita gun ownership in the US, began the year with LB-454, a new state law allowing people 21 years and over to carry a concealed handgun pretty much wherever they go.

Applicants must pass a routine police check, complete a basic handgun training course (most are run by ex-cops) and pay $US100 ($115) for a five-year permit. It’s as simple as that.

Nebraska marked the end of the year yesterday with a bloodbath at the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha, the state’s largest city. Eight people were shot dead and several others are fighting for their lives. "

Concealed Carry Permit? Nope.
21 or Over? Nope.
CCW issued in Omaha? Nope.
Could carry in the Mall?Nope.

Throw in the usual ad hominems and red herrings and you have the typical media disinformation campaign on firearms.

:headbang:
arg he didn't ever use a friken hand gun!! if he had this might make sense.
besides i though that Idaho, Wyoming or Montana had the largest per capita.

I hate it when people twist the facts to try and prove their point:mad:

The local news has already tried to pin it on video game violence. im sure it wont be long now before Hillary Clinton jumps back on to her Video games are bad band wagon and uses that in her campaign.

Children don't have a constitutional right to play violent video games without their parents' permission, nor a natural human right to the same.

I would welcome a law that prevented children from playing violent games without mommy's permission, especially if it diverted the energy and effort of the despicable anti-gun-rights mob.

Then you own a WASR-10 that has physical similarities to an AK-47. Not an AK-47. Just like I own an SAR-1 that has physical similarities to an AK-47 but is not.

Bah, pedantry. If you're going to be that specific there aren't that many actual AK-47's since most of the East made their own versions of it.

Ok. I can already tell you the rest of the story. Troubled individual. Semi-auto rifle that everyone will call an AK-47 and/or "assault rifle" even though it's not, mall rule against having weapons.

Then, calls for more civilian disarmament. Using the dead for political gain.

QFT. I have heard that that mall was, in fact, a "gun-free zone", in other words, law-abiding citizens were not allowed to carry firearms onto the premises. Gun-free zones are more attractive to gun criminals than places that are not gun-free, because the gun criminal knows nobody in a gun-free zone has a gun, so they are easier targets for gun criminals, because gun criminals know they won't get shot back at in a gun-free zone.

So the solution is NOT more gun control, it is LESS gun control, i.e. let law-abiding citizens carry guns so that would-be gun criminals will think twice before commiting a gun-related crime.

Why must we have so many sociopaths in America?

Bah, pedantry. If you're going to be that specific there aren't that many actual AK-47's since most of the East made their own versions of it.

True. However there is an actual functional difference between your WASR and an AK where there isn't one between an actual AK and a knockoff.

It may be pedantry but it's an important distinction if you want to keep laws banning your WASR and my SAR at bay.

Why must we have so many sociopaths in America?

I blame Global Warming.

True. However there is an actual functional difference between your WASR and an AK where there isn't one between an actual AK and a knockoff.

It may be pedantry but it's an important distinction if you want to keep laws banning your WASR and my SAR at bay.

Ah, but it's not the name that matters, it's the function. IZhMASh could start selling semi-auto name-brand AKs in the US and they'd be perfectly legal, whereas I could illegally modify my WASR to be full-auto and it wouldn't. Such minutae as whether or not it's an actual, certified AK is unimportant.

Of course, that doesn't stop the media from screaming "OMG! AK-47s will rape your babies!" because AKs are scary and as we all know only terrorists/communists/Michigan militiamen use them.

I blame Global Warming.
I blame Bush

I blame Bush
I hate Republicans.
*applause*

Republicans are so stupid.
*applause*

I hate Republicans.
*applause*

I blame Cartman.

So the solution is NOT more gun control, it is LESS gun control, i.e. let law-abiding citizens carry guns so that would-be gun criminals will think twice before commiting a gun-related crime.

But in this situation his step-father had a gun to steal, if he didn't he would have thought twice about "going out with a bang", because suicidal depressed teenagers probably aren't going to go to the trouble of finding a gun when they're not readily available.

I'm not saying that the situation you described couldn't happen, odds are it will, and people carrying guns can put a stop to it, but in this particular situation, making guns harder to come by probably would have made a difference.

