it ain't that simple... if a bar fight happens and you happen to have a gun and you shoot someone with it, that's self defense... VERSUS, if you had a gun and you planned to walk into a bar and mowdown 10-12 ppl... that's premeditated murder... OR, if some guy was lookin' at you weird, if you rly wanted to kill this guy and you had no gun, you can pull out a knife, or wait till he leaves the bar and try to kill him with a baseball bat in the trunk of your car or run him over... again the problem isn't the gun, it's the intent, that's why in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter what you killed the person with, it's INTENT...
What they are saying is that intent can do a lot more damage with an automatic firearm than with a fist or a knife. When you get a maniac with a few military grade weapons, he's going to be able to cause more chaos, the capacity to do so is just exponentially increased. Hopefully, stricter regulations on such weapons would decrease availability and access so that these maniacs couldn't so easily cause such heartbreaking tragedies. There will still be a black market, but getting weaponry on the black market is a lot harder to do than just purchasing a weapon as you please by yourself. There is the argument that people who want to get firearms will find a way regardless of regulations to get them. Even if they are hellbent on doing so, how does making it easier for them to get weapons do anybody good? Because it also makes it easier for people who want to only defend themselves to get weapons for their protection? Well you certainly don't need a high powered semi-automatic weapon to defend yourself. These kind of weapons were made so that they could kill people. Eliminating guns for hunting and personal defense purposes isn't at all what many people for stricter gun laws are calling for (that would be calling for a gun ban), they are just committed to getting assault weapons, which have the ability to kill dozens of people in a few minutes time, off the streets. Anyways, I think we should increase access to mental health resources over fighting to maintain easy access to assault weapons. Let's work on this issue from the other end and invest in healing people and getting them in situations where they won't be so likely to go maniac and initiate a killing spree instead of making it easier for them to perpetrate such heinous devastation to human life.
And what I'm trying to convey is that it's naive to believe that getting these high powered guns off the market will stop this... the cliche of if police have it, criminals can also get their hands on it ain't a lie... will it be harder? yes... is it still possible? you betcha... it is incredibly easy to modify a glock(small handgun) into a fully automatic weapon that can mowdown 20ppl in 2mins... ppl make it sound like this is an everyday occurrence... it's not, these crimes are premeditated, not because they have an assault rifle lying around the house... give anyone with the desire to knock off a day care 1 month and no matter where you are on planet earth, if you have the money, you can secure a high powered rifle...
I will agree with Aoes that gun control laws is not the answer to minimizing such incidents. However I'll make a claim that it's in fact the media that encourages such intentions. Here's what Morgan Freeman said, and I highly agree:
What we're arguing about here, especially when one compares US gun violence to other industrialized nations, is gun access, never mind the legality OR intent. The greater the access, the more death, period. It really doesn't matter if the gun is legal or not, nor what the original intent was. In this last case, the guns were perfectly legal but taken (stolen, borrowed, misappropriated, whatever; he somehow got his hands on them) by the son of the owner. IMHO, guns should be banned. But recognizing the political resistance to that, the next best thing would be to strictly control access. That is, you can own as many guns as you want, but you should only be allowed access to one of them at a time, and they MUST be stored in a government approved locked facility. Moreover, private stockpiles of ammunition should be made illegal, with approved supplies drawn from ammunition accounts with government oversight. Example, you can only take out a maximum of 10 rounds for outdoor hunting, but as many as you want while shooting at a closed range. That limits the killing potential of anyone taking a gun out into the streets. Case in point, if the above rules were in place, this mom hating kid killing malcontent would have never been able to access his mother's guns. Would he still have emotional problems? Likely. But would he have been able to kill all those people? Doubtful. Like the guy in China who slashed all those school kids but couldn't kill them, he would have needed a gun to do that. Oh, and since you brought up Switzerland, there are some things that would make the comparison inapplicable to the US.
sorry Ralph, but I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree... straight out banning something isn't gonna ease up on shit like this from happening... the problem i feel is everyone is so focused on the weapon of choice as opposed to the problem at hand... so i guess if you guys are strictly opposed to guns for the sake of opposing guns, w/e that's ur call, but that won't fix the underlying problem of tragedies such as these... prohibition didn't work on alcohol consumption, banning hard drugs hasn't done a damn thing besides increase crime rates, u ban guns i'll make the call now that ur just going to create crime lords and a new best selling product on the corner of 5th and creepy alley way... these guys all kill themselves after the deeds anyways, i'm sure the next guy won't give a shit if they attached a homemade explosive on their chest and ran into the nearest starbucks at their local university... oh and I don't quite see what ur getting at that's not applicable to the US... guns are guns, u guys are arguing against guns... or access to guns...
