(CBS/AP) PERRY HALL, Md. - Police said a student has been shot and a suspect is in custody at a Maryland high school, CBS Baltimore station WJZ-TV reports.
Baltimore County Police are investigating the confirmed shooting at Perry Hall High School. Students told WJZ-TV that the suspect was a student, but it hasn't been confirmed whether the suspect attended Perry Hall.
"It appears this was a one-on-one grudge situation," a police source told CBS News, adding that police are "99 percent sure there is just one suspect."
Gerald Roman, an 11th grader, told WJZ-TV that a student came into the school cafeteria and shot another student. Teachers then tackled the gun-toting student, and a shot was fired at the cafeteria ceiling, Roman said. By then, a police officer entered the cafeteria and assisted the teachers who took down the student.
A patient is seen on a stretcher after a shooting at Perry Hall High School in Perry Hall, Md., Aug. 27, 2012.
The injured 17-year-old student was flown by medevac to Shock Trauma. The male student's condition is critical.
"It's horrible," said Roman. "I mean, you would think the school would have better security than this, maybe metal detectors."
A young man without a shirt was seen by WJZ-TV's helicopter being escorted to a police cruiser in handcuffs.
Calls started coming in Monday shortly before 11 a.m. Fire crews and police cars are on the scene. In the air, sharpshooters and helicopters can be seen. After the shooting, the school was put on lockdown for almost an hour.
Students were seen leaving the school in an orderly manner. Some are being evacuated to Perry Hall Shopping Center across the street from the school, where parents can meet them. Other students are also being diverted to Perry Hall Middle School and Joppa View Elementary School.
Monday was the first day of school in Perry Hall. About 2,300 students attend the school. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited the school last week.
Perry Hall is a middle-class community along the Interstate 95 corridor, northeast of Baltimore city.
Please read the report above to have a context on the discussion.
tldr: A 17-year-old student at Baltimore’s Perry Hall High School was shot on the first day of classes and taken to an area hospital, while the shooter has been apprehended by police.
Going back, just from memory, I can name a few recent shootings: the Alabama shooting by a university professor, Colorado shooting at a TDKR premier, the most recent one before this in the Empire State, the one in Arizona injuring Congressman Gliffords.
What is motivating this? Shootings have happened before, but they seem more frequent now. Or do they seem more frequent only because media is so pervasive now (tv, internet, phones) that anything can be reported in real time? Or does media contribute to this phenomenon, encouraging shooting and desensitizing the would be shooters to it, whether they intend to shoot at a random mass or to a specific person? What is your opinion?
This is a bit different. Sure, it's a public shooting at a school, but it's not some guy shooting at anything that is human and not dead. It sounds like one guy wanted to murder one very specific perosn. This could have probably happened anywhere. It probably happened at a school because the shooter knew the victim would be there.
They arent happening more, they are just being reported more in the news. Either that or you are noticing them more. This is a pretty classic dispute between two people, happens every single day, multiple times even in the United States.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
Honestly, the colorado shooting and the amount of coverage it got by the media probably influenced the shootings. Speaking of wtf type thing, the colorado shooter graduated from the same HS and lived only like 2 miles away from me (pretty upperclass neighborhood).
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun. It wouldn't prevent anything but unfortunately I know no matter how hard I try there is no way for you to see reason.
As for the OP, I think it's just media being able to cover everything. There are lots of murders with guns/knifes/etc. From what it sounds like he was probably bullied by the kid is my guess which caused him to want to kill him. I know this happened at my school or almost happened but somebody turned the kid in. He was going to knife a kid (ironically he bullied me to the kid he was going to knife). If he hadn't been caught he would have done it to.
Maybe it's the entitlement mentality being bred in young people these days. You know, the "I'm entitled to have things exactly the way I want them and if society doesn't deliver for whatever reason then I'm entitled to throw a tantrum about it." Some people take that to an extreme and kill. At least my theory is better than blaming inanimate objects for trends in behavior...
Shootings are going to happen until gun control is changed... but any legislator that dares brings that up will be labeled as an "enemy of the Constitution"
I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
but there must be something more to this than merely having guns. countries in europe, asia, and elsewhere have guns too, but the shooting is astronomically not anywhere near as in the us. maybe its a cultural or psychological thing with americans and guns and killings. has there been a study on this from this perspective? id be interested to read it.
On August 28 2012 04:02 Zandar wrote: Lets allow everyone to have a gun, then be surprised people use them, then build metal detectors at schools...
I'll probably never understand the way how most people in the USA think about guns and security.
We have these things called licenses...and ID checks...
because when you have ids and licences, you can't shoot pr be shot. lol you're a funny guy. thanks i had a good laugh.
Banning weapons would cause only one thing - only the bad guys would be able to get one. I don't think weapon amount in the country has anything to do with the amount of shootings - look at Switzerland, almost every house has a weapon there. Yet it's considered one of the safest countries in the world. I think You have to find another source for these shootings in USA...
Someone "going postal" happens every once in a while through a wide field of circumstances and places. Whether that's a cutural or institutional problem or problem born from certain individuals, I can't really say. I'm not sure if this particular instance is indicative of increased violence or has any connection to do with other recent shootings that have occured.
Some kid shooting another kid isn't a unique problem. It happens a lot. The only thing outstanding about this shooting was that it was done in school instead of in the streets. And I guess because it was in a middle class community. If the shooter had a specific grudge against the victim, it doesn't seem like it's been revealed. Who knows what motivated this. Could be bullying, could be Pokemon cards or it could be something else entirely.
On August 28 2012 04:11 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
On August 28 2012 04:02 Praetorial wrote:
On August 28 2012 04:02 Zandar wrote: Lets allow everyone to have a gun, then be surprised people use them, then build metal detectors at schools...
I'll probably never understand the way how most people in the USA think about guns and security.
We have these things called licenses...and ID checks...
because when you have ids and licences, you can't shoot pr be shot. lol you're a funny guy. thanks i had a good laugh.
Banning weapons would cause only one thing - only the bad guys would be able to get one. I don't think weapon amount in the country has anything to do with the amount of shootings - look at Switzerland, almost every house has a weapon there. Yet it's considered one of the safest countries in the world. I think You have to find another source for these shootings in USA...
Maybe because they dont have that cowboy-attitude.
Large concentrations of people at predictable times in places like schools or theaters contribute greatly to the number of shooting victims in certain cases. They also heighten our fear as the general public because these are places we go often, and need to go often.
Fear is usually the greatest weapon of all.
The catch 22 is that if you ban guns, only criminals have guns. The other side of it is to cause fear in potential criminals by allowing anyone to carry guns, theoretically discouraging crime and protecting the innocent.
More guns seem to parallel more public fear, however. Yoda said fear would lead to the dark side of the force. That's why he carried a light saber instead.
Argument #1: Allowing guns leads to gun deaths. Therefore they should be banned. Counter: Cars lead to car deaths, should we make cars illegal? *Change argument* Argument #2: Cars have a real use and a guns only use is to hurt people. Therefore they should be banned. Counter: Guns have other uses, X, Y, Z (self defense) *Change argument* Argument #3: The statistics show guns aren't an efficient means of self defense. Therefore they should be banned. Counter: Your claim was that they had NO valid use... now you are arguing statistical efficiency which has no bearing on constitutional rights. *Change argument* Argument #4: The founding fathers intended that right for militias/The founding fathers lived in a different time and that right is backwards. Eventually we will get back to "But guns lead to gun deaths" and start all over again.
In other words it is a debate of deflection. After each point or argument gets challenged, instead of defending their original point they simply leap into a different argument, and we go in circles over and over. This is why you can't get anywhere, because they don't pick and maintain their point, they just throw everything including the kitchen sink at the wall and see what sticks. Don't fall for a changing point, don't get distracted. Force people to maintain their original argument.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition-like enforcement doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
You do realize that there are literally millions upon millions of guns already floating around in the US? If a gangster needs a gun, he doesn't go buy one brand new. He steals it or buys it underground.
Crime and shootings in the US have been dropping steadily since about 1990.
The "examples" of "mass shootings" in the OP list several situations where 1 person was shot.
Rules regarding gun control are not the issue, since the vast majority of these "mass shootings" occurred in places where guns were already prohibited. Colombine High School, the movie theater and the Empire State Building all already ban guns so extra rules banning them would not matter. The issue is enforcement of existing rules.
Also, it is worth noting that mass shooters strongly prefer unarmed victims. You hear about school shootings and "going postal" because schools and post offices ban guns. Even the shooter at the army base in texas snuck a gun into a cafeteria which is one of the places where guns were banned on the base.
You do not hear of criminals sneaking into police stations and shooting up the place because even those with death wishes rarely wish to die in a shoot out. They are trying to assert some control rather than give it all up.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun.
I don't buy this argument. If every insane kid who wants to shoot random people would have to spend a lot of effort on acquiring a gun, there'd be a lot less shootings.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
You do realize that there are literally millions upon millions of guns already floating around in the US? If a gangster needs a gun, he doesn't go buy one brand new. He steals it or buys it underground.
That's what I'm saying. If law enforcement actually put resources into fighting illegal guns instead of drugs, that wouldn't be as possible. Just resigning ourselves to the idea that "oh, well they'll get there guns anyway" is ridiculous. We should actually be fighting the problem of illegal guns instead of making legal guns more widespread (which would in turn lead to a more illegal guns).
On August 28 2012 04:27 Thenerf wrote: Yet again, a place in the US with strict gun control laws.
Actually, thats the stupidest strawman of them all. What use do laws have, if you just need to cross the border into another state where you can buy the gun in the supermarket, with 1000$ worth of ammunition? Its the same as buying a gun in New Jersey when you live in New York - ALL states need to have gun control, otherwise its just retarded and pointless.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
You do realize that there are literally millions upon millions of guns already floating around in the US? If a gangster needs a gun, he doesn't go buy one brand new. He steals it or buys it underground.
And gun making is as old as the US itself. Unlike in Europe its very common for the average Joe here to have equipment for metal working and the skills to use said equipment. If a person could make 20k for everyone gun they produced, a lot of people I know would quit their jobs and focus and their new "hobby".
On August 28 2012 04:11 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
On August 28 2012 04:02 Praetorial wrote:
On August 28 2012 04:02 Zandar wrote: Lets allow everyone to have a gun, then be surprised people use them, then build metal detectors at schools...
I'll probably never understand the way how most people in the USA think about guns and security.
We have these things called licenses...and ID checks...
because when you have ids and licences, you can't shoot pr be shot. lol you're a funny guy. thanks i had a good laugh.
Banning weapons would cause only one thing - only the bad guys would be able to get one. I don't think weapon amount in the country has anything to do with the amount of shootings - look at Switzerland, almost every house has a weapon there. Yet it's considered one of the safest countries in the world. I think You have to find another source for these shootings in USA...
Maybe because they dont have that cowboy-attitude.
Maybe its because gun ownership can exist with gun control.
Guns are common but they are (edit: generally) illegal to carry unless you are an active duty member of the armed services. Comparing the gun laws of the two countries with a blatant 1 sentence strawman ignores a huge number of relevant differences.
The argument that the supply of guns can't be restricted is also void of substance or truth. If murderers and such could always easily get guns than the cartels wouldn't need to buy guns in the U.S. and ship them to Mexico.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
You do realize that there are literally millions upon millions of guns already floating around in the US? If a gangster needs a gun, he doesn't go buy one brand new. He steals it or buys it underground.
And gun making is as old as the US itself. Unlike in Europe its very common for the average Joe here to have equipment for metal working and the skills to use said equipment. If a person could make 20k for everyone gun they produced, a lot of people I know would quit their jobs and focus and their new "hobby".
No, it's not common at all. They'd need a machine shop to produce anything close to an effective firearm (and by effective, I mean accurate withing a few meters).
On August 28 2012 04:11 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
On August 28 2012 04:02 Praetorial wrote:
On August 28 2012 04:02 Zandar wrote: Lets allow everyone to have a gun, then be surprised people use them, then build metal detectors at schools...
I'll probably never understand the way how most people in the USA think about guns and security.
We have these things called licenses...and ID checks...
because when you have ids and licences, you can't shoot pr be shot. lol you're a funny guy. thanks i had a good laugh.
Banning weapons would cause only one thing - only the bad guys would be able to get one. I don't think weapon amount in the country has anything to do with the amount of shootings - look at Switzerland, almost every house has a weapon there. Yet it's considered one of the safest countries in the world. I think You have to find another source for these shootings in USA...
Maybe because they dont have that cowboy-attitude.
Maybe its because gun ownership can exist with gun control.
Guns are common but they are (edit: generally) illegal to carry unless you are an active duty member of the armed services. Comparing the gun laws of the two countries with a blatant 1 sentence strawman ignores a huge number of relevant differences.
The argument that the supply of guns can't be restricted is also void of substance or truth. If murderers and such could always easily get guns than the cartels wouldn't need to buy guns in the U.S. and ship them to Mexico.
The problem is, they don't really want gun control. They just use that word for convenience. What they really want is complete gun prohibition, except for the government of course.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
You do realize that there are literally millions upon millions of guns already floating around in the US? If a gangster needs a gun, he doesn't go buy one brand new. He steals it or buys it underground.
And gun making is as old as the US itself. Unlike in Europe its very common for the average Joe here to have equipment for metal working and the skills to use said equipment. If a person could make 20k for everyone gun they produced, a lot of people I know would quit their jobs and focus and their new "hobby".
Do you have any idea how impossible what you're suggesting is? You don't just need "metal working equipment" to make a gun. And if you're suggesting that they make some sort of makeshift weapon, then what is to stop some guy in Sweden from buying ingredients to make a bomb, and blowing up whatever he wanted? Your argument makes no sense to me....
The question is what makes these people so batshit crazy they want to shoot their fellow students/ colleagues? Don't really follow this stuff too much but someone must have done some proper research right? All I've seen is knee-jerk reactions like blaming the vidya games, rock 'n roll, bullying etc.
some of you Europeans must have forgotten the Norway massacre. It was a real massacre, all these recent shootings in U.S. is just 1-5 people dead. Since I am an ignorant American, enlighten me on gun laws in Norway again please?
If guns weren't being used to kill people they wouldn't be powerful and Americans wouldn't be interested. Some people need to die so that we as Americans can feel that surge of power when we stroke our guns and dream of playing vigilante, or revenge, or whatever. Shootings are necessary collateral damage for the psychology of gun owners.
On August 28 2012 04:52 Luzbeda wrote: Americans like to feel powerful.
Guns make you feel powerful.
Americans love guns.
If guns weren't being used to kill people they wouldn't be powerful and Americans wouldn't be interested. Some people need to die so that we as Americans can feel that surge of power when we stroke our guns and dream of playing vigilante, or revenge, or whatever. Shootings are necessary collateral damage for the psychology of gun owners.
On August 28 2012 04:52 Luzbeda wrote: Americans like to feel powerful.
Guns make you feel powerful.
Americans love guns.
If guns weren't being used to kill people they wouldn't be powerful and Americans wouldn't be interested. Some people need to die so that we as Americans can feel that surge of power when we stroke our guns and dream of playing vigilante, or revenge, or whatever. Shootings are necessary collateral damage for the psychology of gun owners.
Ignorant pop psychology (that coincidentally places the pop psychologist on a superior level to the unwashed masses, what a surprise) is good for when you don't know history and don't want to think.
Youre an ignorant alright, but you dont have to be american to be one.
Edit: also your "argument" is stupid, because both weapons he used were registered on his name. Legal.
That is the point. Crazy guy got guns despire strict gun laws.
In general I refuse to talk about guns on the premise that we are going to talk about all the Bad Things guns do and not acknowledge all of the foiled crimes etc.
On August 28 2012 04:52 Luzbeda wrote: Americans like to feel powerful.
Guns make you feel powerful.
Americans love guns.