I find it very hard to believe that the law permits "killing in defense of property". There may be certain extreme cases, or I may simply be wrong altogether.

In the US you can kill someone in defense of your property or person. Most states have a law that reads something like: "If you reasonably believe you are in immediate danger of a crime against your person (robbery, rape, assault, etc), you are authorized to use lethal force." There's an addendum to prevent abuse of the law, naturally.

I would be interested to see these stats if you have them handy. The guy who robbed my movie camera from me only lunged at me and started to cut the thing off my neck when I started resisting, and went on his merry way when I handed it to him upon doing so.

I'll see what I can do about citing that claim. A friend of mine found it while researching for a paper, so I'll ask them about it. Naturally, caution is wise when making generalizations, and there will always be exceptions. You made a smart choice, I think.

That it would seem. But it's a bit like saying that it's better to give individuals surgical equipment than have them go to the underfunded hospital. It would seem that the best ways of fixing the problem would be to fix the hospital and any underlying causes for peoples' illnesses.

I'd liken it more to having surgical equipment handy for when there simply aren't any doctors around to operate in time. I agree that fixing the causes should be a priority, but I don't believe we can have a hospital on every corner.

Although it is the case that self-defense is not always lethal, it is being argued that lethal means are acceptable in many different cases of threats (here, we could get bogged-down in a tedious case-by-case analysis of every possible circumstance, but I will say simply that sanctioning mass gun ownership is not the best way to go for a vast majority of cases). I argue that it is not acceptable in defense of most property, and even granted that it is acceptable in cases of life and death, that it is not an argument FOR gun ownership. Guns, as you say, are a nasty side-effect. Even if the majority of criminals are or will become repeat offenders (which I do tend to agree with, I remember seeing some figures to this effect), this is a criticism of the criminal justice system and not an argument for the need for guns; repeat offenders of what? Are we including things like petty theft? Most of the murderers are locked up for well over 20 years and many sex offenders here are required to register on a police national database. Of the ones who do get released and the ones who do savagely re-offend, does this small percentage really justify mass gun ownership?

What you responded to was a weak argument on my part, so let's set aside the 'repeat offenders' business for now. The main thing I was trying to get at was that a firearm is the only reliable way to stop someone from committing a crime. Calling the cops and asking the would-be criminal to politely wait for them to arrive just isn't reasonable. Something like a taser isn't yet reliable or effective enough to use, so right now it's all or nothing: either potentially lethal means should be allowed for defense of property, or a victim should not initiate violent resistance in cases such as robbery or burglary. I don't think you can say factually which is 'right', so I'll leave it at that.

I purposefully left out the cases of assault, rape, and murder in the above statement. I believe they're seperate from defense of property, and as I understand, we agree on that. I'm unclear on whether or not you believe lethal force is an acceptable defense against these. You've stated, in what I think is the main point to be debated here, that you believe that preventing these crimes is not an argument for gun ownership - a position I couldn't disagree more with. I believe one prevented rape, one arrested potential murderer is worth a lot of guns. Firearm accidents and crimes committed with a firearm by legally carrying owner are by far outweighed by the times they are used to defend the owner or someone else. The use of a firearm to prevent crime without firing outweighs the times they have been fired in defense. States that have enacted carry laws have seen drops in crime, presumably because a criminal faces the prospect of being shot or killed. As a result, I believe allowing people to own and carry is perfectly reasonable. I'll see what statistics I have to support these claims.

Another effective way to harm others in anger too.

I could respond with the boilerplate, "you can use a knife or even your bare hands to kill someone" argument, but that would be disingenuous. You've raised a valid point here. Guns are just way easier to use for murder. The US has laws preventing felons and those who aren't mentally sound from owning guns, but I think we can agree that this is hardly enough to stop every single crime committed with a firearm. Aside from addressing the causes of crime, which we both agree is a wise course of action, what else could be done?

I don't blame them as such, but I think they're very foolish if they value their takings for the night above their life. At almost every place I've worked at we've had strict protocols for loss minimisation and security. Pulling a gun yourself I can't bring myself to see as a good security measure.