What I'm talking about simply is access to lethality; firearm plus ammunition. In Switzerland, which does have plenty of guns, they're essentially limited in access to ammunition. Most of the guns are military reserve weapons and only those who are nominally in security services are allowed to keep ammunition. While the owners of the guns can bring their weapons to a range and shoot all they want, once outside that controlled area, their rifles turn into heavy clubs because they have no more bullets, which are strictly inventoried. Switzerland allows for their citizens to "bear arms" in that they are genuinely reliant upon them in the true sense as a militia (they do not have a standing army, IIRC). Every citizen is trained as a reservist and then bring their military issue weapon home. What they don't have is ammunition unless they go for training exercises. But I disagree with your assessment that banning isn't going to stop this; yes it would because it would take the supply of easily available guns off the street. One has to remember that in this case, as was with many of the other massacres; these were all legally purchased firearms. That is, it wasn't a "criminal" element, but rather someone who was, or who knew the legal owner, who then took the guns to do harm. So theoretically, if guns were illegal, then none of these shootings could have occurred because their owners never could have purchased them in the first place. And at Dan, burying one's head in the sand, or blaming the media, isn't going to make the problem go away. Frankly, the media is doing it's job in bringing contentious issues to light. Else we can dismissively say the same about every other unpopular social problem; that it is being "overhyped" by 'the media' as if that resolves or alleviates the problem. It doesn't. To be honest? I love guns. But if it would make the US a safer place for everyone, I'm willing to uphold a ban, even with the thought of only letting criminals have guns; like, that's why we pay for cops in the first place.
taken away firearms will definitely not stop these situations from happening again, however, it will minimize it......
While I understand what you're trying to point out, atleast I think I do so feel free to correct me, just by making something illegal to own doesn't mean you can't purchase it. Yes, you can't purchase it at your local Walmart, or your local gunstore, or wherever(although I do strongly agree with some gun control issues such as buying a high powered assault rifle off the internet w/ essentially no limitation, that's indeed nuts)... but then the issue becomes that these people will find a way to get access to them. Yes, the Swiss can't buy bullets in Switzerland, doesn't mean they can't somehow get some smuggled in. Last time I checked, boarding a train in Europe, I've never once been scanned by metal detectors or had my luggage screened... And if they can't find access to guns, they will find another tool to do so. I use explosives as an example because that is the most effective way, although we have virtually no data on it, that's also because guns are effective and would naturally be the first choice... What I find a little disturbing is people are using the stabbing case in China as a proper argument for gun control. This if anything should be an argument to refute guns as the problem. Just because the man wasn't able to kill anyone(btw, although we talk about this specific case, if you read the article it does say that there were other incidents of a man that did end up killing 20ish and the total with injuries was 50ish) doesn't mean that banning guns fixed anything. Yes you prevented the death of 20 kids, but the underlying problem is still there, some crazy is out looking for blood. Why is all the time, effort, energy, potential tax dollars centered around the deaths, as opposed to the reason for the man to do such things... There are plenty of data to support that banning guns outright doesn't lower crime rates, in fact, often times it rises... People especially in Europe love to tout their Gun Control is what keeps firearm homicides low... but look at these stats... Number of Gun Homicides for England and Wales 2009: 41 2008: 38 2007: 53 2006: 59 2005: 50 2004: 73 2003: 68 2002: 81 2001: 96 2000: 73 1999: 62 1998: 49 1997: 59 1996: 49 1995: 70 The KEY here is the bold... 1997 is when the UK straight banned even handguns, off the street... but look at the 3yrs prior and the years following... do you really see much of a drop off? http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/england-and-wales Again I point out, the problem is not the access of guns, it's the society, the culture, the people...
No disrespect Aoes, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The UK has roughly 3.4 million civilian owned guns, and in a space physically the size of Oregon. The US has roughly 100 times more guns (~ 300 million personally owned guns); thus the US is quite literally awash with guns in the public space. The UK's population is ~ 60 million, which gives you a gun ownership to citizen ratio of about 0.05, whilst the US population of ~ 300 million is literally a ratio of 1:1, a nearly 20 fold difference. If we somehow rolled back US gun ownership to a 0.05 ratio, then I suspect that these killings too would likely drop off as the easy access would no longer be there. Thus, IMHO the UK was very smart; their statistics reflect the fact that had they acted, they would have seen likely seen a tremendous spike in anger related deaths (similar to the US experience) had their nation had been awash with 60 million guns. In essence they prevented such killings by their ban. Also, an article of interest: LINK
I'm not seeing how that's an improper comparison. Fact is deaths before and after the gun ban are similar. Yes, gun ownership is low and the amount of guns to population is extremely low compared to the US and that would clearly explain the low homicide rates... but since the deaths are similar in number does that not mean not only had the gun ban had no effect, but also that the UK in some way whether it be governance, culture, education, what have you is inherently different and therefore the variable that needs to be changed is NOT the gun law itself? Look, I get the basic principle of no guns, no deaths from guns obviously... but in the case of the UK it was the choice of the public itself to limit their own consumption of guns, not that of the government until '97... and that article is another sensationalist piece with a clear bias... big to small numbers, and some of the data were clearly manipulated to make it look completely unfathomable...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...town-school-shooting-statement_n_2315848.html The right wing media bashing thrust (instead of, and deflecting the blame of guns) did seem rather uncharacteristically Morgan, LOL... It would be interesting to see who they finally track this back to.