If guns weren't being used to kill people they wouldn't be powerful and Americans wouldn't be interested. Some people need to die so that we as Americans can feel that surge of power when we stroke our guns and dream of playing vigilante, or revenge, or whatever. Shootings are necessary collateral damage for the psychology of gun owners.
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.
This is social shift. Unless some major counter-media/propaganda is applied to force things to sway, it's one day going to be a socially accepted crime where people get shot at random in places such as an education institution. Not accepted as in no longer a crime, but accepted like "this kind of thing happens all the time, no surprise here".
It's like billionaires, there's billionaires today, there weren't any a thousand years ago, things change. If the overwhelming majority are extremely against this kind of activity, then we all have to act in educating the next generation to not consider it.
I think liberal thinking is being taught too much in a single dimension. Too much of: 'do what you feel is right', 'be yourself', 'your opinion matters' or 'if you have something you disagree with, stand up against it' - bullshit being taught to young people. Not that it's wrong to say such a thing, but people are too focused on this kind of shallow jargon that they don't pass on the rest of picture of society and every facet of decision making.
The standards of parents are too low compared to the previous generation. There's no genuine discouragement for a lot of things people do and people think there's no end to what they can do and no one can stop them.
By all means, if the entire society thinks it's fine to have teenagers shoot eachother to death on a daily basis, then that's going to be the way society is, and everyone will live in like that's just how life is. If you find yourself disapproving of how society is changing, then your ideology is no longer the overwhelming majority (maybe still a majority, i mean i'm sure the majority don't want teens shooting eachother at school as a common thing). You alone can't control the way society shift, but you can at least make your own kids try to influence society the way you want them to live in.
Since I am an ignorant American, enlighten me on gun laws in Norway again please?
is just 1-5 people dead
just 1-5 people
ignorant American
Youre an ignorant alright, but you dont have to be american to be one.
Edit: also your "argument" is stupid, because both weapons he used were registered on his name. Legal.
That is the point. Crazy guy got guns despire strict gun laws.
In general I refuse to talk about guns on the premise that we are going to talk about all the Bad Things guns do and not acknowledge all of the foiled crimes etc.
Ahm, thats the point. It should not be that easy to get a gun. He was a sport-shooter (or whatever its called) - an argument coming mostly from americans to justify guns. If you want to "sport-shoot", go to a range, where your gun is stored, shoot, and drive home again. That would stop most shootings in europe (because most of them happen because a familymember or the lunatic himself was in a "Schützenverein", a sportshooting-club).
Thats not strict gun laws, as we in germany actually had to admit. Nowadays you need to prove that your gun is stored in a "safe", and you have to show it to an inspector or policeman if he wants to check that.
Edit: but just the fact that kids and teens over here grow up with the knowledge that guns are bad (and dont get used to them by seeing them every day in their parents hands, or visit shooting ranges with daddy, helps alot. A gun over here is a totally different thing to a kid than in america. Its "normal" to have a gun, and it should not be. You should not get used to guns while growing up.
Since I am an ignorant American, enlighten me on gun laws in Norway again please?
is just 1-5 people dead
just 1-5 people
ignorant American
Youre an ignorant alright, but you dont have to be american to be one.
Edit: also your "argument" is stupid, because both weapons he used were registered on his name. Legal.
That is the point. Crazy guy got guns despire strict gun laws.
In general I refuse to talk about guns on the premise that we are going to talk about all the Bad Things guns do and not acknowledge all of the foiled crimes etc.
Ahm, thats the point. It should not be that easy to get a gun. He was a sport-shooter (or whatever its called) - an argument coming mostly from americans to justify guns. If you want to "sport-shoot", go to a range, where your gun is stored, shoot, and drive home again. That would stop most shootings in europe (because most of them happen because a familymember or the lunatic himself was in a "Schützenverein", a sportshooting-club).
Thats not strict gun laws, as we in germany actually had to admit. Nowadays you need to prove that your gun is stored in a "safe", and you have to show it to an inspector or policeman if he wants to check that.
Also he was only able to obtain 30-round magazines from American dealers online. So... American gun laws are partially to blame for that whole business.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
Yeah, because laws always help against outlaws, don't them?
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
you think he went through the proper legal methods to obtaining his weapon? gun laws have nothing to do with it, you can buy a gun just by knowing the right people laws or not. if guns didnt exist, it would have been a machete or something and then what, ban knives? your logic is not only flawed, but a blight on our society although it is well intended. weapons need to be used in order to take lives, removing the weapons isn't going to stop people from wanting to take lives this isn't rocket science. what if he took this kids life by crashing his car into him? what if he straight up john rambo style broke his neck? what if he built an elaborate booby trap similar to home alone movies?
banning guns will make america a vulnerable country in a time of global unrest and violence. "if you were to invade americas shores, there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass", now i'm not patriotic, but i definitely take comfort in knowing that there are plenty of concealed carrying law abiding citizens who know how to use their weapon.
"It's horrible," said Roman. "I mean, you would think the school would have better security than this, maybe metal detectors."
Perhaps this is insensitive of me, but this quote embodies what is plaguing the US right now (yes, it's just one dumb kid, but I think similar sentiment frequently occurs when tragedies happen). If one person wants to kill another, they will be able to do so. Deal with it. I think having metal detectors for airplanes might be unnecessary, but having them for high schools is ridiculous.
Sometimes bad/crazy people do bad things, and people die. This is part of life, but I feel it's dumb to expect society to be able to protect us from everything since it's impractical and impossible.
I really don't see what there is to discuss here. There's nothing to talk about without knowing the detailed background behind the relationship behind the victim/shooter. And we seriously, don't need YET ANOTHER excuse for a gun debate topic which people do regardless of the fact that it's not the place.
Since I am an ignorant American, enlighten me on gun laws in Norway again please?
is just 1-5 people dead
just 1-5 people
ignorant American
Youre an ignorant alright, but you dont have to be american to be one.
Edit: also your "argument" is stupid, because both weapons he used were registered on his name. Legal.
That is the point. Crazy guy got guns despire strict gun laws.
In general I refuse to talk about guns on the premise that we are going to talk about all the Bad Things guns do and not acknowledge all of the foiled crimes etc.
Ahm, thats the point. It should not be that easy to get a gun. He was a sport-shooter (or whatever its called) - an argument coming mostly from americans to justify guns. If you want to "sport-shoot", go to a range, where your gun is stored, shoot, and drive home again. That would stop most shootings in europe (because most of them happen because a familymember or the lunatic himself was in a "Schützenverein", a sportshooting-club).
Thats not strict gun laws, as we in germany actually had to admit. Nowadays you need to prove that your gun is stored in a "safe", and you have to show it to an inspector or policeman if he wants to check that.
Edit: but just the fact that kids and teens over here grow up with the knowledge that guns are bad (and dont get used to them by seeing them every day in their parents hands, or visit shooting ranges with daddy, helps alot. A gun over here is a totally different thing to a kid than in america. Its "normal" to have a gun, and it should not be. You should not get used to guns while growing up.
For me personally, as a gun owner(no guns in my house though), I kind of feel like your just assuming stuff about Americans here. I can't say your assumptions are wrong based on my personal experience alone, but I grew up and was taken shooting both target shooting, skeet and trap shooting with my grandfather. I was not taught at any point that guns are fun toys, I was taught to respect guns, and that if handled properly there is nothing too fear from them.
I personally would be fine if guns were supposed to be kept at ranges, if it was harder to get guns, and if you were traveling between ranges etc, they should not also have ammo for them in the vehicle.
Basically nobody has proven to me that guns are good for self defense, my grandfather and dad kept bats by the bed for self defense even though they own guns. Why, because it's silly to think they had enough training or experience too use a gun vs a criminal in a real situation(my grandfather had some idpa experience not sure on full details), and guns were kept in the safe, not next to the bed.
It scares me people do or want to carry concealed or not concealed weapons with the intent of self defense, Trained police officers hit 9 people with ricochet and shrapnel in NY can't imagine what civilians with firearms in a crowd would do, imagine you hear gun shots in a crowd, everyone draws weapons, they would all shoot each other..
Since I am an ignorant American, enlighten me on gun laws in Norway again please?
is just 1-5 people dead
just 1-5 people
ignorant American
Youre an ignorant alright, but you dont have to be american to be one.
Edit: also your "argument" is stupid, because both weapons he used were registered on his name. Legal.
That is the point. Crazy guy got guns despire strict gun laws.
In general I refuse to talk about guns on the premise that we are going to talk about all the Bad Things guns do and not acknowledge all of the foiled crimes etc.
Ahm, thats the point. It should not be that easy to get a gun. He was a sport-shooter (or whatever its called) - an argument coming mostly from americans to justify guns. If you want to "sport-shoot", go to a range, where your gun is stored, shoot, and drive home again. That would stop most shootings in europe (because most of them happen because a familymember or the lunatic himself was in a "Schützenverein", a sportshooting-club).
Thats not strict gun laws, as we in germany actually had to admit. Nowadays you need to prove that your gun is stored in a "safe", and you have to show it to an inspector or policeman if he wants to check that.
Edit: but just the fact that kids and teens over here grow up with the knowledge that guns are bad (and dont get used to them by seeing them every day in their parents hands, or visit shooting ranges with daddy, helps alot. A gun over here is a totally different thing to a kid than in america. Its "normal" to have a gun, and it should not be. You should not get used to guns while growing up.
The idea of having to keep your guns locked up at a range wouldn't be viable in most of the United States because people would still need to remove their guns from the range in order to go hunting, which is a very common activity in a large percentage of the country.
There's nothing inherently wrong with growing up around guns. I did, and I was also trained from a young age how to safely handle firearms with a no-tolerance policy from my parents for any sort of inappropriate behavior/handling. My children will likewise grow up around guns and be taught how to handle them.
People are f*ing moronic. And of course the media doesn't help matters much. That's one reason this stuff happens in waves: someone shoots a crowd of people and now their face is on every TV, every website, and every newspaper. Instant pseud-celebrity.
At this point the issue has gone way farther than gun control could fix. Gun technology has advanced a long way from when the constitution was written. A musket can't take out a crowd of people in seconds. An assault riffle can, easily. Even today's handguns can cause mass devastation in mere moments. Muskets were used for more than just protection: they were also used to provide food for hunters and their family. The *only* thing an assault riffle is designed to kill is a person.
For me personally, as a gun owner(no guns in my house though), I kind of feel like your just assuming stuff about Americans here. I can't say your assumptions are wrong based on my personal experience alone, but I grew up and was taken shooting both target shooting, skeet and trap shooting with my grandfather. I was not taught at any point that guns are fun toys, I was taught to respect guns, and that if handled properly there is nothing too fear from them.
I personally would be fine if guns were supposed to be kept at ranges, if it was harder to get guns, and if you were traveling between ranges etc, they should not also have ammo for them in the vehicle.
Basically nobody has proven to me that guns are good for self defense, my grandfather and dad kept bats by the bed for self defense even though they own guns. Why, because it's silly to think they had enough training or experience too use a gun vs a criminal in a real situation(my grandfather had some idpa experience not sure on full details), and guns were kept in the safe, not next to the bed.
It scares me people do or want to carry concealed or not concealed weapons with the intent of self defense, Trained police officers hit 9 people with ricochet and shrapnel in NY can't imagine what civilians with firearms in a crowd would do, imagine you hear gun shots in a crowd, everyone draws weapons, they would all shoot each other..
Education is what separates your experience with firearms from others'. I also own a gun, a side-by-side shotgun my father gave me when I was learning to hunt as a child. It is still at my parent's house in a safe, unused for the past 20 or so years because I didn't actually like hunting. Just not my idea of fun.
I hunted with my dad when I was young. I shot small animals and then skinned and ate them (creepy, right?). I didn't enjoy it, dead things are kind of gross, and once you have actually seen the power of a gun on a living creature you are far less likely to misuse it, or use it at all (my opinion).
If everybody was taught responsible use of a gun I wouldn't have such an issue with the general public having such easy access to them, especially handguns which aren't even legal to hunt with. It might shock you (sarcasm) that most people have not had appropriate firearms training and are not buying guns for responsible reasons during times of lucidity and reponsibility.
When I read pages like this I am scared by how few people actually speak from experience. I agree with your post almost entirely, there is an intelligent middle ground between Red Dead Redemption and Hello Kitty Island Adventure that is not impossible to achieve.
It's more that the media is covering this stuff than anything else because for a lot of these smaller killings, while horrible, would normally be put to the backburner or left to local news only if there was more 'national' news, watch as the moment that Obama says or does something wrong so that the Conservative news media can attack it, all of this news will disappear, and all you'll hear about is how Obama mispronounced some dudes name, or that his birth certificate had a spelling error.
I don't think there's any higher outrage of killings, just last week 3 people were killed in my home town, but not a single news source picked it up except the city news itself. This is typical, I think right now the news media is just realizing that people are latching onto this 'type' of news more, and are thus reporting on it because it gets them more views/hits on their websites.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
I didn't expect Sweden to be #16 and quite frankly I have just stopped trusting statistics. Either way, you can't expect people who are afraid of something to assess* policy rationally.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
I didn't expect Sweden to be #16 and quite frankly I have just stopped trusting statistics. Either way, you can't expect people who are afraid of something to asses policy rationally.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition-like enforcement doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
If I can get a carton of name brand cigarettes imported to the US at $15 a pop (which is a $10,000 fine per carton if caught) then I can most likely find a way to get a gun if I really want one.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm in 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries
For me personally, as a gun owner(no guns in my house though), I kind of feel like your just assuming stuff about Americans here. I can't say your assumptions are wrong based on my personal experience alone, but I grew up and was taken shooting both target shooting, skeet and trap shooting with my grandfather. I was not taught at any point that guns are fun toys, I was taught to respect guns, and that if handled properly there is nothing too fear from them.
I personally would be fine if guns were supposed to be kept at ranges, if it was harder to get guns, and if you were traveling between ranges etc, they should not also have ammo for them in the vehicle.
Basically nobody has proven to me that guns are good for self defense, my grandfather and dad kept bats by the bed for self defense even though they own guns. Why, because it's silly to think they had enough training or experience too use a gun vs a criminal in a real situation(my grandfather had some idpa experience not sure on full details), and guns were kept in the safe, not next to the bed.
It scares me people do or want to carry concealed or not concealed weapons with the intent of self defense, Trained police officers hit 9 people with ricochet and shrapnel in NY can't imagine what civilians with firearms in a crowd would do, imagine you hear gun shots in a crowd, everyone draws weapons, they would all shoot each other..
Education is what separates your experience with firearms from others'. I also own a gun, a side-by-side shotgun my father gave me when I was learning to hunt as a child. It is still at my parent's house in a safe, unused for the past 20 or so years because I didn't actually like hunting. Just not my idea of fun.
I hunted with my dad when I was young. I shot small animals and then skinned and ate them (creepy, right?). I didn't enjoy it, dead things are kind of gross, and once you have actually seen the power of a gun on a living creature you are far less likely to misuse it, or use it at all (my opinion).
If everybody was taught responsible use of a gun I wouldn't have such an issue with the general public having such easy access to them, especially handguns which aren't even legal to hunt with. It might shock you (sarcasm) that most people have not had appropriate firearms training and are not buying guns for responsible reasons during times of lucidity and reponsibility.
When I read pages like this I am scared by how few people actually speak from experience. I agree with your post almost entirely, there is an intelligent middle ground between Red Dead Redemption and Hello Kitty Island Adventure that is not impossible to achieve.
not to be an ass or anything but i just want to point out that there are people where if they saw the power...well that is what makes it attractive. guns itself is a game changing technology.
It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
I didn't expect Sweden to be #16 and quite frankly I have just stopped trusting statistics. Either way, you can't expect people who are afraid of something to asses policy rationally.
So what do you trust?
Science, facts...etc
Nearly all statistics fall into one of 3 categories: 1) Heavily Biased 2) Poorly Implemented 3) False or Irrational conclusions
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
I didn't expect Sweden to be #16 and quite frankly I have just stopped trusting statistics. Either way, you can't expect people who are afraid of something to asses policy rationally.