I agree, in a lot of cases pulling a gun would only worsen the problem. But in a lot of cases it would help. A robber with a knife, when faced with a firearm, probably isn't going to press his luck. I don't believe I can make a blanket statement that guns are good or bad for protecting your business in every situation. There are way too many variables to take into account. An individual's common sense would dictate far better whether it is wise in a given situation to pull the gun or not, hence my position.


You've really got me thinking now and I'd like to thank you for it. I hope you decide to stick around here. These forums can always benefit from one more reasonable debater, after all. :D

No one is "excusing" the crime. Identifying a motive instead of looking to blame some segment of the population could be helpful though. From a, you know, rational viewpoint.



What is NOT a "social phenomenon?"

What do you expect to gain from using that label? See, I think you are the one trying to excuse the crime. Hey, it's not his fault - "gun culture" and "social phenomena" did it. NRA did it. Gun rights advocates did it. Etc.

I admit that "excuse" was the wrong word to use.
And I am most certainly not trying to find the guilt for this act anywhere else but in the individual. It might be very European of me, but what I am looking for a common symptoms of these incidents, factors that can be altered to prevent further shootings from happening.

If you give a person a gun, place him in front of a bank and tell the security staff to all go on a coffee break, it will still be the individual's fault if he decides to use the opportunity and go rob the bank and shoot at customers, and he should be tried and punished for it if he does. And yet, from the victim's point of view it would have been better if he hadn't been given an opportunity in the first place, the punishment will not help the bank employees with the trauma, and neither will it bring back the shot customers.
Crime prevention should be given priority over punishment, and to prevent crime you need to understand the factors that cause it.

I've removed the bits about Scotland, but everything else here seems to prove my point.

Ahhh yeah okay I have just re-read, yes I'll say yes.

My thoughts and prayers go out to those families.

But we had this exact same debate after Virginia Tech. In fact all gun debates seem to end with the same consensus:

-->Some of us will say tightning gun control laws, or even going as far as to ban guns will stop tragidies.
--> In the UK its harder to get a gun then in the US
-->In some states it is much harder to get a gun than in others. EX: I'm sure that in Nebraska it is easier to get a gun then in like NY.
-->Some will argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to the miltary.

My opinions are that the 2nd amendment means that you have the right to keep and bear arms. Meaning you can own a gun. With some reasonable government restrictions.

But even if we do ban guns you can always find a different weapon, even your fists. Now once again I quote Geroge Carlin in a bit about weapons "hell you could beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times, couldn't ya'?" Thus banning guns will be pointless. Besides these tradgidies are still 1 in a million and no one saw them coming. Had he walked in with a knife there could have been just as horrible a tragidy.

I give my condolences to the family, but tightning the laws won't do anything.

I don't know why there is such a disregard shown to these murders. It really bothers me that there are people who do not seem to care that 8 people lost their life. Sure, it may not seem like a significant number of people, but EVERY LIFE IS AN IMPORTANT LIFE.

<3 Westroads Mall <3

If you give a person a gun, place him in front of a bank and tell the security staff to all go on a coffee break, it will still be the individual's fault if he decides to use the opportunity and go rob the bank and shoot at customers, and he should be tried and punished for it if he does. And yet, from the victim's point of view it would have been better if he hadn't been given an opportunity in the first place

You can't just snuff out all possibilities of committing crimes. There's reasonable ways to prevent things, but there's no easy "give no opportunity" solution.

(No one "gives" people guns and dismisses security staff and all that, either. That's not opportunity, that's entrapment. And the only way to 'prevent' that would be to replace security with killer robots, ban all guns and gun manufacturers, and make it a crime to stand in front of a bank...)

Crime prevention should be given priority over punishment, and to prevent crime you need to understand the factors that cause it.

Do you think guns cause gun crime?

You can't just snuff out all possibilities of committing crimes. There's reasonable ways to prevent things, but there's no easy "give no opportunity" solution.


(No one "gives" people guns and dismisses security staff and all that, either. That's not opportunity, that's entrapment. And the only way to 'prevent' that would be to replace security with killer robots, ban all guns and gun manufacturers, and make it a crime to stand in front of a bank...)


Do you think guns cause gun crime?

I think it's a hypothetical extreme situation to make a point.

