Another Teenage Shooting/Suicide - Page 15

On December 07 2007 23:31 yisun518 wrote:
"The legally owned guns aren't being misuses, with the exception of accidents as a result of negligence. Did you know the majority of accidents are "committed" by people with a long history of non-criminal, but civil infractions?"



Perhaps if the money put into gun production can be put into more civilized areas, we will reduce the # of criminals.

Those countries it "worked" in it worked for for other reasons. It would not work in the US. It's too different here.

The US has lots of guns--both legal and illegal.

On December 07 2007 23:23 Mayson wrote:


Magazine restrctions do nothing.

If I can only carry a maximum of 10 rounds per magazine legally, and intend to go kill people, uh, the last thing I'll care about is the fucking law.

History shows that gun control laws do not fucking work. People need to understand this. There are gun control laws in effect everywhere.

You know how you stop crime? By getting criminals off the streets. Do you know how you do that? Hire more police officers.

But no--people get tax cuts, and thus less money is available for public services. So then police officers get fired, and there's less of a police presence nationwide.

Then crime rises, especially violent crime. So then people cry "wahh wahh gun control," when what they really mean to say is "I have no idea how to stop crime! Let's blame the tool with which criminals commit crimes the easiest!"

So then they leave themselves defenseless.

Someone who's anti-gun is just someone that hasn't been attacked, raped, or murdered yet.The National Guard is not a state militia.

It is a federal organization, just under the control of the state Governor.

A militia is something formed of the people and for the people; not by the government.

Don't confuse the two.

* 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies.
* 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies.
* 1998 John Lott, “The Concealed-Handgun Debate.” Journal of Legal Studies.
* 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI).
* 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI).
* 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review.
* 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, “Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,” Stanford Law Review.
* 2003 Ayres and Donohue, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review.

On December 08 2007 00:10 yisun518 wrote:
I wonder why there are all those cases of emo kids stealing guns from relative or buying from a shop at legal age then going onto a massacre suicide spree.

O, maybe b/c we have too many legal guns available?

When guns are legal to be carried anywhere, who is to stop giving everyone a gun?

"violent gun crimes" then what is "non violent gun crime"? I dont think they included all misuse of guns at all in that statistics.

EDIT:
Anyone + GUN = BAD
There is no black and white. You cant say someone is just 100% good or bad.

On the micro view, it may seems to be good to defend against armed criminals with your own guns. But on the macro view, this can only go worse and worse in a society as a whole.

Not to mention a perfectly law abiding citizen turning into a suicide bomber with self made bombs out of no where?! Can you honestly say everyone you know in your LIFE is a perfectly responsible person? If everyone can be perfectly responsible about things, why are there so many relationship problems and dilemna among friends.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Would just mean the kid would take a look around and go the a place onlu consisting of kids and old women. If one of the old women pulled out her gun and shot him it wouldn\'t matter because he would already have been able to kill multiple people because of the surprise factor, and he wouldn\'t have bothered if he got shot as he was planning to commit suicide anyways.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wouldn't matter? What the fuck?

Dead guy don't shoot back.

You're in a mall, some fuckbag opens up on people, and you draw your legally owned and concealed weapon carried on your person, and you put two in his torso. He goes down, and he isn't getting back up.

There you go. Shooting over.

On December 08 2007 00:26 Jibba wrote:
Lott's work has been battled back and forth.


Such bad puns. :x

Anyways, I'm not going to bother reading all of those.

On December 08 2007 00:28 Mayson wrote:
Stop posting.

1. The problem is not the availability of guns. The problem is a kid deciding to go kill people. Please learn the difference. If guns are not available, other means of destruction will be used.

2. A non-violent gun crime is one where a gun is used to coerce, or intimidate.

3. The statistics, facts, and figures from unbiased sources have consistently shown that as law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege to carry a concealed weapon on their person, crime typically decreases. Those that are legally-licensed to carry are not the ones committing crimes, thus they are not a part of the problem.

4. Guns are not legally-available to everyone.

Get your fucking facts straight before you attempt to talk down to me. You're from Canada, probably favor gun control (since Canada has much stricter levels of it), and for some reason seem to think you know what you're talking about.

You don't.

On December 08 2007 00:29 Mergesort wrote:

Just means he would be more careful of where he picks his spot to wreak havoc. I bet he'd end up at the children's store or a place where old people group together who are less likely to defend themselves properly. He would still be able to kill multiple people before the guy outside could take him down with his gun. When I said "wouldn't matter" I meant it wouldn't matter for the kid if someone shoot him or he shoots himself, the risk of getting shot doesn't stop him from going crazymode and shooting random people.


One thing I think can be fundamentally different from US to European countries where gun control works is in terms of the military. USA needs good soldiers who know how to handle a weapon. If you are used to guns and practice some shooting with your dad and uncle from you are a little kid chances are that you can aim better and you will already know the basics once you enter the army. In Europe most youths touch a gun for the first time when they enter the army, doesn't need to say they might need more training before they are "combat ready". And on a sidenote; if most people have a gun and there's lots of guns in circulation then a possible invasion force would meet more resistance. Any thoughts on this aspect?

On December 08 2007 00:33 HeadBangaa wrote:

ahem PWN

On December 08 2007 00:29 Mayson wrote:
The point of research is to uncover truth through research, and repeating it to prove validity.

The fact that his studies have been debated is evidence of competent doctors doing the jobs they've been hired to do and has no bearing on the legitimacy of Lott's work whatsoever.

On December 08 2007 00:28 Mayson wrote:

1. The problem is not the availability of guns. The problem is a kid deciding to go kill people. Please learn the difference. If guns are not available, other means of destruction will be used.

2. A non-violent gun crime is one where a gun is used to coerce, or intimidate.

3. The statistics, facts, and figures from unbiased sources have consistently shown that as law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege to carry a concealed weapon on their person, crime typically decreases. Those that are legally-licensed to carry are not the ones committing crimes, thus they are not a part of the problem.

4. Guns are not legally-available to everyone.

Get your fucking facts straight before you attempt to talk down to me. You're from Canada, probably favor gun control (since Canada has much stricter levels of it), and for some reason seem to think you know what you're talking about.

You don't.

On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote:
Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.

Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.

I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.

If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.

Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.

Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?

If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.

Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.

On December 08 2007 02:00 yisun518 wrote:


Thats one nice post.