So what do you trust?
Science, facts...etc
Statistics can be and generally are a tool of science. Facts are oftentimes based on statistics.
Nearly all statistics fall into one of 3 categories: 1) Heavily Biased 2) Poorly Implemented 3) False or Irrational conclusions
Your "nearly all" is your attempt at a statistic. Percentage of "almost 100%". You're guilty of what you hate, and you disregard the people who do statistics right, perhaps because of your inability to do it right.
The reasons behind the amount of gun violence increasing in the past 3 decades may very well correlate with the amount of poverty growing in the states and the failing of it's education. People kill people, guns do not and as much as I dislike the American policy on gun control I would put my weight behind the argument pertaining to poverty/poor education/no future being more related to these shootings than the control of guns.
On August 28 2012 06:50 NeMeSiS3 wrote: The reasons behind the amount of gun violence increasing in the past 3 decades may very well correlate with the amount of poverty growing in the states and the failing of it's education. People kill people, guns do not and as much as I dislike the American policy on gun control I would put my weight behind the argument pertaining to poverty/poor education/no future being more related to these shootings than the control of guns.
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
well dude i dont want the british to come back and try to invade us again.
pfft i will keep my arms to make sure dem redcoats and lobsterbacks don't just invade my americuh
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
well dude i dont want the british to come back and try to invade us again.
pfft i will keep my arms to make sure dem redcoats and lobsterbacks don't just invade my americuh
hehe why worry about that when your government spends more money on military then the next top 7 I believe combined. I understand your point but i find it a very weak one. Different surroundings i guess.
On August 28 2012 06:50 NeMeSiS3 wrote: The reasons behind the amount of gun violence increasing in the past 3 decades may very well correlate with the amount of poverty growing in the states and the failing of it's education. People kill people, guns do not and as much as I dislike the American policy on gun control I would put my weight behind the argument pertaining to poverty/poor education/no future being more related to these shootings than the control of guns.
Yes exactly, I haven't watched that (I will get around to it tonight) but the argument against gun control and it being the cause of the violence almost seems like an unintelligent cop out placing the blame on a specific avenue where in actuality the entirety of the blame is completely resting on the American people and it's government for not aiding these issues more aggressively, they seem rather passive and almost non-interested to right their situation, complaisant if you will. I think that things are going to get a lot worse in the States before they become better, there just isn't any money in the hands of the people with comparison to what it use to be.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
That country also happens to be the news HUB of the entire world (especially Western half) and has a population of 360 million people. There may be some room for understanding why that is the case, this is also an American based website with the majority of users being from US or Canada (although yes many are from around the world, there is no where that has the same amounts of numbers as the States specifically has on this site).
Shouldn't jump to conclusions so easily, evidence is good but meaning behind that data is more important.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
well dude i dont want the british to come back and try to invade us again.
pfft i will keep my arms to make sure dem redcoats and lobsterbacks don't just invade my americuh
hehe why worry about that when your government spends more money on military then the next top 7 I believe combined. I understand your point but i find it a very weak one. Different surroundings i guess.
Done here, you are completely right, enjoy
pretty sure its more than 7 lol... oh man that just made me sad.
surprisingly this is still a very popular argument people still raise and ironically the only reason why the second amendment of bearing arms drafted
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
well dude i dont want the british to come back and try to invade us again.
pfft i will keep my arms to make sure dem redcoats and lobsterbacks don't just invade my americuh
hehe why worry about that when your government spends more money on military then the next top 7 I believe combined. I understand your point but i find it a very weak one. Different surroundings i guess.
Done here, you are completely right, enjoy
pretty sure its more than 7 lol... oh man that just made me sad.
surprisingly this is still a very popular argument people still raise and ironically the only reason why the second amendment of bearing arms drafted
You completely missed the quote I used regarding the numbers and the fact it is the news HUB of the world then? I'm not arguing they happen more often but don't just throw down the gauntlet and say "that's that". More people generally = more murders, you can argue that per capita the States has a higher homicide rate and I wouldn't disagree with you but when you start packing people together like sardines and they're poor/no future they're going to start getting wild ideas. You don't hear many stories of the rich white harvard law student who went on a killing spree because he had his entire life paid for, it generally comes from inequality and poverty.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm in 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries
That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf
Despite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor.
Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it?
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
well dude i dont want the british to come back and try to invade us again.
pfft i will keep my arms to make sure dem redcoats and lobsterbacks don't just invade my americuh
hehe why worry about that when your government spends more money on military then the next top 7 I believe combined. I understand your point but i find it a very weak one. Different surroundings i guess.
Done here, you are completely right, enjoy
pretty sure its more than 7 lol... oh man that just made me sad.
surprisingly this is still a very popular argument people still raise and ironically the only reason why the second amendment of bearing arms drafted
I come from a very rural state (the most rural in fact) and I know a ton of people who own guns, hunters mostly. They would be totally opposed to the idea of losing their guns as much as you would be opposed to losing Starcraft (silly analogy, I know) for a lot of the men and women I know who use guns it is not a weapon but a tool like any other. Dangerous if misused and it could be turned on another person but hunters won't readily give up their guns.
I think the argument about protecting our country is a rather shoddy one honestly, our military is one of the most powerful in the world (arguably the most powerful) and the men and women who want to keep guns to protect themselves usually want to protect themselves from other factions within the country not external ones.
On August 28 2012 06:45 Bulldog654 wrote: It is all a silly argument anyway, gun owners in the United States are not going to give up their guns. Personally I am constantly confused by the attitude that a human being should be told whether or not he/she can carry a tool with which to protect themselves.
There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. The overwhelming majority obey the laws and don't harm others, sometimes unhinged people get ahold of weapons and use them to harm others. It is absolutely the minority.
It doesn't matter if the US has 17k murders or 170k murders, law abiding citizens should not ever be asked to give up the ownership or use of an item just because other people break the law.
The benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the negatives. Guns are used by law abiding citizens in this country to prevent an estimated two million crimes a year.
You are giving up lots of liberties because other people break the law with it. They became laws when the numbers pointed towards a bad influence on society. It was deemed worthy to regulate so should guns. You know the guy that invented one of the first kind of explosives believed it would be used to make an outer layer that could blow up when invaders came hence scaring them of and not coming at all. Has anyone ever been more wrong. You are making the same argument he did. I do agree with you that gun owners won't give up their guns but i am not confused but scared by the attitudes that insist on keeping a populace armed
I agree with your first point, that we give up a lot of liberties because other people break laws, but that is a bad thing that should not be.
I don't understand how I am making the same argument as a man that believed explosives could be used to scare off invaders, except in the sense that explosives can be used to scare off invaders, and so can guns, so I'm not sure how either he or I am wrong, unless you have misquoted him.
I am saddened that you are scared by the attitudes that insist on an armed populace, as it means that you might not have studied history quite enough. If you do decide to study history, you will be met with the inescapable fact that citizens some times kill each other, but governments murder millions, and millions, and millions. The governments that have perpetrated these mind numbing genocides have always done so shortly after disarming them.
It happened here in my own country, when we did everything we could to prevent the natives from having the same weapons as us. And of course there should be little need to mention Europe.
The United States is the most drugged country in the world. It's not the guns, it's the drugs.
How many of you if you had a gun would go and and commit a shooting? It's idiotic to think it's a gun problem. Guns don't pick themselves up and shoot people by themselves, our society is deteriorating and becoming more and more immoral.
The United States is the most drugged country in the world. It's not the guns, it's the drugs.
Those posts make me sick. Honestly, how does a person with a huge human brain, the most intelligent thing we know of, comes with a conclusion like THERE IS ONE FACTOR AND THIS ONE THING IS YOUR ANSWER!
The United States is the most drugged country in the world. It's not the guns, it's the drugs.
Those posts make me sick. Honestly, how does a person with a huge human brain, the most intelligent thing we know of, comes with a conclusion like THERE IS ONE FACTOR AND THIS ONE THING IS YOUR ANSWER!
No. -_-
What the fuck are you even talking about. It's a big reason why there is so much violence and shootings. Watch the video and educate yourself about psychiatric drugs. Of course there are different factors, but most people don't just get a gun and shoot someone for no reason. I guess the guns turn people evil like the Ring from Lord of the Rings.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun. It wouldn't prevent anything but unfortunately I know no matter how hard I try there is no way for you to see reason.
As for the OP, I think it's just media being able to cover everything. There are lots of murders with guns/knifes/etc. From what it sounds like he was probably bullied by the kid is my guess which caused him to want to kill him. I know this happened at my school or almost happened but somebody turned the kid in. He was going to knife a kid (ironically he bullied me to the kid he was going to knife). If he hadn't been caught he would have done it to.
i dont want to participate in this "gun control or not"-discussion, but this i have to say:
its complete bullshit that everyone can get a weapon and kill, when he wants to. 1. these things come only to mind when you got a weapon at hand. 2. in germany at least theres absolutely no way for a common person to get his hands on a weapon. NO way. there arent people who have weapons at home, you could just take. there is no way to buy a weapon. the difficulties to get a weapon leaves much time for a person to calm down and think.
this thinking "everyone could get a weapon if he wants, laws cant change that" is just because you are used to buy and see weapons everywhere you go in the US. its not like that in the rest of the world, you are just not able to imagine this situation.
This is one of many symptoms in a free society with moral decay. The solution is either a return to moral teaching or less freedom.
However, people need to accept that cosmic injustices are inevitable. They need to accept that horrible things will happen sometimes, and it doesn't mean that they need to fix society with their enlightened view of the world.
You completely missed the quote I used regarding the numbers and the fact it is the news HUB of the world then? I'm not arguing they happen more often but don't just throw down the gauntlet and say "that's that". More people generally = more murders, you can argue that per capita the States has a higher homicide rate and I wouldn't disagree with you but when you start packing people together like sardines and they're poor/no future they're going to start getting wild ideas. You don't hear many stories of the rich white harvard law student who went on a killing spree because he had his entire life paid for, it generally comes from inequality and poverty.
More people doesn't equal more killings, USA( 311,591,917) has more gun crime than all of Europe combined ( 738,199,000). Guns are so embedded into American culture it's basically their identity now. Until Americans shift away from that this will continue to be a problem. The amount of Americans who fanatically defend guns is mind boggling.
You completely missed the quote I used regarding the numbers and the fact it is the news HUB of the world then? I'm not arguing they happen more often but don't just throw down the gauntlet and say "that's that". More people generally = more murders, you can argue that per capita the States has a higher homicide rate and I wouldn't disagree with you but when you start packing people together like sardines and they're poor/no future they're going to start getting wild ideas. You don't hear many stories of the rich white harvard law student who went on a killing spree because he had his entire life paid for, it generally comes from inequality and poverty.
More people doesn't equal more killings, USA( 311,591,917) has more gun crime than all of Europe combined ( 738,199,000). Guns are so embedded into American culture it's basically their identity now. Until Americans shift away from that this will continue to be a problem. The amount of Americans who fanatically defend guns is mind boggling.
What's mind boggling is the amount of foreigners like you who talk your bullshit about how our gun laws should be and how we should be like you. Worry about your own country, no one gives a shit what you think.
You completely missed the quote I used regarding the numbers and the fact it is the news HUB of the world then? I'm not arguing they happen more often but don't just throw down the gauntlet and say "that's that". More people generally = more murders, you can argue that per capita the States has a higher homicide rate and I wouldn't disagree with you but when you start packing people together like sardines and they're poor/no future they're going to start getting wild ideas. You don't hear many stories of the rich white harvard law student who went on a killing spree because he had his entire life paid for, it generally comes from inequality and poverty.
More people doesn't equal more killings, USA( 311,591,917) has more gun crime than all of Europe combined ( 738,199,000). Guns are so embedded into American culture it's basically their identity now. Until Americans shift away from that this will continue to be a problem. The amount of Americans who fanatically defend guns is mind boggling.
Can you provide some statistics that show all of Europe combined has less gun related deaths than USA? Including Eastern Europe (Yugoslavic region).
Also like anything, rock concerts... Riots... The more people that attend, the more violence is bound to happen, but you can't honestly think more gun crime happens in USA with 311,600,00 people than the 740,200,000 people in Europe, that is really making your entire stance weak.
Since I am an ignorant American, enlighten me on gun laws in Norway again please?
is just 1-5 people dead
just 1-5 people
ignorant American
Youre an ignorant alright, but you dont have to be american to be one.
Edit: also your "argument" is stupid, because both weapons he used were registered on his name. Legal.
That is the point. Crazy guy got guns despire strict gun laws.
In general I refuse to talk about guns on the premise that we are going to talk about all the Bad Things guns do and not acknowledge all of the foiled crimes etc.
Ahm, thats the point. It should not be that easy to get a gun. He was a sport-shooter (or whatever its called) - an argument coming mostly from americans to justify guns. If you want to "sport-shoot", go to a range, where your gun is stored, shoot, and drive home again. That would stop most shootings in europe (because most of them happen because a familymember or the lunatic himself was in a "Schützenverein", a sportshooting-club).
Thats not strict gun laws, as we in germany actually had to admit. Nowadays you need to prove that your gun is stored in a "safe", and you have to show it to an inspector or policeman if he wants to check that.
Edit: but just the fact that kids and teens over here grow up with the knowledge that guns are bad (and dont get used to them by seeing them every day in their parents hands, or visit shooting ranges with daddy, helps alot. A gun over here is a totally different thing to a kid than in america. Its "normal" to have a gun, and it should not be. You should not get used to guns while growing up.
America's problem is not nation wide culture. Compare American white vs European white murder rates and they are damn close despite a much larger number of guns in the Americans' hands. Comparatively we just have very violent minorities. I have posted the FBI graph about this before.
Everyone in Europe has knives but they don't go around stabbing people, do they? (may have stabbed myself in the foot with that rhetorical question because I know the UK has very high knife crime)
It takes both ability (the weapon's availability etc) and desire. White Americans could absolutely slaughter each other given the amount of guns and ammo they have compared to disarmed European whites, but they don't. You need a certain combination of genes and environment to get someone to pick up the gun and pull the trigger while pointing at another human being. The problem we have in America is we have too many people who want to pull the trigger and they tend to come from quite specific groups and places.
Edit: I should mention I consider it worthless to distinguish between murders with guns and murders. Hypothetically if you get rid of guns and instead of having 100 people shot to death you have 100 people stabbed to death I consider that situation no better (probably worse).
For all the 'people kill people; guns don't make any difference because they could just use knives instead' crowd-
Recently there were three rampages in S Korea where people were randomly attacked in public places by crazies wielding knifes. Several people were injured but the total number of deaths? Only one. Can you really, honestly say that if they had been wielding guns rather than knifes the death toll would have been that low?
From what I've read somewhere, because Switzerland has no standing full-time army, all men are required to go through some form of military training throughout their lives, a few weeks a year. Men between the ages of 21 and 32 are given M-57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammunition which is required to be kept at home. If someone from Switzerland could please confirm this?
I don't buy that "GUNS ARE THE REASON FOR VIOLENCE" and "blame gun control" bullshit. America just has a higher ratio of fucked up people.
On August 28 2012 08:34 tomatriedes wrote: For all the 'people kill people; guns don't make any difference because they could just use knives instead' crowd-
Recently there were three rampages in S Korea where people were randomly attacked in public places by crazies wielding knifes. Several people were injured but the total number of deaths? Only one. Can you really, honestly say that if they had been wielding guns rather than knifes the death toll would have been that low?
Let's pretend a serial killer breaks into your house. Because he is a serial killer and takes joy in murdering people, let's assume his favorite tool is an extremely sharp knife. Because your government took away your gun, the only thing you have left to defend your wife and kids is a baseball bat in your closet or a knife all the way in your kitchen. The chance of you defending your family against him with no one getting hurt is extremely low.