From my view, guns make it easier to kill people. Most notably on the heat of the moment/in the relatively short term situation having a gun on hand means a person will inflict considerably more damage on another person than if they did not have a gun easily available to them. More people will consider robbing a bank if they had a gun than with a knife. Guns are in themselves, opportunities.

But even if we do ban guns you can always find a different weapon, even your fists. Now once again I quote Geroge Carlin in a bit about weapons "hell you could beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times, couldn't ya'?" Thus banning guns will be pointless. Besides these tradgidies are still 1 in a million and no one saw them coming. Had he walked in with a knife there could have been just as horrible a tragidy.
Hmm, if you tried to kill someone with a gun, or copy of the Sunday New York Times, I wonder which one you'd be more successful with, and whether this suggests a difference between their status as 'weapons'.




QFT. I have heard that that mall was, in fact, a "gun-free zone", in other words, law-abiding citizens were not allowed to carry firearms onto the premises. Gun-free zones are more attractive to gun criminals than places that are not gun-free, because the gun criminal knows nobody in a gun-free zone has a gun, so they are easier targets for gun criminals, because gun criminals know they won't get shot back at in a gun-free zone.

So the solution is NOT more gun control, it is LESS gun control, i.e. let law-abiding citizens carry guns so that would-be gun criminals will think twice before commiting a gun-related crime.
The issue is enforcement. It's worse than pointless having a voluntary law, particularly regarding possession of something. Even the existing gun control laws in the US are poorly enforced. The Virginia Tech shooter was certified by the court as 'an imminent danger' and could still legally buy guns.

Fuck that was scary, I am in walking distance from that mall and was about to leave at 1 when a friend and I had a fought, decided not to go.

I think it's a hypothetical extreme situation to make a point.

I didn't see the point since the "situation" doesn't happen, and what we're talking about is what does happen. I could be just being obtuse.

From my view, guns make it easier to kill people. Most notably on the heat of the moment/in the relatively short term situation having a gun on hand means a person will inflict considerably more damage on another person than if they did not have a gun easily available to them.

Easier than no gun? Of course. But then, having a knife makes it easier to kill someone than not having that knife too...

More people will consider robbing a bank if they had a gun than with a knife. Guns are in themselves, opportunities.

More people will consider robbing a bank if they had a knife than if they had just their fist. Are knives not opportunities as well?

It's clear he did it to be famous. I guess we need press control.

But even if we do ban guns you can always find a different weapon, even your fists. Now once again I quote Geroge Carlin in a bit about weapons "hell you could beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times, couldn't ya'?" Thus banning guns will be pointless.

I was unaware that you could beat eight people to death in a crowded shopping centre without before being stopped.

"Omaha Somewhere in middle America
Get right to the heart of matters
It's the heart that matters more
I think you better turn your ticket in
And get your money back at the door"

The Douche ruined that song for me...

Fuck that was scary, I am in walking distance from that mall and was about to leave at 1 when a friend and I had a fought, decided not to go.

For real?? You're so lucky then.

Here's an update. Apparently he was using an AK clone.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20071207/i/r1590184548.jpg?x=400&y=295&sig=me4n9qEGV9XUo9SC59z0mg--

QFT. I have heard that that mall was, in fact, a "gun-free zone", in other words, law-abiding citizens were not allowed to carry firearms onto the premises. Gun-free zones are more attractive to gun criminals than places that are not gun-free, because the gun criminal knows nobody in a gun-free zone has a gun, so they are easier targets for gun criminals, because gun criminals know they won't get shot back at in a gun-free zone.
Source for your claims?

So the solution is NOT more gun control, it is LESS gun control, i.e. let law-abiding citizens carry guns so that would-be gun criminals will think twice before commiting a gun-related crime.
More guns = less crime?

Source for your claims?
Most malls are gun-free zones.

More guns = less crime?
Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates in the United States. It also, until recently, had the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Fewer legal guns = more crime so it isn't much of a stretch to say that more legal guns = less crime especially when there are examples like the Swiss arming every man with an assault rifle (fully automatic mid-ranged firearm).