Oh. Thanks for the correction. However I still agree with the underlying point of that message, hoax or otherwise.
No offense Dan, but IMHO, that's the nature of the beast. As an amateur historian, I'm also a bit peeved that we don't remember the legions of normal, hard working contributors to society throughout history; instead we remember guys and gals like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Cixi. The nature of the beast is in its infamy, not fame. Please don't mistaken one for the other.
We come to the same discussion again, like in the previous Batman theater shooting case. I see what both Ralph and Aoes are trying to point out, in this case I'll have to agreed with Ralph. If you look carefully, all this incidents tend to happen mostly in the US, at least the most critical ones. I have heard from some friends quotes like "Guns dont kill people, people kill people", i must say that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, even though there are other lethal weapons that people could use to kill other people, guns are by far the easiest to get and most common weapon in the world. True that even if the ban guns, people will still be able to get them in the black markets but why should we give them an easy access, why can't we at least try to minimize this cases, they haven't even try doing it in the US and people are already saying it won't work. Here's also another interesting point of view. http://www.buzzfeed.com/lizalong/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-8ga2
I fully understand that it is the nature of the beast. My studies are in media, so I fully understand what its "nature" is; you need not worry that I be "mistaken" on this matter. I am merely agreeing with the statement that media [IMHO] causes more harm than good, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the reported information. I am merely expressing my peeve. Nothing more. I am not arguing for whether gun control should or should not exist, because that is a debate that can go on forever.
i really do think its that simple.. you have a gun vs no gun .. are you bound to kill if you didn't have one? btw i heard america has as many places selling guns as there are liquor stores...
Sorry Dan, I didn't mean to sound snippy, LOL... Frankly, I actually agree with you that information can and is regularly manipulated by all parties; that being the difference say, ...between the New York Times and Fox News. But contrary to what you're saying about media causing more harm than good, I find it to be a necessary evil in our times and here's why; given our multiple sources for instantaneous updates from a variety of sources, traditional "media" is no longer the evening 11 o'clock news that I grew up with. Much of what we hear is rather suspect and is a reflection of the "news" filtered though opinions, ours or someone else's. There's a kernel of truth in there somewhere, but also a lot of susposition and spin. Should we just, like sentiment of the Freeman Hoax which you agreed with, discount all news in its entirely based on the "information overload" nature of the milieu? Well, that's obviously a question that can only be answered by each individual for him or herself. For me, I rather have the information, as complicated and messy as it is, than be left clueless in a void. Also, is there a chance an individual would see the notoriety as an impetus to celebrity and do the same for their 15 Warhol minutes? Of course there is; but should we simply stop reporting out of that fear? IMHO, no. Because the information given is far more important. I also agree with you that the gun debate can and will go on forever, so long as there is money to be made selling firearms (as is the case with tobacco). Once it becomes a liability issue (like some cities had tried unsuccessfully to do vis a vis product liability suits) then we may no longer see it that way; but until then, it's going to be an unsettled argument. Insofar as this recent case, I'm thinking that as a lame duck, Obama has little to lose if he were to buck up agianst the NRA. How much political capital he is willing to expend of course, is quite another issue. Time will tell. The mental health angle in this debate is something that many people don't even want to deal with. It's understandable and here's why; in order to be able to provide the absolute best mental health care, we would quite literally bankrupt the nation. There are plenty of emotionally disturbed people out there and what is genuinely frightening is that the majority of them live under the radar. They occasionally pop up with a firearm and then another media sob fest (much like the one we have in this event) happens until the next Gangnam distraction occurs and everyone moves on. We as a nation, back in the days when Joe Califano was the head of Health, Education and Welfare decided that it was better to stop institutionalizing psychiatrically ill people, and instead, return them to their community. Ostensibly, they would receive more humane care. Or at least, that was the theory. Thus legions of patients from these asylums and "nut houses" were released back to their families, where their care was supposed to be then taken up by community services. The only problem was that those humane support systems never quite materialized, usually from lack of funding. Those rare programs that did start, quickly lost out to other pressing priorities. After a few years, seriously ill psychiatric patients were essentially dumped into the streets without recourse. Many became homeless and drifted into the woodwork until they did something to make the papers. Not much has changed since then. Psychiatric services today centers mostly around 'for profit' businesses which only serve to drain a patient's insurance policy. Once service payment caps are reached, these profit driven institutions will almost immediately discharge patients to their own resources, regardless of their degree of dangerousness.