On August 28 2012 09:30 PaqMan wrote: From what I've read somewhere, because Switzerland has no standing full-time army, all men are required to go through some form of military training throughout their lives, a few weeks a year. Men between the ages of 21 and 32 are given M-57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammunition which is required to be kept at home. If someone from Switzerland could please confirm this?
I don't buy that "GUNS ARE THE REASON FOR VIOLENCE" and "blame gun control" bullshit. America just has a higher ratio of fucked up people.
On August 28 2012 08:34 tomatriedes wrote: For all the 'people kill people; guns don't make any difference because they could just use knives instead' crowd-
Recently there were three rampages in S Korea where people were randomly attacked in public places by crazies wielding knifes. Several people were injured but the total number of deaths? Only one. Can you really, honestly say that if they had been wielding guns rather than knifes the death toll would have been that low?
Let's pretend a serial killer breaks into your house. Because he is a serial killer and takes joy in murdering people, let's assume his favorite tool is an extremely sharp knife. Because your government took away your gun, the only thing you have left to defend your wife and kids is a baseball bat in your closet or a knife all the way in your kitchen. The chance of you defending your family against him with no one getting hurt is extremely low.
I'd rather have a gun.
You're falsely comparing gun ownership and gun control. In Switzerland it is very difficult to get permits so you can carry guns in public. The regulatory systems are completely different. High gun ownership does not equal lax gun control.
Edit: Given the choice between taking on serial killer with knife and serial killer with gun and your weapons provided. I would go with baseball bat vs knife any damn day.
On August 28 2012 09:30 PaqMan wrote: From what I've read somewhere, because Switzerland has no standing full-time army, all men are required to go through some form of military training throughout their lives, a few weeks a year. Men between the ages of 21 and 32 are given M-57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammunition which is required to be kept at home. If someone from Switzerland could please confirm this?
I don't buy that "GUNS ARE THE REASON FOR VIOLENCE" and "blame gun control" bullshit. America just has a higher ratio of fucked up people.
On August 28 2012 08:34 tomatriedes wrote: For all the 'people kill people; guns don't make any difference because they could just use knives instead' crowd-
Recently there were three rampages in S Korea where people were randomly attacked in public places by crazies wielding knifes. Several people were injured but the total number of deaths? Only one. Can you really, honestly say that if they had been wielding guns rather than knifes the death toll would have been that low?
Let's pretend a serial killer breaks into your house. Because he is a serial killer and takes joy in murdering people, let's assume his favorite tool is an extremely sharp knife. Because your government took away your gun, the only thing you have left to defend your wife and kids is a baseball bat in your closet or a knife all the way in your kitchen. The chance of you defending your family against him with no one getting hurt is extremely low.
I'd rather have a gun.
You're falsely comparing gun ownership and gun control. In Switzerland it is very difficult to get permits so you can carry guns in public. The regulatory systems are completely different. High gun ownership does not equal lax gun control.
Edit: Given the choice between taking on serial killer with knife and serial killer with gun and your weapons provided. I would go with baseball bat vs knife any damn day.
I'm sure if someone in Switzerland was planning on a mass-shooting he would care less about obtaining a permit to carry a gun in public.
On August 28 2012 09:30 PaqMan wrote: From what I've read somewhere, because Switzerland has no standing full-time army, all men are required to go through some form of military training throughout their lives, a few weeks a year. Men between the ages of 21 and 32 are given M-57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammunition which is required to be kept at home. If someone from Switzerland could please confirm this?
I don't buy that "GUNS ARE THE REASON FOR VIOLENCE" and "blame gun control" bullshit. America just has a higher ratio of fucked up people.
On August 28 2012 08:34 tomatriedes wrote: For all the 'people kill people; guns don't make any difference because they could just use knives instead' crowd-
Recently there were three rampages in S Korea where people were randomly attacked in public places by crazies wielding knifes. Several people were injured but the total number of deaths? Only one. Can you really, honestly say that if they had been wielding guns rather than knifes the death toll would have been that low?
Let's pretend a serial killer breaks into your house. Because he is a serial killer and takes joy in murdering people, let's assume his favorite tool is an extremely sharp knife. Because your government took away your gun, the only thing you have left to defend your wife and kids is a baseball bat in your closet or a knife all the way in your kitchen. The chance of you defending your family against him with no one getting hurt is extremely low.
I'd rather have a gun.
You're falsely comparing gun ownership and gun control. In Switzerland it is very difficult to get permits so you can carry guns in public. The regulatory systems are completely different. High gun ownership does not equal lax gun control.
Edit: Given the choice between taking on serial killer with knife and serial killer with gun and your weapons provided. I would go with baseball bat vs knife any damn day.
Baseball Bat gives you way more reach... I don't understand why you want the knife in this situation unless you feel your way stronger than the serial killer and can just brute force overpower him(even then you can take a fatal wound pretty easily)? Distracting serial killer with baseball bat, giving chance/time for your wife/kids to run is much better than them running and getting shot in the back,
for threads like these i will often read and use sources to back up my opinions, but this time im just going to post based on my experiences as a US citizen.
i dont think stricter gun control laws are the main problem. stricter ones, with more attempts to look into, monitor and possibly offer help to alienated loners could thwart mass shootings before they occur. but that would really only be addressing the symptoms.
the problem, imo, is that we have too many people who become alienated loners in the first place. there's a spirit of individualism and competitiveness in the US that, while positive in many respects, can manifest itself in ugly ways.
going to school here in the US, whenever there was a kid who had just failed at something (often socially), or was just sad or fat or didn't fit in, the most common response was 'what a loser' often followed by 'lets shun or pick on him to express our contempt.' i think that is probably less common in other countries.
i think other nations, like in the EU, much as we bash on them for their commie socialist ways, have a system and culture that reflects more care and concern for others.
i don't like the example of the norway shooter here, he was a terrorist driven by fanaticism rather than a tormented, impotent nobody lashing out at the world. that's a key difference i think people tend to either downgrade or overlook.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
At the shooting in Times Square, police shot more innocent people than the gunman.....
(CBS/AP) PERRY HALL, Md. - Police said a student has been shot and a suspect is in custody at a Maryland high school, CBS Baltimore station WJZ-TV reports.
Baltimore County Police are investigating the confirmed shooting at Perry Hall High School. Students told WJZ-TV that the suspect was a student, but it hasn't been confirmed whether the suspect attended Perry Hall.
"It appears this was a one-on-one grudge situation," a police source told CBS News, adding that police are "99 percent sure there is just one suspect."
Gerald Roman, an 11th grader, told WJZ-TV that a student came into the school cafeteria and shot another student. Teachers then tackled the gun-toting student, and a shot was fired at the cafeteria ceiling, Roman said. By then, a police officer entered the cafeteria and assisted the teachers who took down the student.
A patient is seen on a stretcher after a shooting at Perry Hall High School in Perry Hall, Md., Aug. 27, 2012.
The injured 17-year-old student was flown by medevac to Shock Trauma. The male student's condition is critical.
"It's horrible," said Roman. "I mean, you would think the school would have better security than this, maybe metal detectors."
A young man without a shirt was seen by WJZ-TV's helicopter being escorted to a police cruiser in handcuffs.
Calls started coming in Monday shortly before 11 a.m. Fire crews and police cars are on the scene. In the air, sharpshooters and helicopters can be seen. After the shooting, the school was put on lockdown for almost an hour.
Students were seen leaving the school in an orderly manner. Some are being evacuated to Perry Hall Shopping Center across the street from the school, where parents can meet them. Other students are also being diverted to Perry Hall Middle School and Joppa View Elementary School.
Monday was the first day of school in Perry Hall. About 2,300 students attend the school. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited the school last week.
Perry Hall is a middle-class community along the Interstate 95 corridor, northeast of Baltimore city.
Please read the report above to have a context on the discussion.
tldr: A 17-year-old student at Baltimore’s Perry Hall High School was shot on the first day of classes and taken to an area hospital, while the shooter has been apprehended by police.
Going back, just from memory, I can name a few recent shootings: the Alabama shooting by a university professor, Colorado shooting at a TDKR premier, the most recent one before this in the Empire State, the one in Arizona injuring Congressman Gliffords.
What is motivating this? Shootings have happened before, but they seem more frequent now. Or do they seem more frequent only because media is so pervasive now (tv, internet, phones) that anything can be reported in real time? Or does media contribute to this phenomenon, encouraging shooting and desensitizing the would be shooters to it, whether they intend to shoot at a random mass or to a specific person? What is your opinion?
Nothing is motivating this. They are not more frequent. They are just in the news more. In 2009 there were nearly 11,500 deaths from firearms. Did you see any of it in the news? Nope. Why not? It wasnt a hot topic.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
I'm getting pretty sick of reading mindless posts about this sort of complaint. Gun laws don't necessarily demote or promote the use of guns. People who want to use guns will always have them unless you have some sort of communist 100% no guns available to citizens.
US has always had a loose gun law. Arguing that that is the reason doesn't make much sense as we are talking about a recent upswing in shootings. We even have a president in office who is in favor of more gun control. Why is this happening?
Either there really is a rise in shootings, or there is a rise in shootings being reported by the media. It begs the question, do the major media corporations have too much power, being able to selectively report whatever they want to influence the populous?
Three words: Gun free zones. I don't remember the last mass shooting that happened where people are allowed to concealed carry. As for non-mass shootings, I believe they have been decreasing steadily over the last 15 or so years though I'm not sure how the bad economy has effected crime rates since 2008. I attribute this decrease in violence to the widespread adoption of shall issue, concealed carry weapons permit policy that has occured over the last two decades.
On August 28 2012 11:02 SayGen wrote: Sigh I'm so tired of every thread that involves guns being turned into 'US has loose gun laws'
IT IS EASIER TO OBTAIN AN AK47 IN GERMANY THAN IN THE US.
Us gun law, isn't as loose as everyone likes to think it is.
But people will always beleive what they want to- never challenging any idea or concept that is in-line with their core beliefs.
Depends what you mean by AK47. If you're referring to the true automatic assault rifle, that may be true, but all that is required to get a semi-auto AK variant is a couple hundred dollars and a clean background check. US gun laws are relatively non-strict, but I consider that a good thing.
On August 28 2012 09:30 PaqMan wrote: From what I've read somewhere, because Switzerland has no standing full-time army, all men are required to go through some form of military training throughout their lives, a few weeks a year. Men between the ages of 21 and 32 are given M-57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammunition which is required to be kept at home. If someone from Switzerland could please confirm this?
I don't buy that "GUNS ARE THE REASON FOR VIOLENCE" and "blame gun control" bullshit. America just has a higher ratio of fucked up people.
On August 28 2012 08:34 tomatriedes wrote: For all the 'people kill people; guns don't make any difference because they could just use knives instead' crowd-
Recently there were three rampages in S Korea where people were randomly attacked in public places by crazies wielding knifes. Several people were injured but the total number of deaths? Only one. Can you really, honestly say that if they had been wielding guns rather than knifes the death toll would have been that low?
Let's pretend a serial killer breaks into your house. Because he is a serial killer and takes joy in murdering people, let's assume his favorite tool is an extremely sharp knife. Because your government took away your gun, the only thing you have left to defend your wife and kids is a baseball bat in your closet or a knife all the way in your kitchen. The chance of you defending your family against him with no one getting hurt is extremely low.
I'd rather have a gun.
You're falsely comparing gun ownership and gun control. In Switzerland it is very difficult to get permits so you can carry guns in public. The regulatory systems are completely different. High gun ownership does not equal lax gun control.
Edit: Given the choice between taking on serial killer with knife and serial killer with gun and your weapons provided. I would go with baseball bat vs knife any damn day.
I'm sure if someone in Switzerland was planning on a mass-shooting he would care less about obtaining a permit to carry a gun in public.
Yeah, it's funny that people think the recent adoption of concealed carry would have anything to do with crime. People who get licenses and carry guns legally are protectors, not criminals. Cases of anything bad happening involving legal CCW holders are very rare. If someone is going to commit a crime with a handgun, he's not going to care whether or not it's legal for him to carry it in public.
I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm in 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries
That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf
Despite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor.
Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it?
Complete myth created by government officials for the purpose of furthering their gun control agenda. They even set up an operation (Fast and Furious) in which they purposefully allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could blame Mexico's violence on American gun laws resulting in the death of an American border patrol agent. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
As for what can be done about it, legalize drugs to combat organized crime and encourage the concealment of firearms in public to prevent mass shootings.
On August 28 2012 11:33 Trevoc wrote: I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient.
Here are your logistics: Civil war. The banning of guns is not a step towards dictatorship that America is ready to make.
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less prone to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm in 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries
That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf
Despite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor.
Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it?
Complete myth created by government officials for the purpose of furthering their gun control agenda. They even set up an operation (Fast and Furious) in which they purposefully allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could blame Mexico's violence on American gun laws resulting in the death of an American border patrol agent. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
On August 28 2012 11:33 Trevoc wrote: I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient.
Here are your logistics: Civil war. The banning of guns is not a step towards dictatorship that America is ready to make.
I saw a documentary about the criminal cartels in Mexico and one of cartels themselves talked about how they get most of their weapons from South America and that they weren't dependant on US for guns. Either way though, the US needs to step up their border security, it's way too easy for people to travel back and forth on both sides.
The reason a lot of politicians including the President of the US are not pushing for more gun control/laws right now is because the election is coming up and they know it's an unpopular idea in the US to push for more gun control/laws, most Americans favor the 2nd Amendment.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm in 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries
That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf
Despite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor.
Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it?
Complete myth created by government officials for the purpose of furthering their gun control agenda. They even set up an operation (Fast and Furious) in which they purposefully allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could blame Mexico's violence on American gun laws resulting in the death of an American border patrol agent. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
On August 28 2012 11:33 Trevoc wrote: I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient.
Here are your logistics: Civil war. The banning of guns is not a step towards dictatorship that America is ready to make.
I saw a documentary about the criminal cartels in Mexico and one of cartels themselves talked about how they get most of their weapons from South America and that they weren't dependant on US for guns. Either way though, the US needs to step up their border security, it's way to easy for people to travel back and forth on both sides.
The reason a lot of politicians including the President of the US are not pushing for more gun control/laws right now is because the election is coming up and they know it's an unpopular idea in the US to push for more gun control/laws, most Americans favor the 2nd Amendment.
Here is what needs to be done, which will solve many issues with Mexico. First, legalize drugs. Without a product to smuggle, the cartel is robbed of the vast majority of it's income stream and they will go the way of the Chicago Outfit. Second, legalize immigration while ending the welfare state. I don't mean completely open borders, but immigration requirements would be reduced to a background check making sure you aren't a criminal or a sympathizer of American enemies. Right now, this is impossible because Mexicans have an incentive to come to America just for the govenrment benefits. Eliminate those benefits and only hard working people would bother coming. This would shut down the illegal immigration underground and all the crime which prospers around it. With legal drugs and legal immigration, nearly nobody would have a reason to illegally cross the border.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
you have people like alex jones, faux networks, everyone telling the people who listen to them that obama is a muslim, obama wants to destroy america, obama is going to take away all of your guns (meanwhile doing nothing about it) and it only takes that to push 1 crazy person over the edge to think so that he can "save america" by killing the "terrorists" who want to destroy the country. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
look at the sikh shooting for example. and i read an article a few weeks ago about a guy who opened fire on police or something because he thought obama was going to ruin the country, although i think that guy was killed also (by the police).
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
On August 28 2012 11:02 SayGen wrote: IT IS EASIER TO OBTAIN AN AK47 IN GERMANY THAN IN THE US.
Thats the most stupid thing i've ever read from an american, actually. You know that, right? AK47s are even manufactured in the US, whereas in germany this weapon (like all other assault rifles) is banned. Completely, you cant even get a permission. You will never, EVER will be able to buy that gun, whereas it took me not even 2 minutes to find a phonenumber to order an AK47 in the US.
PS: an AK47 is not just a gun in germany, its a so called "War-Weapon", and falls under the so called "Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz" (war weapons control law). You will never get the permission to own Kriegswaffen.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun. It wouldn't prevent anything but unfortunately I know no matter how hard I try there is no way for you to see reason.