Most malls are gun-free zones.
I wasn't challenging that fact. It was this part:

Gun-free zones are more attractive to gun criminals than places that are not gun-free, because the gun criminal knows nobody in a gun-free zone has a gun, so they are easier targets for gun criminals, because gun criminals know they won't get shot back at in a gun-free zone.

Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates in the United States. It also, until recently, had the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.
And the vast majority of crime guns come from outside DC.

Fewer legal guns = more crime
Source?

so it isn't much of a stretch to say that more legal guns = less crime
It is a huge "stretch".

especially when there are examples like the Swiss arming every man with an assault rifle (fully automatic mid-ranged firearm).
Switzerland has very restrictive gun control. Your point?

PSH and outright fabrications Down Under (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882648-2703,00.html):

"NEBRASKA, the farming state with the highest per capita gun ownership in the US, began the year with LB-454, a new state law allowing people 21 years and over to carry a concealed handgun pretty much wherever they go.

Applicants must pass a routine police check, complete a basic handgun training course (most are run by ex-cops) and pay $US100 ($115) for a five-year permit. It’s as simple as that.

Nebraska marked the end of the year yesterday with a bloodbath at the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha, the state’s largest city. Eight people were shot dead and several others are fighting for their lives. "
F***! What a stupid douchebag! I felt sick after reading through that sh!t...


Concealed Carry Permit? Nope.
21 or Over? Nope.
CCW issued in Omaha? Nope.
Could carry in the Mall?Nope.
What? You actually thought someone like that would try to report the truth?! Hell, people like that probably can't even see it from inside their little fantasy worlds.


Throw in the usual ad hominems and red herrings and you have the typical media and anti-gun nuts disinformation campaign on firearms.
Fixed.

Can't forget the gunophobes who really push this fallacious crap.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like it's that time again; a tragedy driven NS general debate on the efficacy of lax gun control in the states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm

Now I actually think the freedom of access to firearms in the States is necessary, or at least unavoidable, given the circumstances, but continued stories like this don't exactly help the argument.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Is it me, or does it seem people in less populated areas enjoy going insane and shooting each other?

I wasn't challenging that fact. It was this part:
Every mass shooting that has taken place in the US in recent history has been in a gun-free zone. Of course, you don't need guns to kill lot's of people, the Bath School Massacre is proof that all you need is a bomb. Hell, anyone with sufficient training in bladed weapon martial arts could probably do just as much.

And the vast majority of crime guns come from outside DC.
Source?

Source?
District of Columbia, Columbine, VTech, this mall, etc. When was the last time you read about a mass shooting at a gun show or an NRA convention? You wouldn't be able to get off 4 shots at a range before you were turned into hamburger.

It is a huge "stretch".
No, it isn't.

Switzerland has very restrictive gun control. Your point?
The Swiss government gives every man who isn't mentally ill of physically handicapped a machine gun. So what if they require a permit for carrying guns around in public? You need a permit to carry a gun in public in Minnesota. I will say this, the Swiss make everyone who has a gun train to use it properly and safely on a regular basis.

PSH and outright fabrications Down Under (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882648-2703,00.html):

"NEBRASKA, the farming state with the highest per capita gun ownership in the US, began the year with LB-454, a new state law allowing people 21 years and over to carry a concealed handgun pretty much wherever they go.

Applicants must pass a routine police check, complete a basic handgun training course (most are run by ex-cops) and pay $US100 ($115) for a five-year permit. It’s as simple as that.

Nebraska marked the end of the year yesterday with a bloodbath at the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha, the state’s largest city. Eight people were shot dead and several others are fighting for their lives. "

Concealed Carry Permit? Nope.
21 or Over? Nope.
CCW issued in Omaha? Nope.
Could carry in the Mall?Nope.

Throw in the usual ad hominems and red herrings and you have the typical media disinformation campaign on firearms.

I just read that article. It's stupid and poorly written garbage.

Every mass shooting that has taken place in the US in recent history has been in a gun-free zone. Of course, you don't need guns to kill lot's of people, the Bath School Massacre is proof that all you need is a bomb. Hell, anyone with sufficient training in bladed weapon martial arts could probably do just as much.
This thread is about guns, not knives or bombs and does not answer the question I put to Soviet Houston.