As for the OP, I think it's just media being able to cover everything. There are lots of murders with guns/knifes/etc. From what it sounds like he was probably bullied by the kid is my guess which caused him to want to kill him. I know this happened at my school or almost happened but somebody turned the kid in. He was going to knife a kid (ironically he bullied me to the kid he was going to knife). If he hadn't been caught he would have done it to.
Australia had one terrible shooting incident. We banned guns. Then it seemed to stop. Just saying...
I understand that's it part of that special piece of paper you guys have, but dedication to a tradition that seems to be hurting your country on a personal, domestic and emotional level for the sake of a tradition is stagnant, self destructive reasoning.
Of course people will still find a way to get a weapon, but there's a lot more time for people to think while they source that black market guns connections through a dodgy second cousin instead of being able to waltz into a Walmart or whatever.
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote: Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
Yeah but how many will they kill? NIdal Hassan got 17 kills, 30 wounded with a FiveSeveN with the 33 round mags. How many would he have gotten with a knife?
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote: Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote: Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one?
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote: Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one?
This reads like one giant, poorly spaced "paragraph" of paranoia. I don't know any old ladies who carry a loaded gun in their handbag or even their bedside table. Not that I'm an expert on what's in an old lady's bedside table/handbag. Simply because they are not afraid of such horrible things happening because they live in a fairly normal world.
However look at the points your raising. You're openly admitting that you live in a climate that is rife robberies and murders and that it's not your environment that is at fault for creating such an attitude (that you all need to be gun toting to ensure safety). It's like solving a bad problem with a bad answer.
And your point on "overthrowing tyrannical governments" let's keep it relevant and focus on America. I really don't see any political coups being staged (maybe a few piss weak attempts by new world order nut jobs, but that's it.)
How many absurd gun crimes need to occur before the excuse of "self defense" is realised to be not enough to excuse such horrible things happening in the day to day? That being said, perhaps life will decide to turkey slap me with some home invasion and my position which shift entirely.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor).
Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything.
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote: Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one?
This reads like one giant, poorly spaced "paragraph" of paranoia. I don't know any old ladies who carry a loaded gun in their handbag or even their bedside table. Not that I'm an expert on what's in an old lady's bedside table/handbag. Simply because they are not afraid of such horrible things happening because they live in a fairly normal world.
However look at the points your raising. You're openly admitting that you live in a climate that is rife robberies and murders and that it's not your environment that is at fault for creating such an attitude (that you all need to be gun toting to ensure safety). It's like solving a bad problem with a bad answer.
And your point on "overthrowing tyrannical governments" let's keep it relevant and focus on America. I really don't see any political coups being staged (maybe a few piss weak attempts by new world order nut jobs, but that's it.)
How many absurd gun crimes need to occur before the excuse of "self defense" is realised to be not enough to excuse such horrible things happening in the day to day? That being said, perhaps life will decide to turkey slap me with some home invasion and my position which shift entirely.
You view it as paranoia but I'm not paranoid at all. I view it as a right to defend yourself. I suppose you missed my point in that some people are not in the physical shape to defend themselves from people who are bigger or stronger. A gun levels the playing field in that sense. All you want to point is out that bad people commit murder with guns yet you don't want to point out and give any attention to people who have saved their own lives with a gun from criminals meant to do them harm. You also talk in a way banning or passing gun laws will have any impact on homicide. The same psychos will continue to be psychos whether they have a gun or not. There is no way you'd be able to keep guns out of criminal hands if you ban guns, you'd still have criminals who are going to murder and you'd have good people who own guns who abide by the law at risk because they can no longer realisitically defend themselves. Gun banning didn't help cities like Chicago (a city by the way who have the worst crime rates and shootings in the world) where crime rate and shootings increased significantly after they banned guns. Nor New York where guns are also banned yet they have one of the highest crime rates in the country. I suppose I shouldn't try to debate with people from other countries because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to mine. On YOUR point about tyrannical governments, it doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen in the future, or perhaps it hasn't completely happened yet because with the 2nd Amendment. Either way, it's a good law that intends to protect the people.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor).
Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything.
It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor).
Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything.
It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
It sure as hell does. Scientology basically tells people not to spend their money on drugs/psychiatrists/etc if they are unhappy, instead bring your money to one of our Audit sessions for a nominal fee.
Scientology is in direct competition with the current mental health industry. Not to mention that website is a "mental health" human rights organization. IMO that is hardly a Human rights organization especially considering it was started in 1969 by the COS.
-_- There are 2 sides to every coin and I am damn sure the mental health industry has some incredibly sketchy things that go on in it, but see that website for what it is.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor).
Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything.
It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
It sure as hell does. Scientology basically tells people not to spend their money on drugs/psychiatrists/etc if they are unhappy, instead bring your money to one of our Audit sessions for a nominal fee.
Scientology is in direct competition with the current mental health industry. Not to mention that website is a "mental health" human rights organization. IMO that is hardly a Human rights organization especially considering it was started in 1969 by the COS.
-_- There are 2 sides to every coin and I am damn sure the mental health industry has some incredibly sketchy things that go on in it, but see that website for what it is.
I don't know what you're talking about, there is nothing on CCHR.org that says "go do Scientology" or lists Scientology anywhere on their website. Anyone who would go to CCHR.org wouldn't get the idea to do Scientology instead of taking drugs from the website.
On August 28 2012 04:02 Zandar wrote: Lets allow everyone to have a gun, then be surprised people use them, then build metal detectors at schools...
I'll probably never understand the way how most people in the USA think about guns and security.
I'm against gun control because it gives the citizens a little more freedom and power if things go to shit. However there are a lot of cases where gun control would discourage violence and murders, but I think it's a necessary trade off. The propaganda videos NRA puts out about guns though are really silly. It's so easy to argue for gun control with someone who buys into them. It's still a right I wouldn't want to give up, even if it leads to me randomly dying some day from it.
The US just have a lot more people compared to the overall population.
Unless stuff like the Batman shooter don't count in countings like this.
you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm in 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries
That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too.
On August 28 2012 07:04 Zandar wrote: A search for "shootings" on TL, I wonder why there are so many, almost all, from a certain country where it's legal to have a gun:
Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf
Despite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor.
Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it?
Complete myth created by government officials for the purpose of furthering their gun control agenda. They even set up an operation (Fast and Furious) in which they purposefully allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could blame Mexico's violence on American gun laws resulting in the death of an American border patrol agent. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
As for what can be done about it, legalize drugs to combat organized crime and encourage the concealment of firearms in public to prevent mass shootings.
On August 28 2012 11:33 Trevoc wrote: I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient.
Here are your logistics: Civil war. The banning of guns is not a step towards dictatorship that America is ready to make.
You're talking conspiracy theory there totally unsupported by your source which is awful anyways. It says that 90% of the gun we were able to track were from the US, but a significant number were untracked. So until I see a source that details what portion of the cartels weapons are military grade hardware since thats the level at which things are no longer available in the US, (maybe that "some documentary" esk23 referenced) I will stick with the GAO analysis. Many of the automatic weapons that the cartels are using are simply modified versions of semi-automatic weapons legal in the US. Not from South American countries.
Yes, we were only able to track slightly over 10% of the guns recovered for that year but that could be a representative sample. Your article isn't much of a source. The article only refutes one year, when you look at the GAO report you can see that they have put it at well over 70% for 5 years. It really explains everything for you, all you have to do is beleive there is no vast government conspiracy lasting through multiple presidencies to take away your guns.
Don't go creating conspiracy theories about Obama and his regime due to a program that started under Bush going bad. Unless you're non-partisan in your theories, which makes it no less ridiculous.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
A rework of the mental health care system is needed before gun control. It's horrible right now and helps nobody. It's set up just to make certain people rich, and profits are fueled by bad parents who want to believe that the problem rests on their kids. That's easy to market. I don't know why this is rarely a topic of discussion.
On August 28 2012 11:02 SayGen wrote: Sigh I'm so tired of every thread that involves guns being turned into 'US has loose gun laws'
IT IS EASIER TO OBTAIN AN AK47 IN GERMANY THAN IN THE US.
Us gun law, isn't as loose as everyone likes to think it is.
But people will always beleive what they want to- never challenging any idea or concept that is in-line with their core beliefs.
Don't be stupid on purpose.
On August 28 2012 14:39 Esk23 wrote: It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
A rework of the mental health care system is needed before gun control. It's horrible right now and helps nobody. It's set up just to make certain people rich, and profits are fueled by bad parents who want to believe that the problem rests on their kids. That's easy to market. I don't know why this is rarely a topic of discussion.
It's rarely a topic for discussion because the media/health authorities has brainwashed the general public into thinking that the health authorities + pharaceutical industry has the public interest in mind. Coupled with the fact that the "Big Pharma" has made alot of "donations" to politicians and doctors, you can see why these things are kept under wraps.
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote: Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one?
This reads like one giant, poorly spaced "paragraph" of paranoia. I don't know any old ladies who carry a loaded gun in their handbag or even their bedside table. Not that I'm an expert on what's in an old lady's bedside table/handbag. Simply because they are not afraid of such horrible things happening because they live in a fairly normal world.
However look at the points your raising. You're openly admitting that you live in a climate that is rife robberies and murders and that it's not your environment that is at fault for creating such an attitude (that you all need to be gun toting to ensure safety). It's like solving a bad problem with a bad answer.
And your point on "overthrowing tyrannical governments" let's keep it relevant and focus on America. I really don't see any political coups being staged (maybe a few piss weak attempts by new world order nut jobs, but that's it.)
How many absurd gun crimes need to occur before the excuse of "self defense" is realised to be not enough to excuse such horrible things happening in the day to day? That being said, perhaps life will decide to turkey slap me with some home invasion and my position which shift entirely.
You view it as paranoia but I'm not paranoid at all. I view it as a right to defend yourself. I suppose you missed my point in that some people are not in the physical shape to defend themselves from people who are bigger or stronger. A gun levels the playing field in that sense. All you want to point is out that bad people commit murder with guns yet you don't want to point out and give any attention to people who have saved their own lives with a gun from criminals meant to do them harm. You also talk in a way banning or passing gun laws will have any impact on homicide. The same psychos will continue to be psychos whether they have a gun or not. There is no way you'd be able to keep guns out of criminal hands if you ban guns, you'd still have criminals who are going to murder and you'd have good people who own guns who abide by the law at risk because they can no longer realisitically defend themselves. Gun banning didn't help cities like Chicago (a city by the way who have the worst crime rates and shootings in the world) where crime rate and shootings increased significantly after they banned guns. Nor New York where guns are also banned yet they have one of the highest crime rates in the country. I suppose I shouldn't try to debate with people from other countries because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to mine. On YOUR point about tyrannical governments, it doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen in the future, or perhaps it hasn't completely happened yet because with the 2nd Amendment. Either way, it's a good law that intends to protect the people.
But there's a big difference in outcome between a psycho who's able to easily obtain an automatic gas powered rifle complete with 30 round magazine in comparison to one who can only get a hold of a bolt action/semi-automatic with a 5/10 round magazine.
I'm a libertarian at heart and I wish I could apply the same ideas to gun control (I'd love to own a farm and nerd out with some AK-47s) but I can't justify their availability as a self defense tool in a country with such severe social problems. You being a perfect example, anticipating some sort of violent political revolution.
There's a strict gun ban here and it's not as if everybody is living in constant fear of the door being kicked in by big bad evil men because we don't have a firearm at the ready.
On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote: Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge.
On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote: I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding
This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition-like enforcement doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana).
If I can get a carton of name brand cigarettes imported to the US at $15 a pop (which is a $10,000 fine per carton if caught) then I can most likely find a way to get a gun if I really want one.
Just some food for thought.
Not a good argument. The government probably couldn't give two shits about imported cigarettes.
On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote: Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge.
That being said, there are some issues with the acquistion of guns, namely the severe lack of education involved in getting one. One would think that some form of training should be mandatory when purchasing a firearm, including some moral lecture to impress the fact upon people that while what they're purchasing is a tool for a purpose (self defense), it is a tool solely meant to critically injure, main, or kill, and that is not a fact to be taken lightly. No such education truly exists around the fire arms market so unfortunately there is a terrible culture around guns.
But taking them away really doesn't solve the issue, because in a sense you aren't really removing them entirely from the picture, you're only making it more difficult to acquire them, and while that might be good in the sense of preventing mindless scrubs from getting ahold of them, if you have a psychopath who really wants to perpetrate an act of violence, they'll find a way to get their weaponry, or they'll resort to learning a new trade of weaponry (explosives/etc).
Anyways, I'm still trying to find the stats on where we stand on gun violence on the global front, but I do know it's pretty high, but people fail to factor in gang violence, which very often goes unreported, or at least certainly doesn't receive the amount of coverage to justify just how common place it is, and how much it's growing and spreading.
Example: I live near Birmingham, AL, which consistently makes within the top 10 most dangerous cities list for violence/murders, and has for years. Not so bad during the day, but I wouldn't go there at night without being fully armed to the teeth. It's best not to at all :3
Getting back onto the original topic at hand though. Motivation lies in hard economic times, bad culture, and a lack of education. I don't think shootings are really on the rise though, because even back in the days around columbine there had been plenty of smaller shooting incidents that just weren't taken very seriously as they weren't as grandiose in nature, often only involving a couple deaths or even none. I believe that now that we've had such terrible landmarks such as columbine and Virginia tech that every single incident involving gun violence is being covered with the eyes of a hawk, so we're noticing it more.
On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote: Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge.
Lol look at all those southern states at the very top...kinda ironic eh?
Washington DC doesn't necessarily qualify as a southern state. and also of great note, DC has had some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation up until the last couple years. Now go look at the stats on that, because im seeing a fair decline since they struck down part of the law
On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote: Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge.
Lol look at all those southern states at the very top...kinda ironic eh?
Washington DC doesn't necessarily qualify as a southern state. and also of great note, DC has had some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation up until the last couple years. Now go look at the stats on that, because im seeing a fair decline since they struck down part of the law
I'll be the advocate of the devil for a second, DC is also the second smallest state in USA after Wyoming (In inhabitants' term), rates are a bit less relevant.
On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote: If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause.
US is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
You wouldn't be saying that if you had a mental disorder that was relieved by medication. The fact that they took these drugs before the violent acts tells me nothing about causation.
The injured 17-year-old student was flown by medevac to the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center
am I the only one who laughed at the thought of loading it up instead of healing it on the spot? D:
uhh no. I don't see a wounded 17 year old funny...
Yeah, you're the only one.
Now that I hear the medvac comment I get a little giggle, you guys take life to seriously ^^ any moment you can die in a head on collision that was completely out of your hands so lighten up.
As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense.
The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote: As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense.
The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
When you have people slavering on the words of relative savages from the beginning of the common era, 325 years is practically yesterday, I guess.
The last time we changed the constitution was 1992 so its pretty up to date, as far as the most recent revisions go. If we want to edit it we have a way to do that, don't act like its old and outdated. The second amendment would of been changed if Americans wanted it to be changed. Yay Democracy!
I even sort of agree with your sentiments but don't go hating on our constitution, its an amazing document we can change if we damn well please.
On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote: As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense.
The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
The right to bear arms is indeed for self-defense, but not personal self-defense. It's there so the populace will always be able to defend itself from tyranny.
Every tyranny is history has tried to disarm its civilians, so they could not rise up and overthrow said tyranny. The founding fathers knew this, and included the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote: As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense.
The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
The right to bear arms is indeed for self-defense, but not personal self-defense. It's there so the populace will always be able to defend itself from tyranny.