Source?
Page 6 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/states_and_territories/cy2006-districtofcolumbia.pdf).

District of Columbia, Columbine, VTech, this mall, etc. When was the last time you read about a mass shooting at a gun show or an NRA convention? You wouldn't be able to get off 4 shots at a range before you were turned into hamburger.
This does not address you claim of "Fewer legal guns = more crime".

No, it isn't.
This doesn't address your claim of "more legal guns = less crime".

The Swiss government gives every man who isn't mentally ill of physically handicapped a machine gun.
No they don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army_issued_arms).

So what if they require a permit for carrying guns around in public? You need a permit to carry a gun in public in Minnesota.
There is a huge difference between the two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns).

I will say this, the Swiss make everyone who has a gun train to use it properly and safely on a regular basis.
For the men, that would be part of the basic military training that they are expected to undergo. Do you think that the US should have the same gun control/militia requirements that the Swiss have?

In regards to your arguments that you have brought for ward, you appear to be basing your talking points strictly upon your opinion and lots of disinformation. Please provide some relevant facts.

This thread is about guns, not knives or bombs and does not answer the question I put to Soviet Houston.
Let me ask you, if you had to pick, which would you go for? I want to know, if you were ever in that position, if you were going on a shooting spree, would you want targets that shoot back or that just try to get away? Don't take this the wrong way, but it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out which one is more attractive to the shooter.

Page 6.
The link is broken.

This does not address you claim of "Fewer legal guns = more crime".
Actually it does. Because there are stories of recent incidents of mass shootings at gun-free zones like schools and this mall it seems like depriving the law-abiding of a means to defend themselves attracts criminals.

This doesn't address your claim of "more legal guns = less crime".
Actually it does. Because there are no stories of recent incidents of mass shootings at firing ranges, gun shows, and gun-related conventions where there are moderate to large numbers of armed civilians it does at least imply that more legal guns reduces crime. Why try to knock off a Super America if there's a good chance you could get a bullet or buckshot in the chest?

No they don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army_issued_arms).
Swiss men usually get trained at 20 and are in reserve until 30, 34 for officers. Militiamen are issued a gun and box of sealed ammo (to be used only if/when they get called to action) that they keep with them at home. Most of the issued assault rifles are SIG 550's.

There is a huge difference between the two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns).
Actually those aren't very different from the local requirements for getting a CCW permit. In Minnesota you have to be able to actually obtain a weapon legally and pass an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon. It also helps if you can state a plausible reason for needing it.

For the men, that would be part of the basic military training that they are expected to undergo. Do you think that the US should have the same gun control/militia requirements that the Swiss have?
I think that if someone wants to have a gun they should have to be trained to use it properly. I started learning about gun safety and how to use guns properly when I was 10 because my dad wanted to make sure that if I ever did need to use a gun that I wouldn't hurt myself or innocent people.

In regards to your arguments that you have brought for ward, you appear to be basing your talking points strictly upon your opinion and lots of disinformation. Please provide some relevant facts.
You want facts? Police statistics for the year 2006 recorded 34 murders or attempted murders involving guns, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault in Switzerland. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 with guns and 526 with bladed weapons.

I know you think that guns are dangerous, and they are in the wrong hands, but police are not always going to be present to defend everyone.

This is somewhat offtopic, but Meredith Viera (a reporter for NBC) was interviewing a friend of the shooter, and asked him if he considered his friend to be a "victim". His friend replied with a quick "no, the people he killed were the victims," but this raises an interesting point: Why do (some) people consider the shooters in circumstances like these to be victims? Granted, he had a very hard life, but he was not mentally ill. In my humble opinion, you stop being a victim once you decide to take your problems out on someone else.

Mebey he was on anti-depressants. (the makers of these drugs admit that thay raise the likely hood of suicide 10 to 15 times) also the media is allowed to lie whenever thay want (no laws aginst it) so if you want an honest media there always has to be someone there to ride there asses to make sure thay correct false storys.