Every tyranny is history has tried to disarm its civilians, so they could not rise up and overthrow said tyranny. The founding fathers knew this, and included the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't think you should be looking at, hey this person has access to guns so he is killing people, I think you should look at why people are doing this and what flawed part of your system is causing this. Taking away guns could help but is obviously constantly under debate and won't ever change and even without guns people will always find ways to kill eachother
Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY, IF YOU COME TO MY COUNTRY I WILL DRAW OUT MY SIX SHOOTERS AND TAKE YOU DOWN.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
Illegal and incredibly under-enforced=ineffective, overly lax gun laws. Thanks for proving my point.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
Illegal and incredibly under-enforced=ineffective, overly lax gun laws. Thanks for proving my point.
I have a really hard time believing you're even telling the truth about that story. All gun dealers at shows must carry federal firearms license. Without proper documentation of the sale (which couldn't possibly exist because it's illegal to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 years old) the gun dealer could get in SERIOUS trouble. Years of jailtime. So your point really has no legs to stand on. Just because some people break the law doesn't make it the norm.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
Depends, minors are not explicitly prohibited from buying any guns in the US. Many states have stricter restrictions than federal but you have no idea if it was actually illegal or not.
"There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc., for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees"
@ above poster: You can purchase firearms from individuals who happen to be at a gunshow that aren't registered dealers. The gun laws are very, very, lax and there's more wiggle room than a lot of people seem to think.
Edit2: Nevermind, my post is full of wrong because he said a handgun was purchased, which is illegal.
If guns were more restricted, there would be fewer firearms for people to illegally get. How is this not obvious? There is a direct relationship between gun laws and gun accessibility, either through legitimate or illigitimate means.
By the way, the irony of an American saying "Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand" is not funny, it's painful. Tell that to every country you've invaded.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
Illegal and incredibly under-enforced=ineffective, overly lax gun laws. Thanks for proving my point.
I have a really hard time believing you're even telling the truth about that story. All gun dealers at shows must carry federal firearms license. Without proper documentation of the sale (which couldn't possibly exist because it's illegal to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 years old) the gun dealer could get in SERIOUS trouble. Years of jailtime. So your point really has no legs to stand on. Just because some people break the law doesn't make it the norm.
In October 2009, the City of New York released “Gun Show Undercover: Report on Illegal Sales at Gun Shows.”[26] The report details undercover investigations that took place at gun shows in three states—Tennessee, Nevada, and Ohio—between May and August 2009. Private investigators were hired by the Office of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to perform sting operations on federally licensed firearm dealers and unlicensed private sellers at 14 different shows in these states. Private investigators posing as purchasers approached 33 unlicensed sellers and told them that they “probably couldn’t pass a background check.” 22 (or 67%) of the private sellers sold a gun to them anyway. Additionally, 17 federally licensed dealers at the shows were approached by investigators who simulated a “straw purchase.” In a straw purchase, a prohibited purchaser recruits an individual with a clean criminal record to fill out paperwork, pass the background check, and purchase firearms for him/her. All but one licensed dealer sold investigators a gun in this manner, again despite the fact that it constituted a clear violation of federal law. These illegal transactions were videotaped by investigators.[27]
Source Keep in mind that there is a great deal of conflicting evidence, with many studies suggesting that gun shows are not a common source for illegal firearm diversion. However, the variance in results suggests that gun shows are indeed an important aspect of the US's illegal firearm problem.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
Depends, minors are not explicitly prohibited from buying any guns in the US. Many states have stricter restrictions than federal but you have no idea if it was actually illegal or not.
"There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc., for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees"
@ above poster: You can purchase firearms from individuals who happen to be at a gunshow that aren't registered dealers. The gun laws are very, very, lax and there's more wiggle room than a lot of people seem to think.
Wikipedia master... Please pay attention to the heading "SALE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS" This has nothing to do with gun shows and the LEGAL purchase of firearms. Even if it were illegal to make a private transaction between individuals it would be impossible to enforce. Please do your research before you start quoting shit from a paragraph on Wikipedia.
On August 29 2012 02:29 Shai wrote: If guns were more restricted, there would be fewer firearms for people to illegally get. How is this not obvious? There is a direct relationship between gun laws and gun accessibility, either through legitimate or illigitimate means.
By the way, the irony of an American saying "Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand" is not funny, it's painful. Tell that to every country you've invaded.
I have never invaded any countries, thank you for your entertaining comment though.
On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote: As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense.
The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
The right to bear arms is indeed for self-defense, but not personal self-defense. It's there so the populace will always be able to defend itself from tyranny.
Every tyranny is history has tried to disarm its civilians, so they could not rise up and overthrow said tyranny. The founding fathers knew this, and included the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
"But I didn't bring up Nazi Germany!" So then every 'tyranny' in history hasn't disarmed its civilians then.
Furthermore unless you actually get the army on your side you're fucked either way, guns or not.
I never said guns prevent tyranny, I said they allow you to fight back once it starts, which is in fact a concession this article makes.
I readily admit civilians, no matter how well armed, would ever be able to win a conventional war against the US military; but that's why they wouldn't even try it. They'd fight a guerrilla war. It worked for the Afghani's against the Russians, it worked for the Viet Cong, the Polish were fairly successful against both the Nazis and the Soviets, and the insurgency in Iraq has been fairly effective against the Coalition. Now remember, none of those guerrilla movements could even threaten significant targets; but guerrillas in the US could threaten every factory, oil refinery, harbor, airfield, highway, radiotower, bridge, canal, and railyard in the country. No army on Earth could possibly protect all that. I'd go so far as to say the guerrillas can't lose. Victory might take a long time, but I think its assured.
I will end my little tirade with 1 last key point. Whether or not it's the gun laws (it's not) people would still have access to firearms illegally. Even in European countries with the toughest gun laws ever conceived, people that want to do bad things will find a way to get a gun. It just so happens that we have a shitty culture that breeds psychopaths. We aren't the only country that has murderous loons, we just have a lot of them and the media power to reach the entire world. I'm not saying the US is better than anywhere else in the world, just asking that you stop pretending EU is any better. For better or worse every country in the world has its own strengths and weaknesses.
New York: 6 murders per 100k inhabitants. Chicago: 16 murders per 100k inhabitants. L.A.: 7,5 murders per 100k inhabitants.
Berlin: 3,5 murders per 100k inhabitants.
All numbers from 2009/2010.
My last post in this thread: (...and I´m sorry for my bad english!)
I know those numbers are not new and I know they are populist. There are probably a couple of cities somewhere in the world that have an even higher murder-ratio (Mexico-City?). It still shows best what I wanted to say earlier in this thread. I know, most Americans are proud of their constitution - and they should be. They should also be proud of their country. But don´t be surprised or even shocked when there is another shooting in one of your cities. It shows an annoying double-morality when most Americans are still demanding their right to wear a gun on the one hand, and are still shocked about how it was possible that a random dude killed a dozen of people on the other hand. Sure, we also have some trouble with shootings in Germany too (a lot of family-dramas recently). But the frequency of those doings is way less than in the US. And in my oppinion the difference between "our" gun-law and the US-gun-law is the difference.
I know, I don´t live in the US, so in the eyes of some Americans here I don´t have the right to talk about this topic. Sorry, my fault that I still do it.
@adaptive: I´m not saying EU is "any better". In general I even consider it to be worse than the US. But in terms of gun-laws: Yes, we are "better" - sorry to say that
PS: To all Americans in this thread - don´t get me wrong! I´m not the stereotype-using-dumbass-German. I actually am one of those europeans who like your country and I think that you - as a country - have evolved rapidly to a more positiv side since Barrack is your president. Yes, you are a beautiful country, America. But like every other country in the world, you have a couple of mistakes. And in my eyes the Second Amendment is one of your biggest.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
During gun show season, which in many parts of the country is 365 days a year, it really is as easy as strolling in, choosing some choice ammunition and a good sale piece, paying, and walking out. A friend of mine from high school bought his first handgun at a gun show at the age of 15.
Which is illegal, back to neglect and stupidity. Thanks for proving my point.
Depends, minors are not explicitly prohibited from buying any guns in the US. Many states have stricter restrictions than federal but you have no idea if it was actually illegal or not.
"There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc., for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees"
@ above poster: You can purchase firearms from individuals who happen to be at a gunshow that aren't registered dealers. The gun laws are very, very, lax and there's more wiggle room than a lot of people seem to think.
Wikipedia master... Please pay attention to the heading "SALE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS" This has nothing to do with gun shows and the LEGAL purchase of firearms. Even if it were illegal to make a private transaction between individuals it would be impossible to enforce. Please do your research before you start quoting shit from a paragraph on Wikipedia.
Yeah, sales between individuals, like the guy who only has a couple guns to sell at a gunshow but does not do it as his primary business.
From a source arguing that gun laws are just fine. "Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car. Congress never intended a person who wants to sell a spare hunting rifle to a friend, a father who wishes to give a .22 rifle to his son or a widow who wishes to dispose of her late husband's firearms through an Internet auction or an ad in the local paper to undertake a NICS background check."
I was wrong because handguns fall under different laws and didn't notice the claim was over a handgun. You insulted me and did none of your own research, good job buddy! Look at that, we're both wrong!
@adaptive: If its so easy to get illegal things, I could really use some help getting ahold of just a few grams of heroin since I have no idea how to get any beyond walking into a ghetto and waving money at anyone who looks like a drug dealer. I also have some script requests from friends I'm sure you could fill since something being illegal has no impact on how hard it is to get or the total supply.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
I think you're missing the point people are trying to make.
Stupid people do exist all over the world, correct. However when stupid people go on a rampage in a country like the US, they have the tools to do way more damage than elsewhere.
No system is perfect, somewhere, sometime, a person who shouldn't be allowed to get their hands on a gun will do so. Typically they'll do way more harm than they would in a country which doesn't allow firearms.
I can't pretend I understand why so many Americans are this passionate about having the right to own a gun. In this day and age it just seems so antiquated.
On August 29 2012 02:13 adaptive wrote: Personally I'm sick of people that DON'T live in the U.S. talking about shit they don't understand. Foreigners seem to think it's like the wild west over here, everyone carrying double revolvers on their hips, like you can just stroll in to any gun store, pick out a piece and some ammunition and walk out the door with it.
Crazies and kids get their hands on guns because of neglect or stupidity of other people. It has nothing to do with lax gun laws. Guns aren't the problem. Stupid people are the problem. Stupid people exist all over the world, but foreigners LOVE the stereotype of the stupid, fat American. It also doesn't help that our media is the most internationally pervasive of anywhere else, so that helps to drive the belief that we are somehow worse than the rest of the world.
I think you're missing the point people are trying to make.
Stupid people do exist all over the world, correct. However when stupid people go on a rampage in a country like the US, they have the tools to do way more damage than elsewhere.
No system is perfect, somewhere, sometime, a person who shouldn't be allowed to get their hands on a gun will do so. Typically they'll do way more harm than they would in a country which doesn't allow firearms.
I can't pretend I understand why so many Americans are this passionate about having the right to own a gun. In this day and age it just seems so antiquated.
But simply owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone. Shooting people is the problem, not owning guns. We don't ban alcohol because some people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, because its not the alcohol that's the problem, is the violence itself that is the problem.
"My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Holmes
I can swing my fist all I want, but it is not within my rights to hit someone else with it. Well what about gun ownership hurts anyone? Is my rifle hurting people right now? No? Then what's the problem?
GUN LAWS IN AMERICA MAKE IT TO EASY TO ACCESS A FIREARM. JUST HEAR ME OUT, CRAZY/STUPID PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE, THEY'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. BUT IN AMERICA, A CRAZY/STUPID PERSON CAN GET ACCESS TO A GUN LEGALLY, JUST LOOK AT THE COLORADO THEATER INCIDENT, ALL HIS WEAPONS WHERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. THIS KID WAS ALSO ONLY 15, HE PROBABLY HAD SOME FEUD WITH THIS KID, KNEW HIS DAD/RELATIVE HAD A GUN SOMEWHERE AND THEN MADE THE WORST POSSIBLE DECISION OF HIS LIFE, SURE YOU COULD SAY HE WOULD OF JUST STABBED HIM OR SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE AND MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT THAT'S LESS DANGEROUS THAN A FIREARM. JUST THINK IF FIREARMS WEREN'T LEGAL IN THE USA, JAMES HOLMES AND ALL OF THESE OTHER KILLERS WOULD OF HAD TO PURCHASE GUNS ILLEGALLY MAKING IT ALOT HARDER FOR THEM TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS THE DID. PUBLIC ACCESS TO GUNS IS THE PROBLEM
Got to laugh at the "if there were no guns there would be no shootings" statements.
Making firearms (btw that includes fireworks/air rifles) illegal really worked out well for where I'm from, Northern Ireland. Psychos can get a gun if they want it. Maybe not just as easily, but if you want a gun you can get one. EZPZ
As for anti-handgun etc, I'm sure someone with enough practice could down as many people with a shotgun as they could with a handgun and a few clips of ammo.
These guys should be blackballed by the media, and locked up for life with no chance of parole. It's the ONLY way to deal with psychopaths like this in a civilised society.
Thoughts go out to the guy who was shot and his family, whatever he did I'm sure he didn't deserve this shit, he's only a kid.
On August 29 2012 08:55 Detri wrote: Got to laugh at the "if there were no guns there would be no shootings statements"
Making firearms (btw that includes fireworks/air rifles) illegal really worked out well for where I'm from, Northern Ireland. Psychos can get a gun if they want it. Maybe not just as easily, but if you want a gun you can get one. EZPZ
As for anti-handgun etc, I'm sure someone with enough practice could down as many people with a shotgun as they could with a handgun and a few clips of ammo.
These guys should be blackballed by the media, and locked up for life with no chance of parole. It's the ONLY way to deal with psychopaths like this in a civilised society.
Thoughts go out to the guy who was shot and his family, whatever he did I'm sure he didn't deserve this shit, he's only a kid.
Agree with the statement on gun laws. All restrictions will do is make it illegal for law-abiding people to have guns, criminals are going to break laws because that's what they do. They will also make it more difficult to obtain them, but our Southern neighbor will ensure a supply of guns for quite a while (ironically, many of them our own).
People need to wake up - treating the problem by banning guns is just treating the symptoms and not the cause. The real issue is the society itself - as I made a post earlier, USA is increasing in the amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people.
Yes, banning guns will reduce the amounts of shootings. This is because these people are borderline psychotic and are prone to snap actions. Thus, if you make it harder for them, because they are not out of kill someone in particular, of course shootings will decrease.
BUT, you won't solve the problem. These borderline psychotic will still remain borderline psychotic. Then, one day, they are going to do something devastating - that may even be worse than shootings. Then gun-control people will laud studies showing decrease in shootings but don't realise that the problem has merely shifted elsewhere.
The media combined with piss poor mental health services in the country. Look at the Aurora murderer. His face was plastered all over the front page of the news. To a mentally unfit, lonely, attention seeking psychopath, that's a dream come true. So naturally, he'll emulate what previous murderers have done to get their face plastered over the news. And on and on and on. This is why the random mass shootings occur. As for the gang violence, no other first world country has a war on drugs like we do, nor do they have a piss poor education system and a revolving door for-profit prison system.
If you gave everybody in Japan a gun, do you think the crime rate would rise to American levels? Of course not. Besides, for mass murder I'd think bombs would be much, much more efficient than guns. I swear, every time I see non-Americans talk about guns I see them think that anybody who owns them has a 50/50 chance of being a psychopath. Guess what, 45% of American households have guns. That means that ~140 million people have guns in their houses, with about 270 million guns. Most of us are sane people who'd rather die than kill other random people.
On August 29 2012 11:11 leperphilliac wrote: The media combined with piss poor mental health services in the country. Look at the Aurora murderer. His face was plastered all over the front page of the news. To a mentally unfit, lonely, attention seeking psychopath, that's a dream come true. So naturally, he'll emulate what previous murderers have done to get their face plastered over the news. And on and on and on. This is why the random mass shootings occur. As for the gang violence, no other first world country has a war on drugs like we do, nor do they have a piss poor education system and a revolving door for-profit prison system.
If you gave everybody in Japan a gun, do you think the crime rate would rise to American levels? Of course not. Besides, for mass murder I'd think bombs would be much, much more efficient than guns. I swear, every time I see non-Americans talk about guns I see them think that anybody who owns them has a 50/50 chance of being a psychopath. Guess what, 45% of American households have guns. That means that ~140 million people have guns in their houses, with about 270 million guns. Most of us are sane people who'd rather die than kill other random people.
The thing is in my opinion that there is a lot of strife in America because of what you listed. There will be violence in the inner city no matter what. It is just gun violence because of how easy it is to get one if there were no guns it would be more knife attacks and beatings.
Banning guns now in the states is useless there are just so many.
I'm all for firearm rights (as long as they're not like AK47s or something) but I can't argue with the logic that FOR CHILDREN it is harder to obtain a gun if there are less guns around. When you're an adult and you have money sure whatever it won't decrease the availability if you want it but when you work at mcdonalds and get an allowance it's a lot harder to find guns if there are less guns around period.
On August 29 2012 11:11 leperphilliac wrote: The media combined with piss poor mental health services in the country. Look at the Aurora murderer. His face was plastered all over the front page of the news. To a mentally unfit, lonely, attention seeking psychopath, that's a dream come true. So naturally, he'll emulate what previous murderers have done to get their face plastered over the news. And on and on and on. This is why the random mass shootings occur. As for the gang violence, no other first world country has a war on drugs like we do, nor do they have a piss poor education system and a revolving door for-profit prison system.
If you gave everybody in Japan a gun, do you think the crime rate would rise to American levels? Of course not. Besides, for mass murder I'd think bombs would be much, much more efficient than guns. I swear, every time I see non-Americans talk about guns I see them think that anybody who owns them has a 50/50 chance of being a psychopath. Guess what, 45% of American households have guns. That means that ~140 million people have guns in their houses, with about 270 million guns. Most of us are sane people who'd rather die than kill other random people.
If America banned guns, even if crime rates stayed the same, a lot less people would die. It's a lot easier to defend yourself against a machete than a gun, you can outrun a guy with a knife, you can't outrun a bullet.
Yes there is the case about criminals having guns and law abiding citizens not, however if the government enacts the ban properly this shouldn't happen, it would take a while and be very expensive to buy all the guns back though. It wasn't long ago when our country allowed a large range of guns but banned them all, so it is doable.
We have a lot of knife crime around here, thank goodness we don't have guns.
Its all about finding a balance really. Theres really no arguing about the fact the more restrictive gun laws would cause less shootings or just random murders. Especially the mentally unstable persons who dont really control their own actions. When they have a gun at home, theres only a few seconds or minutes of "craziness" needed and there might be someone dead somewhere. Had they no had that gun they might have not done it at all or tried a knife or something, all which would be less likely to kill someone.
But on the other hand, that can be said about a lot of things. I mean, the government could forbid alcohol. Would that have a positive effect on peoples health and cause less murders and suicides? Of course it would. But good look finding the politician who wants to go through with that. Same could be done with unhealthy food as another example.
So in the end you gotta find a balance. As long as the will/acceptance to own guns is greater than the will to lower the amount of gun casualties, things will not (and should not) change. Until that happens, the school shootings and similar are a "necessary bad" for the greater good of owning guns. Just like all the murders, suicides or accidents caused by alcohol are for the greater good of allowed alcohol consumption. A life is really not worth that much to us (at least until it happens someone close to us).
On August 29 2012 08:35 KILLB0T wrote: GUN LAWS IN AMERICA MAKE IT TO EASY TO ACCESS A FIREARM. JUST HEAR ME OUT, CRAZY/STUPID PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE, THEY'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. BUT IN AMERICA, A CRAZY/STUPID PERSON CAN GET ACCESS TO A GUN LEGALLY, JUST LOOK AT THE COLORADO THEATER INCIDENT, ALL HIS WEAPONS WHERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. THIS KID WAS ALSO ONLY 15, HE PROBABLY HAD SOME FEUD WITH THIS KID, KNEW HIS DAD/RELATIVE HAD A GUN SOMEWHERE AND THEN MADE THE WORST POSSIBLE DECISION OF HIS LIFE, SURE YOU COULD SAY HE WOULD OF JUST STABBED HIM OR SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE AND MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT THAT'S LESS DANGEROUS THAN A FIREARM. JUST THINK IF FIREARMS WEREN'T LEGAL IN THE USA, JAMES HOLMES AND ALL OF THESE OTHER KILLERS WOULD OF HAD TO PURCHASE GUNS ILLEGALLY MAKING IT ALOT HARDER FOR THEM TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS THE DID. PUBLIC ACCESS TO GUNS IS THE PROBLEM
User was banned for this post.
I know he was banned for this but I want to correct a few things here just so no one takes bad information off of this <.<.
The shooter in the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting (assuming you're referring to that), was a former college student having just dropped out recently before the incident, he was quite a bit older than 15. (a 15 year old wouldn't be legally purchasing guns.)
Access to guns is not the problem and this specific incident even proves it as well. His apartment was rigged up with enough explosives to take out the entire complex, killing thousands of people easily. Had anyone opened the door to his room, there would have been more damage done than he possibly could have achieved with his guns, no matter how loaded up he was. Not to demean any of the lives taken or injuries inflicted, it was still terrible no matter how you look at it, but had it gone to his intentions, it would have been hundreds of times worse. The point to this? Bombs/Explosives are illegal. Fortunately, that part of his plan was stopped.
Removing guns or imposing stricter control laws has proven ineffective statistically. Find the data on the rates of gun violence per city, and you'll see chicago and DC sitting close to the top, both of these being two places in the US with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. DC has even improved dramatically as the control laws begin to be combatted in the courts.
As far as getting guns illegally, depending where you live and such it might be difficult, but I know personally for me around my area its probably easier to get them illegally than it is legally, if not it's still pretty easy.
It's a problem with the US-Society/Culture anyway so no law (aside from real hard ban and destruction of next to all guns avalaible) will have a big impact.
Education, not simply in the instance of training on how to use the guns properly, but to imply strongly upon the purchaser exactly what they're getting, and the responsibility of it.
Aiming better and better use would help, as evidenced by the recent shooting incident at the empire state building, where most of the people who were hit weren't hit by the gunman, but by the crossfire of the cops trying to take him down, because they had never really trained with their weapons.
I do agree our culture does have alot to do with it though and I've stated it many times in previous posts. People badly misrepresent it often though as being some product of the southern states, and of "bible toting gun wielding folk". Crazy as they are most of your typical offenders in this country are gangs, psychos, and extreme radicalists.
What exactly would education do against these shooting sprees? Education that he gets a gun, so he can make a more informed decision as to witch suits his needs?... Call me pessimistic but that sounds counter productive to me... I really don't see any benefit except probably having a mandatory test before a gun purchase... Which would also make it harder to get guns, but you are against that if i did not horribly mssread your post.. You make no sense to me...
My simplest argument is still: If your not a Hunter, you don't need a gun, therefore you should not be able to get a gun because there is no need for you to have one. If you think there is actually a need for having one, your part of the problem.
Your cops filling the whole area around them with bullets when feeling in danger is another issue were education could probably help tons...
There is plenty need for firearms still. There are still people who would intrude upon me or my home if they saw fit to do so for whatever reason, be it to steal my property, or harm me. There are places I can not safely go without some protection, because if I do I could easily be targeted and killed solely on random factors such as race.
To think there is no need of self protection is a bit silly, the world is not some peaceful place, definitely not yet. Hopefully we'll get there one day but violence with and without guns is still quite high, and to top it off we have statistics to prove gun control has increased the crime rate and removing it has lowered it here.
When the world has reached a status of unattainable peace, then we can rid ourselves of guns. But the fact is thus, there are still many extremely bad people out there, and there is no sign of this changing any time soon. Take away the protection, and trust me it will not lower crime. and any lowering of mass shooting incidents will be greatly overshadowed by other forms of attacks increasing dramatically. (there is a statistic about that in the above link, which ill go ahead and copy paste.)
Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.25
^Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
Also: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."28
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."29
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."30
D. Police cannot protect -- and are not required to protect -- every individual
Just some stats for you.
also: "My simplest argument is still: If your not a Hunter, you don't need a gun, therefore you should not be able to get a gun because there is no need for you to have one. If you think there is actually a need for having one, your part of the problem."
A simple argument to a very complex issue doesn't seem too fitting unfortunately, I definitely wish it were that simple though.
Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end.
Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end.
Well, yeah nothing could stop the hunter, but at least, US might have a murder rate per capita that doesn't double most of the other rich democracy who have this kind of guncontrol.
That's what most europeans are saying. I could agree with you when you say that guns are a protection, but when I read the digits of murders in US, i think : "Hum, this protection doesn't seems very effective." (to say the least).
No offence, but the digits contradict your arguments.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
oiii here we go again
Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it.
hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun. It wouldn't prevent anything but unfortunately I know no matter how hard I try there is no way for you to see reason.
That's because you live on the US and you want to believe that crap. You had watched too many movies pal.
It's not a question of whether guns should or shouldn't be made available, but rather an issue of culture.
In Japan, a child can buy alcohol on the street out of a vending machine. But Japan doesn't have issues with underage drinking because they have a relatively healthy culture.
If you had a healthy society, you could arm every citizen and there would be no violence. With an unhealthy society, it doesn't matter how hard it is to get guns, the lunatics will find them.
In America, our values are individualism and money-making. It's every man for himself. And if you grow up and find out that you're not the special person you were lead to believe you'd turn out to be, society will pay.
On August 29 2012 19:13 Fulmine wrote: Education, not simply in the instance of training on how to use the guns properly, but to imply strongly upon the purchaser exactly what they're getting, and the responsibility of it.
Aiming better and better use would help, as evidenced by the recent shooting incident at the empire state building, where most of the people who were hit weren't hit by the gunman, but by the crossfire of the cops trying to take him down, because they had never really trained with their weapons.
I do agree our culture does have alot to do with it though and I've stated it many times in previous posts. People badly misrepresent it often though as being some product of the southern states, and of "bible toting gun wielding folk". Crazy as they are most of your typical offenders in this country are gangs, psychos, and extreme radicalists.
Are you implying that a guy who was on track for a PhD in neuroscience is "uneducated"?
On August 29 2012 19:13 Fulmine wrote: Education, not simply in the instance of training on how to use the guns properly, but to imply strongly upon the purchaser exactly what they're getting, and the responsibility of it.
Aiming better and better use would help, as evidenced by the recent shooting incident at the empire state building, where most of the people who were hit weren't hit by the gunman, but by the crossfire of the cops trying to take him down, because they had never really trained with their weapons.
I do agree our culture does have alot to do with it though and I've stated it many times in previous posts. People badly misrepresent it often though as being some product of the southern states, and of "bible toting gun wielding folk". Crazy as they are most of your typical offenders in this country are gangs, psychos, and extreme radicalists.
Are you implying that a guy who was on track for a PhD in neuroscience is "uneducated"?
but to imply strongly upon the purchaser exactly what they're getting, and the responsibility of it.
Does that look like it's taught in a neuroscience class? Show me the neuroscience course which will explain that a gun is a weapon that projects lethal force upon its target, and ensures that the student knows the immense dangers of such a thing, and is left with the permanent impression that a firearm is not something to take lightly. I will eat my arms if you can find one.
But great straw mans today. Team Liquid General forum, never letting us down.
On August 29 2012 19:46 Fulmine wrote: There is plenty need for firearms still. There are still people who would intrude upon me or my home if they saw fit to do so for whatever reason, be it to steal my property, or harm me. There are places I can not safely go without some protection, because if I do I could easily be targeted and killed solely on random factors such as race.
To think there is no need of self protection is a bit silly, the world is not some peaceful place, definitely not yet. Hopefully we'll get there one day but violence with and without guns is still quite high, and to top it off we have statistics to prove gun control has increased the crime rate and removing it has lowered it here.
When the world has reached a status of unattainable peace, then we can rid ourselves of guns. But the fact is thus, there are still many extremely bad people out there, and there is no sign of this changing any time soon. Take away the protection, and trust me it will not lower crime. and any lowering of mass shooting incidents will be greatly overshadowed by other forms of attacks increasing dramatically. (there is a statistic about that in the above link, which ill go ahead and copy paste.)
Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.25
^Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
Also: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."28
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."29
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."30
D. Police cannot protect -- and are not required to protect -- every individual
Just some stats for you.
also: "My simplest argument is still: If your not a Hunter, you don't need a gun, therefore you should not be able to get a gun because there is no need for you to have one. If you think there is actually a need for having one, your part of the problem."
A simple argument to a very complex issue doesn't seem too fitting unfortunately, I definitely wish it were that simple though.
Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end.
First of all, my world is pretty fucking peaceful. A part of that is knowing that noone's walking around with guns (and very rarely does anyone walk around with a knife).
Second of all, let's say that everyone's a psychopath (as in your example). Do you really think that you having a gun will stop them all from hurting you? Really? You'd have way bigger problems than that. Look, shit happens, just wake up to the reality that sometimes you are powerless to your sorroundings. If someone wants to hurt you, they will, you having a gun or not. Even more so when you don't see it coming.
I'm pretty sure if I have a gun and someone does something to try and hurt me that I'll have put them down before they get the chance, or at the very least the gun will indeed give me the chance to fight back.
Infact very often just mentioning or drawing the gun is enough to deter people.
Your "world" may be peaceful, but sweden does still have some violence in it, that being said I will defend you on the fact that yes, our crime rates are higher, significantly, because we do still have a pretty terrible culture here.
As well the majority of murders are typically related to gang violence, but that's a sad fact that goes swept under the rug by the MSM. Most of the true gun violence here goes on with illegally purchased weaponry, which like I said before if you think it's difficult to buy a weapon off the record you really need a little more life experience, but most of whats reported calls on the legal weapon attacks.
And again banning guns has statistically shown to increase violence, not lower it. The UK is a prime example.
Also. if you want to look up our violent crime rates per city, youll find 2 particular cities standing at the top, Chicago and the district of columbia, now then which 2 cities in the US have the strictest gun control laws? Chicago and the district of columbia.
The problem isn't the weaponry, hell given with the terrible culture we have here, take away guns and the market will likely shift towards something else. You would be surprised what kind of crazy shit you can learn to make on the internet, and for how cheap you can do it.
On August 29 2012 21:54 Spec wrote: Disenfranchised people goes terrorist. Happy people don't go terrorist.
Most intelligent post I've read all day.
The U.S. doesn't just have more gun violence, it has more violence period. It also has ALOT more poverty and a far more stratified class structure, in which a tiny elite class has nearly all land holdings, political power and financial wealth, and a giant underclass squabbles for their table-scraps. It's also a neo-liberalist's (objectivist, libertarian, whatever you want to call them) paradise, where allowing some people to do whatever the fuck they want is much more important than the overall wellbeing of our society and the individuals that constitute it.
In more egalitarian societies, violence isn't nearly so systemic.
The problem seems to me more like terrorism rather than people dieing. You would save more lives in America ( and probably anywhere in the world ) if for just 1 year every person that owns a hummer is taken there driving license away than you would save if guns would be no existent for 10 years.
Its kinda the thought that one of your classmates/co-workers/even a random person on the street could buy a gun and kill you at any point in time that makes you afraid i guess, but the chances of that happening are smaller than the chances that you are hit by a buss while going to work/school.
Lower legal availability forces lower illegal availability. The source is the same for both markets; as the offer for legal guns goes down the black market has to pay a premium. It's easy to see this happening the prescription drug black market: with increasingly tight control, street prices are skyrocketing. (Which is the same thing as saying availability is plummeting).
The whole idea behind gun control laws in gun control countries is that the state has a "monopoly on violence". The citizen agrees to relinquish his rights to use violence or to take the law in his own hands. It's typically not that hard to get a gun, but you can't get it for self-defense and in fact if you mention that as your motive you're very likely to get denied.
Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end.