This is somewhat offtopic, but Meredith Viera (a reporter for NBC) was interviewing a friend of the shooter, and asked him if he considered his friend to be a "victim". His friend replied with a quick "no, the people he killed were the victims," but this raises an interesting point: Why do (some) people consider the shooters in circumstances like these to be victims? Granted, he had a very hard life, but he was not mentally ill. In my humble opinion, you stop being a victim once you decide to take your problems out on someone else.

In at least the mind of this urchin coward, the aim was partially to achieve notoriety.

I think it would be better for all concerned if the rats who do things like this were described more honestly and fairly in the media, as cowards, scum, runts, urchins, losers, trash, &c.

Only the most negative attention should be given to the scum who perpetrate these atrocities, with all positive news reserved for the victims and their families.

As it stands now, all you need to do is shoot a sufficient number of people somewhere novel and the news media will analyze all your personal problems and broadcast to the world just how bad things were for you - exactly the kind of attention and understanding many people crave.

It would be ideal if not even the name of the criminal was broadcast.

The problem has almost nothing to do with fire arms, its the degenerate society Americans live in that make a significant number of them so frustrated that they will use the fire arms available to them to kill others.

If America suddenly became gun - free then there would be many incidents involving knives, bombs, home-made weapons, poison etc instead.

Do you think guns cause gun crime?

No, but I think guns make gun crimes possible in the first place.

More guns = less crime?
In the gun nut's fantasy world.

Let me ask you, if you had to pick, which would you go for? I want to know, if you were ever in that position, if you were going on a shooting spree, would you want targets that shoot back or that just try to get away? Don't take this the wrong way, but it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out which one is more attractive to the shooter.
Again this is strictly based on your opinion only and still does not address the question I posed to Soviet Houston.

The link is broken.
The link is fixed.

Actually it does. Because there are stories of recent incidents of mass shootings at gun-free zones like schools and this mall it seems like depriving the law-abiding of a means to defend themselves attracts criminals.
Again, your opinion does not support your claim of "Fewer legal guns = more crime".

Actually it does. Because there are no stories of recent incidents of mass shootings at firing ranges, gun shows, and gun-related conventions where there are moderate to large numbers of armed civilians it does at least imply that more legal guns reduces crime. Why try to knock off a Super America if there's a good chance you could get a bullet or buckshot in the chest?
Once again, the above does not support your claim of "more legal guns = less crime".

Swiss men usually get trained at 20 and are in reserve until 30, 34 for officers. Militiamen are issued a gun and box of sealed ammo (to be used only if/when they get called to action) that they keep with them at home. Most of the issued assault rifles are SIG 550's.
It is nice to see that you copied and pasted some information from a link that I provided; however, you neglected to respond to my question:

Do you think that the US should have the same gun control/militia requirements that the Swiss have?

Actually those aren't very different from the local requirements for getting a CCW permit. In Minnesota you have to be able to actually obtain a weapon legally and pass an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon. It also helps if you can state a plausible reason for needing it.
I guess your perception of the differences and mine is huge?

Carrying guns in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns).

Buying guns in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns).

Buying ammunition in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_ammunition).


I think that if someone wants to have a gun they should have to be trained to use it properly. I started learning about gun safety and how to use guns properly when I was 10 because my dad wanted to make sure that if I ever did need to use a gun that I wouldn't hurt myself or innocent people.
I definitely agree that gun safety training should be required with purchasing a weapon and that proper gun storage laws should be enacted/enforced.

You want facts? Police statistics for the year 2006 recorded 34 murders or attempted murders involving guns, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault in Switzerland. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 with guns and 526 with bladed weapons.
Swiss murder stats do not support your claims about gun usage/gun crime in the US.

I know you think that guns are dangerous, and they are in the wrong hands, but police are not always going to be present to defend everyone.
Keeping dangerous guns off the street with effective gun control will make it easier for the police to do their jobs.

In the gun nut's fantasy world.
Apparently so.

No, but I think guns make gun crimes possible in the first place.

lol... granted.

But then they also make things like genocide and war possible/easier too, and no one ever proposes to solve genocide by getting rid of all the guns.