Well, yeah nothing could stop the hunter, but at least, US might have a murder rate per capita that doesn't double most of the other rich democracy who have this kind of guncontrol.
That's what most europeans are saying. I could agree with you when you say that guns are a protection, but when I read the digits of murders in US, i think : "Hum, this protection doesn't seems very effective." (to say the least).
No offence, but the digits contradict your arguments.
Guns don't cause the murder rates though, socioeconomic conditions do. The rates are so high in the US because a few hellholes like Detroit skew the average. The vast majority of the US has much lower murder rates.
Plus, don't forget that the vast majority of shootings occur either by criminals in the act of some other crime, or between criminals. Europe doesn't have a gang problem comparable to that in the US, which helps explain the difference in murder rates.
On August 29 2012 19:46 Fulmine wrote: There is plenty need for firearms still. There are still people who would intrude upon me or my home if they saw fit to do so for whatever reason, be it to steal my property, or harm me. There are places I can not safely go without some protection, because if I do I could easily be targeted and killed solely on random factors such as race.
To think there is no need of self protection is a bit silly, the world is not some peaceful place, definitely not yet. Hopefully we'll get there one day but violence with and without guns is still quite high, and to top it off we have statistics to prove gun control has increased the crime rate and removing it has lowered it here.
When the world has reached a status of unattainable peace, then we can rid ourselves of guns. But the fact is thus, there are still many extremely bad people out there, and there is no sign of this changing any time soon. Take away the protection, and trust me it will not lower crime. and any lowering of mass shooting incidents will be greatly overshadowed by other forms of attacks increasing dramatically. (there is a statistic about that in the above link, which ill go ahead and copy paste.)
Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.25
^Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
Also: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."28
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."29
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."30
D. Police cannot protect -- and are not required to protect -- every individual
Just some stats for you.
also: "My simplest argument is still: If your not a Hunter, you don't need a gun, therefore you should not be able to get a gun because there is no need for you to have one. If you think there is actually a need for having one, your part of the problem."
A simple argument to a very complex issue doesn't seem too fitting unfortunately, I definitely wish it were that simple though.
Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end.
First of all, my world is pretty fucking peaceful. A part of that is knowing that noone's walking around with guns (and very rarely does anyone walk around with a knife).
Second of all, let's say that everyone's a psychopath (as in your example). Do you really think that you having a gun will stop them all from hurting you? Really? You'd have way bigger problems than that. Look, shit happens, just wake up to the reality that sometimes you are powerless to your sorroundings. If someone wants to hurt you, they will, you having a gun or not. Even more so when you don't see it coming.
You only feel safer knowing people aren't armed because you did not grow up around guns. I did, so I feel fine whether people are armed or not. I know how incredibly unlikely it is that someone will shoot me, accidentally or otherwise. You seem to think that the minute someone reasonable and sane has a gun, your chances of being shot spike up to 99%. They don't.
On August 30 2012 03:59 dementrio wrote: Lower legal availability forces lower illegal availability. The source is the same for both markets; as the offer for legal guns goes down the black market has to pay a premium. It's easy to see this happening the prescription drug black market: with increasingly tight control, street prices are skyrocketing. (Which is the same thing as saying availability is plummeting).
The whole idea behind gun control laws in gun control countries is that the state has a "monopoly on violence". The citizen agrees to relinquish his rights to use violence or to take the law in his own hands. It's typically not that hard to get a gun, but you can't get it for self-defense and in fact if you mention that as your motive you're very likely to get denied.
Lower legal availability will actually increase illegal availability. Look at prohibition. All it did was make the industry illegal, which meant only criminals would be involved. Since they're already criminals, they'll be fine with committing other crimes along the way. Further, a lack of legal firearms will increase the demand for illegal firearms, and make it even more profitable.
"Lower legal availability will actually increase illegal availability. Look at prohibition. All it did was make the industry illegal, which meant only criminals would be involved. Since they're already criminals, they'll be fine with committing other crimes along the way. Further, a lack of legal firearms will increase the demand for illegal firearms, and make it even more profitable."
This ^
If a law abiding citizen cannot get a gun then only the criminals would have them. Therefore bringing the murder rate even higher... What's not listed as a statistic is the number of gun murders that were prevented either by shooting the criminal first or deterring them from committing the crime in the first place.
Take NY for example. One guy shoots another in an act of crazy rage (his boss) for losing his job. Then the cops come and not sure the whole scenario, probably guns drawn on him, felt like no way out other then to pull his weapon causing the police to shoot 15-17 shots in which I think 9 hit him and the rest injured 6-8 other people including 2 direct hits on civilians that required to be surgically removed.
Are guns dangerous... yes... If it was possible that NO ONE in the entire USA could have a gun, law enforcement included. Then I would be all for it. But just the logistics and criminal activity across borders, it is completely impossible. So to equal out the crimes. If every person in the USA carried a gun at all times. I think you would see much less gun crimes since who is going to try to rob someone they know is carrying?
"I feel scared whiteout a gun to protect myself"... Which tells tons about the place you live in... Isn't it proven that your more likely to be hurt when you actually draw a gun to protect yourself than by just giving in?
On August 30 2012 03:59 dementrio wrote: Lower legal availability forces lower illegal availability. The source is the same for both markets; as the offer for legal guns goes down the black market has to pay a premium. It's easy to see this happening the prescription drug black market: with increasingly tight control, street prices are skyrocketing. (Which is the same thing as saying availability is plummeting).
The whole idea behind gun control laws in gun control countries is that the state has a "monopoly on violence". The citizen agrees to relinquish his rights to use violence or to take the law in his own hands. It's typically not that hard to get a gun, but you can't get it for self-defense and in fact if you mention that as your motive you're very likely to get denied.
Right, I don't think people appreciate that those illegal guns were made and sold legally, in America. The only thing that makes them illegal is the second-hand transaction that comes after the legal one. Our gun laws, or lack thereof, have created the world's best market for the gun industry -- and they really don't care how many of their guns are resold on the black market.
Unfortunately, it's gone on so long that are country is flooded with weaponry. I still think we can make sensible compromises -- banning assault weapons, banning gun shows were guns are often sold without background checks -- but even those measures will be fought tooth-and-nail by the NRA as being unconstitutional. It's kind of hopeless how little we can do at this point. But the idea that our welcoming of firearms has made our country safer is just insane to me. The amount of guns in our country has obviously not made this a peaceful country.
On August 30 2012 03:59 dementrio wrote: Lower legal availability forces lower illegal availability. The source is the same for both markets; as the offer for legal guns goes down the black market has to pay a premium. It's easy to see this happening the prescription drug black market: with increasingly tight control, street prices are skyrocketing. (Which is the same thing as saying availability is plummeting).
The whole idea behind gun control laws in gun control countries is that the state has a "monopoly on violence". The citizen agrees to relinquish his rights to use violence or to take the law in his own hands. It's typically not that hard to get a gun, but you can't get it for self-defense and in fact if you mention that as your motive you're very likely to get denied.
Right, I don't think people appreciate that those illegal guns were made and sold legally, in America. The only thing that makes them illegal is the second-hand transaction that comes after the legal one. Our gun laws, or lack thereof, have created the world's best market for the gun industry -- and they really don't care how many of their guns are resold on the black market.
Unfortunately, it's gone on so long that are country is flooded with weaponry. I still think we can make sensible compromises -- banning assault weapons, banning gun shows were guns are often sold without background checks -- but even those measures will be fought tooth-and-nail by the NRA as being unconstitutional. It's kind of hopeless how little we can do at this point. But the idea that our welcoming of firearms has made our country safer is just insane to me. The amount of guns in our country has obviously not made this a peaceful country.
Actually, a huge number of illegal firearms are smuggled in from Mexico because of the War on Drugs.
Plus, its often impossible to trace illegal firearms back to their country of origin since they've usually had their serial numbers scratched off. Just because a gun is a Colt design doesn't mean it was made in one of Colt's US factories, or even by Colt at all. It could easily be a copy (authorized or otherwise).
I also don't think we should ban assault weapons because legal ones are almost never used in criminal acts. It does happen on rare occasions, but they're very few and far between. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, which are not assault weapons.
I'm cool with getting rid of the private transaction loophole, but I don't want to get rid of private transactions entirely. I think the government should open up their background check services to everyone, not just licensed firearms dealers. That way you can still have private transactions and they can still be safe.
On August 30 2012 03:59 dementrio wrote: Lower legal availability forces lower illegal availability. The source is the same for both markets; as the offer for legal guns goes down the black market has to pay a premium. It's easy to see this happening the prescription drug black market: with increasingly tight control, street prices are skyrocketing. (Which is the same thing as saying availability is plummeting).
The whole idea behind gun control laws in gun control countries is that the state has a "monopoly on violence". The citizen agrees to relinquish his rights to use violence or to take the law in his own hands. It's typically not that hard to get a gun, but you can't get it for self-defense and in fact if you mention that as your motive you're very likely to get denied.
Right, I don't think people appreciate that those illegal guns were made and sold legally, in America. The only thing that makes them illegal is the second-hand transaction that comes after the legal one. Our gun laws, or lack thereof, have created the world's best market for the gun industry -- and they really don't care how many of their guns are resold on the black market.
Unfortunately, it's gone on so long that are country is flooded with weaponry. I still think we can make sensible compromises -- banning assault weapons, banning gun shows were guns are often sold without background checks -- but even those measures will be fought tooth-and-nail by the NRA as being unconstitutional. It's kind of hopeless how little we can do at this point. But the idea that our welcoming of firearms has made our country safer is just insane to me. The amount of guns in our country has obviously not made this a peaceful country.
Actually, a huge number of illegal firearms are smuggled in from Mexico because of the War on Drugs.
Plus, its often impossible to trace illegal firearms back to their country of origin since they've usually had their serial numbers scratched off. Just because a gun is a Colt design doesn't mean it was made in one of Colt's US factories, or even by Colt at all. It could easily be a copy (authorized or otherwise).
I also don't think we should ban assault weapons because legal ones are almost never used in criminal acts. It does happen on rare occasions, but they're very few and far between. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, which are not assault weapons.
I'm cool with getting rid of the private transaction loophole, but I don't want to get rid of private transactions entirely. I think the government should open up their background check services to everyone, not just licensed firearms dealers. That way you can still have private transactions and they can still be safe.
Can you qualify this claim, as it is common practice for pro-gun individuals to simply suggest that guns will come from elsewhere once more regulated, without much evidence. How do the guns get to Mexico, because if the Eric Holder scandal is any indication, the answer is most likely the US.
On August 30 2012 03:59 dementrio wrote: Lower legal availability forces lower illegal availability. The source is the same for both markets; as the offer for legal guns goes down the black market has to pay a premium. It's easy to see this happening the prescription drug black market: with increasingly tight control, street prices are skyrocketing. (Which is the same thing as saying availability is plummeting).
The whole idea behind gun control laws in gun control countries is that the state has a "monopoly on violence". The citizen agrees to relinquish his rights to use violence or to take the law in his own hands. It's typically not that hard to get a gun, but you can't get it for self-defense and in fact if you mention that as your motive you're very likely to get denied.
Right, I don't think people appreciate that those illegal guns were made and sold legally, in America. The only thing that makes them illegal is the second-hand transaction that comes after the legal one. Our gun laws, or lack thereof, have created the world's best market for the gun industry -- and they really don't care how many of their guns are resold on the black market.
Unfortunately, it's gone on so long that are country is flooded with weaponry. I still think we can make sensible compromises -- banning assault weapons, banning gun shows were guns are often sold without background checks -- but even those measures will be fought tooth-and-nail by the NRA as being unconstitutional. It's kind of hopeless how little we can do at this point. But the idea that our welcoming of firearms has made our country safer is just insane to me. The amount of guns in our country has obviously not made this a peaceful country.
Actually, a huge number of illegal firearms are smuggled in from Mexico because of the War on Drugs.
Plus, its often impossible to trace illegal firearms back to their country of origin since they've usually had their serial numbers scratched off. Just because a gun is a Colt design doesn't mean it was made in one of Colt's US factories, or even by Colt at all. It could easily be a copy (authorized or otherwise).
I also don't think we should ban assault weapons because legal ones are almost never used in criminal acts. It does happen on rare occasions, but they're very few and far between. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, which are not assault weapons.
I'm cool with getting rid of the private transaction loophole, but I don't want to get rid of private transactions entirely. I think the government should open up their background check services to everyone, not just licensed firearms dealers. That way you can still have private transactions and they can still be safe.
Can you qualify this claim, as it is common practice for pro-gun individuals to simply suggest that guns will come from elsewhere once more regulated, without much evidence. How do the guns get to Mexico, because if the Eric Holder scandal is any indication, the answer is most likely the US.
Unfortunately, I can't. As I look more into it, searching for sources to cite on where illegal weapons have been traced back to, the only sources I can find are about weapons seized in Mexico. These sources say the firearms were produced in the US. I do not know if the tracing method is more scrutinizing than just "Made by an American company, must have been made in America", and also, once the cartels have the guns, they can go back and forth between the US and Mexico. Just because they were seized in Mexico does not mean they haven't gone back and forth a few times.
I HAVE found sources however, saying that a slight majority of illegal firearms are acquired through straw purchases. That is, someone legally qualified to own a given weapon buys it, and turns it over to someone not qualified. No gun control I've heard of, short of getting rid of all guns everywhere, really deals with this issue. And if you don't deal with the big problem, any other controls will just be a band-aid on a shark-bite. I would counter straw purchases with extremely steep punishments for anyone caught. Huge fines/jail time, possible accomplice charges to any crimes committed with said gun, can never legally own a firearm again.
There isn't a great demand for guns in the US because of the great supply, there's a great supply because of great demand. Shut down the US gun industry, and watch Russia, China, Eastern Europe and Africa move in to provide the supply. Super restrictive gun control isn't exactly a widely implemented policy outside of maybe a third of the world.
On August 31 2012 06:20 DeepElemBlues wrote: There isn't a great demand for guns in the US because of the great supply, there's a great supply because of great demand. Shut down the US gun industry, and watch Russia, China, Eastern Europe and Africa move in to provide the supply. Super restrictive gun control isn't exactly a widely implemented policy outside of maybe a third of the world.
Not shut down supply but have an international comprehensive BAN ON GUNS with the appropriate implementing law on it.
Music is not to blame. Video games are not to blame. TV and movies, still not to blame. These things do not force people to make the wrong decisions. Call of Duty does not encourage anyone to go on a shooting spree; and on top of that, neither music, movies, or games aid in the preparation or training of the use of any weapon.
Unfortunately, I think it is too late to make any changes that will stop shootings, or people from owning or having guns. A system would have needed to be implimented hundreds of years ago to prevent what is happening today.
It isnt just a law or a "rights" problem, it is a cultural problem too. It is an unfortunate reality, but it's one that we are forced to live with.
On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote: What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons.
User was warned for this post
Is he being warned for the post because he is speaking the truth?
He's being warned because every single topic about guns ends up with about 40% of its posts being 1-liners that don't make any new or interesting points, and are often way too cut-and-dry. As we can see from the posts that are dozens of paragraphs long, there's more to it than just "Fail gun laws".
I'm all down to reduce the ridiculously high number of shootings in the USA, but I wish people would realize that strict gun control on its own is not going to help much. Just because you outlaw something, doesn't mean that it no longer happens (think war on drugs in the usa).
On September 01 2012 07:09 wtfSurprise wrote: I'm all down to reduce the ridiculously high number of shootings in the USA, but I wish people would realize that strict gun control on its own is not going to help much. Just because you outlaw something, doesn't mean that it no longer happens (think war on drugs in the usa).
Indeed, there's now too many guns in the US to control it. Most of people feel the need to own one, most of criminals...want one, most of politicians don't have the guts to take the good decisions and finnaly to be honest, the US are good for guns, it's a huge currency income.
I considere it's bad, but I considere there no healthy solution either. It's fucked. Let's wait for better days.
EPT