Again this is strictly based on your opinion only and still does not address the question I posed to Soviet Houston.
Let's look at the statement that you are questioning.
Gun-free zones are more attractive to gun criminals than places that are not gun-free, because the gun criminal knows nobody in a gun-free zone has a gun, so they are easier targets for gun criminals, because gun criminals know they won't get shot back at in a gun-free zone.
Are you disputing this assertion? What is the basis for your objection to this statement? Can you provide a recent instance of a mass killing in the United States that did not take place in a gun-free zone?

The link is fixed.
So it is. It does seem that most crime guns in the District of Columbia come from outside of the DC. It also seems that the DC gun law did not stop said crime guns from entering and being used in the commission of a crime within the District.

Again, your opinion does not support your claim of "Fewer legal guns = more crime".
Fairfax County, VA, which neighbors the District on the western shores of the Potomac, has nearly twice the population of the District but has nearly 1/20th the number of murders per capita (for 2005, Fairfax County had 20 murders out of a population of 1,041,200, versus 195 murders out of a population of 550,521 in the District).
It is not simply the availability of the weapon that incites crime, opportunity plays a big role as does poverty.

Once again, the above does not support your claim of "more legal guns = less crime".
See above.

It is nice to see that you copied and pasted some information from a link that I provided; however, you neglected to respond to my question:

Do you think that the US should have the same gun control/militia requirements that the Swiss have?
No, but I do think that everyone should receive some kind of firearm safety course so that they know how to and how not to use a firearm properly so long as they do not have a history of violent crime.

I guess your perception of the differences and mine is huge?

Carrying guns in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns).

Buying guns in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns).

Buying ammunition in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_ammunition).
In Switzerland you cannot have a criminal record (felons cannot own a firearm in the United States), cannot be mentally ill (prohibited in the US by the Gun Control Act of 1968), cannot be under 18 (same in the US since the Gun Control Act of 1968), and cannot own a select fire or fully automatic weapon without a collector's permit (also the same in the US since the Gun Control Act of 1968).

In the US, carrying a gun in public is different from state to state but you must fulfill at least 2 requirements before getting a permit in most, if not all states that allow it; you must be able to own a gun lawfully and you must pass an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon before a permit will be issued. It also helps if you can provide a legitimate reason for needing the permit in the first place.

In Swizterland the government makes the military ammo which can be purchased by civilians. Only military ammo must be registered, hunting ammo has no restrictions. I know of no law requiring ammo to be registered in the US. On this one you are correct in stating that there is a difference between

I definitely agree that gun safety training should be required with purchasing a weapon and that proper gun storage laws should be enacted/enforced.
And how do you propose enforcing gun storage laws? In the United States we have this pesky sheet of paper that puts certain restrictions on our legislature, it's called the Constitution. In it there is an amendment that says that people have a right to privacy. Police cannot search your house here unless they have a good reason ahead of time.

Swiss murder stats do not support your claims about gun usage/gun crime in the US.
But US crime stats do. DC has a very high rate of crime, higher than nearby cities, even with strict gun control. Gun control doesn't work because police cannot always be there and I don't want to live in a world where they are.

Keeping dangerous guns off the street with effective gun control will make it easier for the police to do their jobs.
A gun is not dangerous except when in the wrong hands. Also, gun control doesn't keep guns off the streets. DC is proof of that. It doesn't matter how harsh the law is, criminals will find a way around it.

When you criminalize things that aren't real crimes you still create real criminals.

Now I'm going to go play HL2:Ep2, a shooter and a damn good one at that.

Time to retire this thread, its already 2 mass shootings past most recent!

Typical of the US. In Russia they don't have mass shootings at malls or in churches.

In Russia, they have law and order. People are safe in Russia. They are not safe in America.

Time to retire this thread, its already 2 mass shootings past most recent!
I wanna be famous. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HxNiOK_-hrs)

Typical of the US. In Russia they don't have mass shootings at malls or in churches.

In Russia, they have law and order. People are safe in Russia. They are not safe in America.
People are not free in Russia. They are free in America.

Typical of the US. In Russia they don't have mass shootings at malls or in churches.

In Russia, they have law and order. People are safe in Russia. They are not safe in America.

You're right about where Russian mass shooting don't occur. In Russia, the mass shootings are in schools and in theaters. Also unlike in the US, the body count is much higher in Russian mass shootings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis