Another school shooting... [Archive]

ash_chan

10-02-2006, 07:00 PM

It frightens me, as well.
I mean, it's not like I think a school shooting will happen at my school, but it's still something that shakes me up. Though, it doesn't shake me up as much as when it's a fellow student who's the gunmen.

When it's a student who's finally had enough, it's scary as Hell to me, simply because more often than not, the student was a person who had few friends, was bullied often, and had family issues. Like me. I'll admit it right now. In my younger years, when I lived in a rural area of California, I would get the shit beat out of me everyday. First at the bus stop, then at school, then on the bus ride home. Then I'd have the verbal punishment of my parents because I was afraid to fight back. Years of that happened and I just kept it bottled up. It horrifies me to think that, had I not moved away, I could've been like that. I could've finally blown my top and had done something horrible to my school. And don't tell me that I probably wouldn'tve because I had thoughts of it. Lucky enough it was just thoughts, and I knew that that wouldn't be the right thing to do.

But that isn't the case here. These shootings are just random acts of strangeness done my people who need mental help. Perhaps they had troubled pasts, wanted revenge, and had nothing to lose but their life and memories of a bad time. Or maybe, as Jetfire said, they just wanted to get famous by carrying out some sick desire they had.

Whatever the case is, it's still fills me with anxiousness. What is the world coming to, when people feel the need to just whip out a gun and start blasting innocent people?

mamimi_kawaii

10-07-2006, 04:25 PM

I'm not that worried. I mean, sure, it might happen at my school, but I don't really care. And don't ask me why, because I don't know. I should be worried, but I'm more worried about whether or not my halloween outfit is going to be finished in time. Am I weird for putting that before safety?

soundchazer

10-07-2006, 04:37 PM

animanic_critic

10-07-2006, 06:17 PM

Bear in mind that the possibilities of a student being killed in such an incident are 1 in 2 million.

The guy was just plain wacko. Which goes to show that people should always be aware of their surroundings and anything strange going on, regardless of the size of the town.
True; the possibilities of such a thing happening is slim to nil, but it's bad enough something like this has happened... yet again (the other being the infamous Columbine incident). This sort of situation has never happened in my country, and I surely want it stays that way.

I really hope that all the schools will learn from this event and step up their security. Prevention is always better than amendment.

sakura_blossom

10-07-2006, 06:41 PM

Truthfully it's more frightening for myself to hear this news as Lancaster is not that far from where I actually live. I am attending college now and not a high school, but to come across this horrible news and all over the "Morning Call" newspaper, it's a shock and a shame.

Ninja Realist

10-07-2006, 09:42 PM

I really hope that all the schools will learn from this event and step up their security. Prevention is always better than amendment.

What?

I think protection is what we need less of while an amendment is EXACTLY what we need, an ammendment that makes the private ownership of fire arms illegal.

soundchazer

10-07-2006, 09:46 PM

What?

I think protection is what we need less of while an amendment is EXACTLY what we need, an ammendment that makes the private ownership of fire arms illegal.

Preach on brother. It is not like we are still in the 1700s where we needed to hunt down our dinner. There is no real reason to own firearms these days.
So I guess we will have to snatch Charlton Heston's fire arm from his cold dead hands.

kyubichan

10-07-2006, 09:56 PM

I think if the media didn't go absolutely crazy in covering all of these shootings, not as many freaks would follow through with the act.

True. Nothing worse than psychos seeing other psychos on TV following through with what was supposed to be just in their heads.

Am I weird for putting that before safety?

In my opinion, no. A lot of people think that way and it is because there is, as AC said, just a slim chance of such a thing happening. But it won't hurt to be a extra wary of people around you.

I think protection is what we need less of while an amendment is EXACTLY what we need, an ammendment that makes the private ownership of fire arms illegal.

If you're worried about your house, get a guard dog. Or two guard dogs. If you're worried about your school, get security guards. Realist and 'chazer are right. You can't talk peace and have a gun.

animanic_critic

10-07-2006, 11:38 PM

What?

I think protection is what we need less of while an amendment is EXACTLY what we need, an ammendment that makes the private ownership of fire arms illegal.

I never connoted that firearms shouldn't be made illegal. All I said was that safety measures needs to be stepped up in order to prevent this incident from repeating itself. My country prohibits the possession of firearms, and I'm glad it's been that way and have been in full support of that idea itself.

Firearms is not an answer to peace. Like Kyubichan said, you can't talk peace and have a gun in your hand, because personally it's rather oxymoronic to do so. Usually, if an incident like this has happened before, likely it's gonna happen again, although the chance of it happening is almost nonexistent. Apparently, I myself don't see how one can uphold peace by having a deadly weapon at hand.

Blue Audio

10-08-2006, 10:20 PM

Listen to the liberals preaching gun control. Not that I'm a member of the NRA or the RNC, but I think that's bullshit (pardon the harsh wording).

While it's true that we don't live in the past where there was a necessity to hunt for food, it's still nobody's right to say "you can't have guns" as it is protected by the constitution. This is also not to mention that having a gun in ones house say in a poor neighborhood in NYC is a good idea as long as it is locked up and trigger-locked.

There was no way this shooting could have been anticipated or expected; however, I will admit that these school shootings are getting out of hand. Yet only one has been by an actual student. If anything I agree that there needs to be better screening of adults entering schools, not the children.

I love my guns. It's always fun to shoot beer cans.

soundchazer

10-08-2006, 10:28 PM

There was no way this shooting could have been anticipated or expected; however, I will admit that these school shootings are getting out of hand. Yet only one has been by an actual student. If anything I agree that there needs to be better screening of adults entering schools, not the children.

Would love your theory, if it wasn't for Columbine. The best way to prevent that from hapenning is to avoid making guns available to the public.

Several countries have those laws in effect and their crime rates are significanlty lower than the U.S.

ash_chan

10-08-2006, 10:41 PM

It's still nobody's right to say "you can't have guns" as it is protected by the constitution.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure the writers of the Constitution didn't want people to abuse that privilage. The best way to stop someone from abusing it is to take it away altogether.

It's a shame, seeing as I'm all for responsible people owning and operating guns, but too many bad seeds are ruining it. Sure, we could make them take special classes, but who's to say these people won't snap?

soundchazer

10-08-2006, 11:10 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Constitution was created in the 18th century and the reason why this provision was kept in place was in part so that the union could preserve its autonomy from the British by having fully armed countrymen who could enroll in the military if needed (like the British-American war showed a few years later).

Also keep in mind that this protection came through an amendment, and amendments have been revoked before. Remember the prohibition? When it was installed it was an amendment to the consitution and it was later on revoked, so a gun ban could be done.

Kuzu Ryu Sen

10-08-2006, 11:29 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Constitution was created in the 18th century and the reason why this provision was kept in place was in part so that the union could preserve its autonomy from the British by having fully armed countrymen who could enroll in the military if needed (like the British-American war showed a few years later).

If needed, feh. The US were the aggressors in that war, trying to capitalize on a Britain preoccupied with Napoleon.

fugupinkeye

10-08-2006, 11:32 PM

so, making guns illegal will keep crazies from obtaining them? That makes little sense. Drugs are illegal. Look how hard they are to obtain. If you honestly think Outlawing something that is being misused does anything more than take it away from those who properly use it, you are kidding yourself.

Ok, take away guns. Then when that crazy comes into your home with a knife, pipe, hell piece of jagged glass, enjoy not being able to take him down before he harms you and yours. Protect our kids. Yes, ofcourse, and above all else. But keep crazies from just walking into a school. That's the simple way to protect kids. Unless you honestly think a crazy is going to worry about whether or not the tool he chooses to commit atrocities with is legal. Remember Sept 11th, not a single gun involved, and look how much sorrow was inflicted. Seek better solutions than just banning something.

ash_chan

10-08-2006, 11:34 PM

Also keep in mind that this protection came through an amendment, and amendments have been revoked before. Remember the prohibition? When it was installed it was an amendment to the consitution and it was later on revoked, so a gun ban could be done.

I hate the thought of having to revoke gun use since I know the majority of gun users are responsible with their weaponry, but if tragedies like this keep happening, it may be the only solution. I know a lot of hunters who would be rather upset about it, including my grandfather who wanted me to join the ranks of hunters once I had the time to take the classes, but it's the price we have to pay for public safety.

Blue Audio

10-09-2006, 02:02 AM

Would love your theory, if it wasn't for Columbine. The best way to prevent that from hapenning is to avoid making guns available to the public.

Well don't stop screening the kids. Just screen the parents too.

Zelkiiro

10-09-2006, 04:25 AM

He was about a hundred miles off.

Hollidaysburg is this way!

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 05:43 AM

Roark

10-09-2006, 07:18 AM

Would love your theory, if it wasn't for Columbine. The best way to prevent that from hapenning is to avoid making guns available to the public.

Several countries have those laws in effect and their crime rates are significanlty lower than the U.S.
I would love your theory, if it weren't for the fact that I don't trust the government to be the sole bearer of arms. Canada also has lots of guns and a lot lower crime rate than the U.S.

The second ammendment is more than just bearing arms against the British. It was also against hostile natives (bad thing) and an insurance that, should the US become worthy of overthrowing, the common citizen could rise up and restore the republic. It also was valuable for people living off the land, getting food from hunting.

Now, some of these reasons have disappeared with the advent of a police force, with easy to obtain food, and normalized foreign relations. Also, the framers of the constitution didn't anticipate the type of weaponry available today or the innefectualness of it against a fully supported army (hunting rifles vs tanks and planes).

I'm very wary of anything messing with the first 10 ammendments. It's been noted that those who want guns will get guns illegally. Also, it would be a logistical nightmare to repeal the second ammendment. What happens to all those weapons, including antique weapons that hold collector value? Where do they all go, and who pays for the collection and disposal?

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 07:29 AM

I'm very wary of anything messing with the first 10 ammendments. It's been noted that those who want guns will get guns illegally. Also, it would be a logistical nightmare to repeal the second ammendment. What happens to all those weapons, including antique weapons that hold collector value? Where do they all go, and who pays for the collection and disposal?

Foundries would be the way to go in most cases. And believe me, I wouldn't mind paying taxes to dispose of them rather than having the possibility of my kid being killed by them. You have to keep in mind Roark that I'm talking from experience, having 6 family members killed by guns and being mugged twice with them.

As for getting them illegaly. Yes, it is possible that will happen, but in most of these cases, the people doing the killing in the schools had the guns legally (or at the very least someone in the family had acquired them legally).

Mana

10-09-2006, 08:11 AM

I have a present (http://www.fat-pie.com/thechildthatsmeltfunny.htm) for you all. Perhaps it's a bit over the top... but it is an amusing piece nonetheless.

Everytually, people are going to learn that banning things over and over again is not going to solve everyone's problems. It's simply not possible to keep passing laws to make people completely safe... not without a totalitarian government, anyway.

Outlawing guns will keep them away from some people, mostly those people who used the guns correctly in the first place. If someone plans on taking a gun and robbing/shooting someone, what makes you think that a simple law is going to stop them from obtaining one in the first place? America spends WAY too much money on the "war on drugs" (millions of dollars, or is it billions now?) and yet I, someone who doesn't even have the desire to do drugs, know people I can call, places I can go, to get, well, probably just about anything, and not it too long of time, either.

Phate

10-09-2006, 08:48 AM

If needed, feh. The US were the aggressors in that war, trying to capitalize on a Britain preoccupied with Napoleon.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that men with guns weren't needed. ;)

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 10:02 AM

Seriously Mana, that was a pretty bad example because it oversimplifies the issue.

If you limit the supply of guns, then you also limit the demand of them by making them too expensive to get trhough the black market, and therefore you limit the amount of people being able to use a gun. Less gun users, less probablity of gun related crimes. Simple statistics.

Will there be people still getting them to commit violent crimes? Yeah, but then again, those who go through the trouble of getting a gun in the black market were probably up to no good to begin with. It is those people that either snap, or make an impulse decision who I'm addressing with the sugestion. Most likely situations like Columbine and the Amish shootings would have been avoided because in both cases the shooters had access to legally obtained guns!

And seriously, how many of us really need the guns to begin with? What do you plan to do with them? Shoot cans? You can do that without using real bullets! If you have a gun, most likely you already made a conscious decision to hurt someone if a situation warrants it. In my mind that is already a f*cked up scenario.

Ieyasu

10-09-2006, 10:29 AM

Just take a look at the facts.

Countries where firearms are not legally obtainable have significantly lower rates of gun crime. Indisputable.
(Please note I do not say no gun crime whatsoever, I say significantly less)

Therefore, banning guns would lower both the rates of gun crime and the amount of people injured or killed as a result of gun crime.

As for the disposal, it's a small price to pay for the lives it would save.

How can you argue otherwise?

Mana

10-09-2006, 10:53 AM

I knew it was a bad example; I did say it was over the top afterall :D Mostly it's just a bit of fun, and I didn't mean it seriously, so I do apologize.

The rest of my post, however, was completely serious. It is simply unfeasible to outlaw guns in the US.

For the sake of argument, let's assume someting gets passed, and it is, for whatever reason, illegal to own and operate firearms. Ok, fine. Now, let's get the guns from all the Americans who own them. It's all well and good to say that you wouldn't mind paying taxes for something like that, but it's not the kind of problem that you can just throw money at and it will go away. There are a great many Americans out there who would just hand over their guns and walk away whistling, and even some that might be willing to would at least want a compensation for the money they've spent on it. But, what about those who still won't? It would be an awful breach of privacy to search the homes of every registered gun owner in America (and, in fact, they'd probably have to search every home, just to be safe), especially considering the lengths they might have to go to to find the guns hidden by their owners who don't want to give them up. And, of course, that's only for those gun owners who choose to be civil about it. I don't know about anyone else, but I think it would be kind of scary to live in a world where the government digs through everyone's houses. And this is just the build-up premise, not to mention what kind of upkeep on this law would need to be done. Again, totalitarianism, anyone?

Of course, this is all on a pure citizen side. Who would be allowed guns? The military? The police? What about private security firms? There are still people who are going to be using guns, surely, although the number will be cut drastically. Can you imagine what all the gun corperations would think about this? Or even just companies who are loosely related to the gun industry, such as hunting supplies and sport stores. I can't imagine any of them would be all too happy about the kind of scenario we're giving them here. And corperations hold a very big sway because it's all tied into the economy. There is a LOT of economy all surrounding the gun industry, just like the tobacco and alcohol industries, which is what keeps both of them from being too heavily restricted, or outlawed.

It's all well and good to say that guns can be unsafe and that therefore banning them would make things safer, but that's also simplifying the issue greatly. There are a great many things that are unsafe in our world: cars, planes, fire, etc. All of these things have unsafe elements to them,and, just like guns, all of them can be used properly or improperly depending on who is using them and how. Does that mean we ban them? No, that means we teach people the right way to use them, and we have safety measures in place for when things go wrong; none of them are foolproof, but then, nothing is.

Tyrdium

10-09-2006, 10:53 AM

Is the total violent crime rate lower, or is there a corresponding increase in the use of other weapons? And does your model account for differences other than gun laws? Switzerland's gun laws are much more lax than the UK's, and yet it has a lower homicide rate. In fact, US cities or states often see a significant increase in murder rate when gun control is tightened.

And I think the US's difficulties in Iraq show that an armed populace can pose a significant threat to a modern military. Particularly in cities.

Really, how far would the shooter have gotten if the people around him had been armed? Not very.

(Pro-gun, devil's advocate, whatever. This is too one-sided.)

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 10:59 AM

It's all well and good to say that guns can be unsafe and that therefore banning them would make things safer, but that's also simplifying the issue greatly. There are a great many things that are unsafe in our world: cars, planes, fire, etc. All of these things have unsafe elements to them,and, just like guns, all of them can be used properly or improperly depending on who is using them and how. Does that mean we ban them? No, that means we teach people the right way to use them, and we have safety measures in place for when things go wrong; none of them are foolproof, but then, nothing is.

The difference obviously being that guns sole purpose is to hurt or kill people, while the cars, planes and fire are not. I would love to see an statistic of how many people die from fires and plane crashes against gun fatalities (I know car fatalities are greater than the gun fatalities, again, because statistically, more people ride a car than own a gun to begin with.)

Ieyasu

10-09-2006, 12:03 PM

For the sake of argument, let's assume someting gets passed, and it is, for whatever reason, illegal to own and operate firearms. Ok, fine. Now, let's get the guns from all the Americans who own them. It's all well and good to say that you wouldn't mind paying taxes for something like that, but it's not the kind of problem that you can just throw money at and it will go away. There are a great many Americans out there who would just hand over their guns and walk away whistling, and even some that might be willing to would at least want a compensation for the money they've spent on it. But, what about those who still won't? It would be an awful breach of privacy to search the homes of every registered gun owner in America (and, in fact, they'd probably have to search every home, just to be safe), especially considering the lengths they might have to go to to find the guns hidden by their owners who don't want to give them up. And, of course, that's only for those gun owners who choose to be civil about it. I don't know about anyone else, but I think it would be kind of scary to live in a world where the government digs through everyone's houses. And this is just the build-up premise, not to mention what kind of upkeep on this law would need to be done. Again, totalitarianism, anyone?

Of course, this is all on a pure citizen side. Who would be allowed guns? The military? The police? What about private security firms? There are still people who are going to be using guns, surely, although the number will be cut drastically. Can you imagine what all the gun corperations would think about this? Or even just companies who are loosely related to the gun industry, such as hunting supplies and sport stores. I can't imagine any of them would be all too happy about the kind of scenario we're giving them here. And corperations hold a very big sway because it's all tied into the economy. There is a LOT of economy all surrounding the gun industry, just like the tobacco and alcohol industries, which is what keeps both of them from being too heavily restricted, or outlawed.

Guns kill. Making guns illegal WILL drastically cut the number of deaths from gun crime. Any *****footing around the issue by citing economics and the dissatisfaction of those who profit from firearms sales is, at best, saying we shouldn't do it because it's too much trouble and at worst, making excuses because you don't want to be the one to piss off all these people.

As for those who don't want to surrender their guns, then the government has a duty to ensure the safety of it's citizens. I would be a firm supporter of prosecuting those who choose to defy this law in the harshest way possible. No one is suggesting we start breaking down people's doors searching for guns, you're over exagerrating for effect.

As for who would be allowed guns: The police and the military. Strictly controlled government bodies. Certainly not private security firms.

It's all well and good to say that guns can be unsafe and that therefore banning them would make things safer, but that's also simplifying the issue greatly. There are a great many things that are unsafe in our world: cars, planes, fire, etc. All of these things have unsafe elements to them,and, just like guns, all of them can be used properly or improperly depending on who is using them and how. Does that mean we ban them? No, that means we teach people the right way to use them, and we have safety measures in place for when things go wrong; none of them are foolproof, but then, nothing is.

No it isn't, it's you who seems hell bent on overcomplicating the issue.

It's ridiculous to compare guns to things like cars, planes and even fire for god's sake. Guns are made to kill. Implementation differs, but they are instruments of violence and are manufactured with the express purpose of killing. Now you can argue all you want that people have a right to defend themselves, but guns are not the be all and end all of self defence. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself. In fact, in all probability, you wouldn't need to defend yourself half so often if guns were banned.

Bottom line?

Guns, safe? Don't make me laugh, guns by their very nature are unsafe. Most arguments against banning firearms have their basis either in an unwillingness to rock the boat or an unwillingness to give up an outdated right which has no relevance in modern society. You have yet to prove me wrong here.

EDIT: You seem to be focusing on the effects of dealing with guns already out there, but the majority of the good done by the law would be from making it far more difficult for just anyone to obtain a gun.

Roark

10-09-2006, 01:16 PM

Guns kill. Making guns illegal WILL drastically cut the number of deaths from gun crime. Any *****footing around the issue by citing economics and the dissatisfaction of those who profit from firearms sales is, at best, saying we shouldn't do it because it's too much trouble and at worst, making excuses because you don't want to be the one to piss off all these people.

Actually, this is a major component of policy debate called the inherant barrier to execution. You can have the best intentioned plan in the world, but if costs, public acceptance, difficulty in execution, etc., get in in the way, then the law is no good. Banning ALL guns at this point in US history does have some major inherant barriers. It's more than not wanting to piss off people, it's that, in a representational government, public support dictates law. Also, there does exist sports hunting (much as I don't like it, as a vegetarian).

Also, "costs too much" is a vast understatement. The cost to find, collect, transport, buy out, destroy, and dispose of guns would run into the billions of dollars. This includes having to pay "market price" for rare or collectible firearms that people may possess.

As for those who don't want to surrender their guns, then the government has a duty to ensure the safety of it's citizens. I would be a firm supporter of prosecuting those who choose to defy this law in the harshest way possible. No one is suggesting we start breaking down people's doors searching for guns, you're over exagerrating for effect.

How else are you going to find all the guns in America? Formletters asking people to mail them? This would have to be a door to door search to have any hope of efficacy.

As for who would be allowed guns: The police and the military. Strictly controlled government bodies. Certainly not private security firms.

This limits firepower to the hands of the government. I am not comfortable trusting their "strict control". Also, you left out the CIA, the FBI, Secret Service, and private law enforcement agencies (different from rent-a-cop security firms).

It's ridiculous to compare guns to things like cars, planes and even fire for god's sake. Guns are made to kill. Implementation differs, but they are instruments of violence and are manufactured with the express purpose of killing. Now you can argue all you want that people have a right to defend themselves, but guns are not the be all and end all of self defence. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself. In fact, in all probability, you wouldn't need to defend yourself half so often if guns were banned.

I've never been held at gunpoint, despite working 3rd shift at a gas station. Also, personal defense is one of the lower percentage of reasons for gun ownership. Property defense is another matter. As is, again, recreational hunting. Or collecting of antique weapons. Or rising up against the established government.

There are other objects designed only to kill for sale, too. Composite bows and crossbows. Long knives. Professional quality bladded weapons. Throwing axes/hatchets. Unarmed martial arts training.

Guns, safe? Don't make me laugh, guns by their very nature are unsafe. Most arguments against banning firearms have their basis either in an unwillingness to rock the boat or an unwillingness to give up an outdated right which has no relevance in modern society. You have yet to prove me wrong here.

I don't think anyone is saying that guns are "safe", safe here meaning nonharmful. And, since you ask for direct refutation:
1. It's not an unwillingness to rock the boat as much as it is a logistical nightmare, a measure that would meet limited popular support, and a measure of dubious efficacy. Gun proponents and opponents have and will work together to promote safety. Outlawing the tool of a popular past time, measurably effective property-defense mechanism, and collector's subculture is not a way to win re-election.

2. As far as "outdated right" goes, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how this right became outdated. No one has really shown that. Is it outdated because of the cost and prevalance of firearms? Both have decreased since 1900. Is it because of the potential for harm with more accurate weapons? Is it because we no longer need to hunt for our food or worry about native insurrections? Is it because we have a firmly established system of law? What makes the right outdated? Do we no longer have the right to amass firearms in the event we need to overthrow the government? What right exactly is expiring here? I think you are the one with a burden of proof here.

EDIT: You seem to be focusing on the effects of dealing with guns already out there, but the majority of the good done by the law would be from making it far more difficult for just anyone to obtain a gun.

That's the thrust of the laws on the books right now. Waiting periods, registry, ID requirements, background checks, and all sorts of other restrictions are in place. Short of a ban, which has all sorts of barriers to cross, what more do you want?

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 01:30 PM

Roark, seriously, if the whole purpose of keeping guns is to overthrow the government, which seems to be your focal argument in favor (given the number of times that you have stressed that), I can assure you that given the need, people will find ways to get them. History has shown us that much.

As far as the requirements to ge them being strict, I would argue that they are either not strict enough, or the current mechanism is not working. If they were working (and I hate to reiterate), we wouldn't have the high level of murders commited with registered guns. The truth of the matter is once is out there, it only takes a day with a short fuse to use it. All the waiting periods and background checks in the world don't mean squat once your state of mind is impaired. Having a gun at home just makes it easier, more convenient and effective way to act upon primal impulses.

Roark

10-09-2006, 02:06 PM

It's not the whole purpose of keeping guns, but it's a good one.

I'm not going to argue against "Get rid of guns, gun crimes go down" because it's a trivial statement, almost a tautology. It says very little about reduction in violent crime, just the method used to perpetuate it. I am going to argue that a firearm ban is unrealistic, that it would cost billions of dollars, that the economic loss from sale, manufacture, and use of guns for recreational hunting and/or shooting would be drastic (goodbye numerous tourism jobs), that people will find a way to obtain firearms to commit crimes, that crimes of passion will still be carried out wtih fist, knife, and frying pan, and that such a law would never pass congress, let alone the court.

As far as a positive affirmation to the right to bear arms, there is the right to property defense (alarms only go so far), the necessity in some "back woods" areas (not a major issue, but there), the rights of states over the federal government, the burden on individuals to control their actions (as opposed to "Everythign not compulsory is forbidden"), the availabitly of locks and other control measures, numerous safety programs, sportsmen's rights (and herd culling does play a major role in norhtern ecosystems, now that predators are gone), a buffer against government control (I'm serious here, look what happens to people without guns who stand up to people with them, excepting Ghandi), and the inalieanable right to self-defense (granted, mace, tasers, defense training, and a good set of lungs are generally better options, but all those can be lethal or debilitating as well).

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 02:20 PM

It's not the whole purpose of keeping guns, but it's a good one.

I'm not going to argue against "Get rid of guns, gun crimes go down" because it's a trivial statement, almost a tautology. It says very little about reduction in violent crime, just the method used to perpetuate it. I am going to argue that a firearm ban is unrealistic, that it would cost billions of dollars, that the economic loss from sale, manufacture, and use of guns for recreational hunting and/or shooting would be drastic (goodbye numerous tourism jobs), that people will find a way to obtain firearms to commit crimes, that crimes of passion will still be carried out wtih fist, knife, and frying pan, and that such a law would never pass congress, let alone the court.

Ah, but you are missing one key element here. Guns are the perfect killing machine for cowards. That's right, cowards. Guns give you the ability to kill, maim or incapacitate from a distance. No need to go one on one, no need to strugle against someone who on a mano-a-mano would kick your butt. It also gives the attacker the element of surprise... it is far more difficult to slash someone's throat unnoticed and without a fight than it is to point to someone's head and blow it to kingdome come. That is one of the reasons why a lot of people use them and why a lot of people kill. Although we will never know, I venture to say that there would be significantly less violent crimes if guns were not available, simply because people would not have the guts to try it otherwise.

Again... it boils down to what I have been saying all along. Guns make killing easy, fast and convenient. That is why so many people kill these days.

Tyrdium

10-09-2006, 03:11 PM

Making guns illegal WILL drastically cut the number of deaths from gun crime.Proof, please. Note that it is effectively impossible to completely remove guns from the United States; they will always be available on the black market for some price.

As for those who don't want to surrender their guns, then the government has a duty to ensure the safety of it's citizens. I would be a firm supporter of prosecuting those who choose to defy this law in the harshest way possible. No one is suggesting we start breaking down people's doors searching for guns, you're over exagerrating for effect.The government is also imperfect. What if a robber's in your house, and it takes the police 10 minutes to get there? Also, how do you propose to get rid of guns if not through extremely thorough personal-level searches?

As for who would be allowed guns: The police and the military. Strictly controlled government bodies. Certainly not private security firms.Uh. Why not?

No it isn't, it's you who seems hell bent on overcomplicating the issue.No u!

Now you can argue all you want that people have a right to defend themselves, but guns are not the be all and end all of self defence. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself. In fact, in all probability, you wouldn't need to defend yourself half so often if guns were banned.I would get my ass kicked in a knife fight. I would probably be killed. A gun would level the playing field somewhat. And why would I not need to defend myself as often if guns were banned? Criminals would just start using other weapons if for some reason they couldn't get guns. And they could, on the black market.

EDIT: You seem to be focusing on the effects of dealing with guns already out there, but the majority of the good done by the law would be from making it far more difficult for just anyone to obtain a gun.But we're not concerned about "just anyone" getting a gun. We're concerned about criminals getting guns. Somehow, I don't think they care too much whether or not it's legal.

Again... it boils down to what I have been saying all along. Guns make killing easy, fast and convenient. That is why so many people kill these days.Do you have historical data over the past century or two showing a significant increase in murder rates, correlated to the adoption of guns? I'd like to see it.

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 03:17 PM

Do you have historical data over the past century or two showing a significant increase in murder rates, correlated to the adoption of guns? I'd like to see it.

No, but I venture to say you don't have it available to dispute it either.

loner

10-09-2006, 03:30 PM

"There's been a school shooting." -> "Ban all guns now! That way there won't ever be violent crimes in school!"
"The Taliban, a Muslim terrorist group, conducted a terrorist attack on the U.S." -> "Let's go round up the Taliban and all Muslim terrorists! Once we win the 'War on Terrorism' there won't ever be terrorist attacks!"
"There's been a lot of teenage violence going on." -> "Teens play a lot of violent games and are badly influenced by them! Let's ban all violent games!"

This is a very common reactive reasoning IMO. Something terrible happened, people want to implement an immediate plan that they believe will immediately provide a solution to the problem. It's a convenient answer, but I don't think it really solves the root of the problem much. People need to remember this: a gun is an innate object. The purpose for which it was created was to harm, yes, but how a person decide to use it, or whether a person decide to use it at all, completely depends on the person him/herself. And ultimately, it's the people who use the guns to kill large amount of people that is the problem.

The problem comes down to parental guidance and education. If the kid never have the urge to harm people in his school, that kid won't go to school with a gun and shoot people. Banning guns or not is irrelevant if this urge exist in a person. SC said that guns are a perfect weapon for cowards. I think that's not true. A bullet could be trace back to the gun, and the gun to the owner. And the shooters in Columbine and this case were not cowards, but the opposite. The were reckless daredevils that couldn't care less what the consequence of their action is. The Columbine kids shot themselves after the shooting. Without a gun, they could very well use other things. So things like knives, cars, planes and fire are considered "ridiculous". What about poison, or biological weapon created from chemicals from the school chemistry lab? Hey that could be even better weapons for "cowards," since it makes them less likely to get caught.

Anyways, I think some people have forgotten what the root of the problem is here. Whether banning guns is beneficial to the society as a whole, or whether the cost outweigh the benefits, you guys can keep arguing this. I just think it doesn't provide any solution to this particular problem.

Tyrdium

10-09-2006, 03:34 PM

No, but I venture to say you don't have it available to dispute it either.There's this (http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/NACJD-STUDY/03226.xml), but I'll have to wait until I can get to a computer with SPSS, Stata, or SAS to view the data. In the meantime, I can offer this (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm). Also, I'm not the one making the claim. If you're saying so many more people are killing these days, you need to have data to back it up. I'm free to say otherwise unless you have proof.

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 03:59 PM

The problem with statistics is that you can cherry pick whatever shows something in your favor.

Here is one from the Monash University via a U.N. report:

"A landmark Australian study in October found that radical gun law reform in that country has lead to a dramatic reduction in firearm deaths. The study by Monash University, published in the journal Injury Prevention in October, found that the reforms introduced after several mass shootings have led to a 65% reduction in deaths. "

Loner, it seems you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about cowardice from the standpoint of not getting identified, but cowardice from the perspective that a gun is usually better at empowering a person who may want to harm somebody. So what good is it to have someone identified by the gun if they have already killed someone? Do you think being identified is really going to keep people from in a questionable state of mind from shooting a gun?

Let me give you a really simple example: The nerd who is picked on by the bully may have murderous feelings towards the guy, but will not act upon it because he has no capacity to overpower his adversary... except if he has a gun.

And reasonably, the level of logistics involved in using chemicals or planting a bomb are far greater than going through your dad's cabinet and getting his gun. Is it feasable to use those alternative methods? Yes. Is it likely? not really.

Here is another excerpt which talks about violent crimes and guns:

"The idea that the availability of guns increased the lethality of violent crime was first established by a 1968 study of crime in Chicago by Franklin Zimring, currently a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Zimring showed that most homicides and other assaults stem from arguments between people, rather than premeditated gangland-style executions.

In addition, he found that assaults with a firearm were much more lethal than those in which the attacker uses a knife, even though the circumstances of gun and knife attacks closely resemble each other in most respects. If the number of wounds inflicted is a reflection of the attackers’ homicidal intentions, assailants using knives actually demonstrated greater intent to kill their victims than did the assailants who used guns. A similar conclusion was reached when Duke University professor Philip Cook compared gun and non-gun robberies in a series of studies during the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. The implication is that more guns mean more death, and policies that can keep guns from violence-prone individuals should reduce the number of homicides.

In addition to increasing the lethality of violent acts against individuals, guns enhance assailants ability to, within seconds, wound or kill many people, including children and other innocent by-standers. It is no surprise that incidents in which assailants seriously injure or kill many people with weapons other than firearms are quite rare in the U.S. where firearms are so plentiful."

You can read the rest of the report here: http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/myths.pdf

Griveton

10-09-2006, 04:30 PM

Here is another excerpt which talks about violent crimes and guns:

"The idea that the availability of guns increased the lethality of violent crime was first established by a 1968 study of crime in Chicago by Franklin Zimring, currently a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Zimring showed that most homicides and other assaults stem from arguments between people, rather than premeditated gangland-style executions.

In addition, he found that assaults with a firearm were much more lethal than those in which the attacker uses a knife, even though the circumstances of gun and knife attacks closely resemble each other in most respects. If the number of wounds inflicted is a reflection of the attackers’ homicidal intentions, assailants using knives actually demonstrated greater intent to kill their victims than did the assailants who used guns. A similar conclusion was reached when Duke University professor Philip Cook compared gun and non-gun robberies in a series of studies during the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. The implication is that more guns mean more death, and policies that can keep guns from violence-prone individuals should reduce the number of homicides.

In addition to increasing the lethality of violent acts against individuals, guns enhance assailants ability to, within seconds, wound or kill many people, including children and other innocent by-standers. It is no surprise that incidents in which assailants seriously injure or kill many people with weapons other than firearms are quite rare in the U.S. where firearms are so plentiful."

You can read the rest of the report here: http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/myths.pdf

SC, those sources don't help you much, especially your last quote. They're strawmen arguments at best, and at worst, don't actually say anything.

The first quote is essentially a quote against concealed carrying of handguns - which is part of the issue (and one I'm quite in favor of). Other than that, it's basically moot, if not hurting your cause. If most assaults stem from heated arguments, then why not ban swiss army knives? they're quite lethal, and there's to restriction to those. Since arguments with gun-toting people are rather more rare, I'd be more concerned if assaults were primarily "gang style".

The second quote... well, that's a little bit useful, but "more lethal" is hardly a stone strong argument.

The third one, well, it's obvious and says almost nothing, and what it does tell, doesn't help you. So, guns are the most appropiate weapons for a killing spree. Thus, most killing sprees occur with guns. Yes, I'd say so. Under this argument, if guns were outlawed, there would be more crossbow/knife/baseball_bat/whatever killing sprees. It's not that much harder to become a deterrent, especially in a school or other enclosed space. Most putts in golf are made with a putter. That doesn't mean banning the putter will make putting disappear, it means golfers will need to use a suboptimal club.

As for gun banning in general, just remember: The only people you'll take the guns away from if you ban them are the law-abiding, nonviolent citizens, which solves around zilch of the problem.

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 04:54 PM

As for gun banning in general, just remember: The only people you'll take the guns away from if you ban them are the law-abiding, nonviolent citizens, which solves around zilch of the problem.

"Zimring showed that most homicides and other assaults stem from arguments between people, rather than premeditated gangland-style executions."

In other words, most of the shootings were done by "law-abiding" citizens, not thugs. You can have a pristine record, but it only takes one incident to make you go grab that gun and shoot someone without really thinking of the consequences.

As far as Swiss Knives, you didn't read the rest of the paragraph which said "In addition, he found that assaults with a firearm were much more lethal than those in which the attacker uses a knife, even though the circumstances of gun and knife attacks closely resemble each other in most respects."

And keep in mind, knive's main purpose is not to kill or hurt (unlike guns), and again, unlike a gun, you need to get close to the person you want to kill (unless it is a throwing knife, and even then you would have to be a marksman to get a knife to be lethal that way). In other words, with a knife, you have to grab the weapon, get close to the victim, and do a stab movement. It requires far more concentration, better aim, more strength, etc. to do damage. That is one of the reasons why I would venture to say that murders using a knife are more likely to be premeditated than gun crimes. It just requires more effort than the gun, and certainly, the posibility of killing with a knife would be lower than a gun.

And could you imagine the Columbine kids making as much damage as they did with a bat, or a club, or a knife?

I know you may find the report trivial, but even though some aspects of it may be obvious, it seems several people here are failing to see the obvious to begin with.

7Raven7

10-09-2006, 05:42 PM

What?

I think protection is what we need less of while an amendment is EXACTLY what we need, an amendment that makes the private ownership of fire arms illegal.

That's a great idea, that way only the criminals have guns and the next time someone wants to go door to door robbing my neighborhood, he can do so without any risk. Can we make a law that prohibits the sale of Marijuana, Cocaine and Heroin, because they would disappear too. Why not, it worked for alcohol?

loner

10-09-2006, 09:16 PM

SC, that quote doesn't really support your case much about your "cowardly nerds" theory. And it's quite pointless to point out that guns would be more lethal than swiss knives in heated arguments, because well, duh. But the article also says that the assailants who used knives have more intent to kill. And anyways, that's just one study, and this kind of studies can both ways. Didn't you say that the problem with statistics is that you can cherry pick in your favor? Well, you just found your cherry.

The Columbine kids also tried to use bombs. Thank god those bombs didn't go off.

All and all, you still missed the point of my original post, or chose not to respond to it. And I don't really have the time to repeat that again.

soundchazer

10-09-2006, 09:53 PM

loner:

I just picked some studies because I was being forced to present statistics, and I knew pretty well this was going to be the end result.

Going back to your comment, yes, it is true that whenever something like this happens, people against guns will use the event as a poster child in favor of their cause, but that doesn't mean some people (like me), can't rationally have an aversion to them being so easily available to the general public (and unlike what Roark says, it is easier and faster to get a gun than other less dangerous activities, like allowing the spouse of a U.S. citizen come live in the States). As far as parental guidance is concerned, there is only so much you can do as a parent. You have little control as to what goes on outside home, and if anyone pushes the buttons of a person the right way, they are bound to react, sometimes in very destructive ways. Obviously, in most cases they won't use guns, but giving them the option to do so by keeping one in your drawer certainly increases the possibility of that happening.

The swiss knife comment was not something I brought up, Griveton did, and I just tried to continue using that example, even though I never understood why the comparison was even required, given that guns are a better killing machine than knives.

And yes, assailants using knives to hurt have more intent to kill. I even said that in my previous post... it is obvious it would be like that because it requires more effort and even premeditation to kill someone with a knife. And there lies the problem... a gun is so easy to use and so more destructive than a knife, that even people who let their anger flair can kill without much effort. Again... a large number of the violent gun crimes happen in cases where the carrier had no prior record and the shooting happened in the heat of the moment, in arguments or a fit of rage. Obviously, when you put one in the hands of someone who plans to use for bad deeds, the results are even worse.

As for the kids at Columbine, you are making my point... using other methods of mass killing are more complex and more prone to failure than carrying a gun.

loner

10-09-2006, 10:41 PM

Well, if you feel the need to present statistics, present more studies than just one person to prove your point at least. And if you already said statistics is pointless very clearly in your post, and nobody made a counter-claim that made you rethink that point, than I don't see why you need to present statistics.

Yeah, more complex weapons are more prone to failure. But the Columbine kids tried it too, didn't they? And while their chances of killing someone with these bombs were not as high as them using their guns, the degree of damage they would have done with those bombs is much, much higher than what they did with their guns. They killed 12 people with their guns. They set their bombs in the cafeteria, and if they set off they would've killed 100s of people. This is purely my opinion, and admittedly I'm not too familiar with other school shooting cases as you are, but based just on the Columbine case, we can see that kids who are so messed up as to wanting to take guns to shoot people in their school, also won't mind making the extra effort to make more dangerous weapons. School shootings are pre-meditated, even if they may not be very well planned. Once a kid is set upon killing people in his school, if he/she can't find a gun, he/she will go for other weapons.

I can't see how "there is only so much you can do as a parent." As a parent, it is your duty to engrain into your kid's mind that taking a gun to shoot someone is something you absolutely should not do unless your life is in definite immediate danger. You are suppose to make sure that this thought is so stuck in the kid's head that when he/she ever thinks about doing anything destructive he'll immediately think of what you said and hesitate from doing so. As for whatever goes outside the home is outside the parents' control, no, it should not be outside the parents' control. A parent needs to know what's going outside with his/her kid and try to do things about that. A parent is responsible for the child 24/7, whever the child is. Does this seem too daunting? I see most kids in America being brought up as law-abiding, peaceful citizens who would never use a gun or any other weapon to harm someone else. This shows that some parents know how to do this, and are doing it right.

ash_chan

10-10-2006, 05:16 AM

Just as an update sort of thing, another [attempted] school shooting occured in Missouri.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_re_us/missouri_school_shooting

[Edit] Right you are, Tyrdium.

Tyrdium

10-10-2006, 06:27 AM

Just as an update sort of thing, another school shooting occured in Missouri.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_re_us/missouri_school_shootingWell, sort of. The kid's gun jammed on the first shot, according to the article.

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 06:41 AM

I can't see how "there is only so much you can do as a parent." As a parent, it is your duty to engrain into your kid's mind that taking a gun to shoot someone is something you absolutely should not do unless your life is in definite immediate danger. You are suppose to make sure that this thought is so stuck in the kid's head that when he/she ever thinks about doing anything destructive he'll immediately think of what you said and hesitate from doing so. As for whatever goes outside the home is outside the parents' control, no, it should not be outside the parents' control. A parent needs to know what's going outside with his/her kid and try to do things about that. A parent is responsible for the child 24/7, whever the child is. Does this seem too daunting? I see most kids in America being brought up as law-abiding, peaceful citizens who would never use a gun or any other weapon to harm someone else. This shows that some parents know how to do this, and are doing it right.

Loner... please don't come talk to me about parenting until you have a kid of your own. That little theory of yours is fine and dandy, but you can't have your kid under surveilance 24/7 even if you wanted to, unless you want to really cross that line of trust with them and invade their privacy. Yes, you can teach them right from wrong, but if they just happen to mess with the wrong crowd, in school for example, there is always the possibility they will turn out wrong regardless of your efforts as a parent. Yeah, you can do things like asking them to invite their friends over to check them out, but if they don't want to, you can't really force them to do it.

If you read the bios of many of the people who ended up being multiple killers or serial murderers, they grew up in well adjusted families and were never abused nor neglected. At then end of the day, it is all about free will.

Roark

10-10-2006, 06:53 AM

At then end of the day, it is all about free will.

I know a few people who would have some serious denials of that ;)

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 07:15 AM

I know a few people who would have some serious denials of that ;)

Could you clarify? If it is something you don't want to say in public, PM me instead.

Just to expand a bit, I have to say parenting is one of the most ungrateful jobs when it comes to the scrutiny of society. Any fault that a person has will be analyzed at some point from a parenting perspective, and even the most minute thing will be blown out of proportion. Why? Because the regular Joe can't accept the fact that anyone can be capable to commit heinous acts. They feel more secure knowing that it was the horrible parents who brought up their kids wrong and thefore it couldn;t happen to THEIR kids or themselves.

Wake up call... sometimes even the best parents can have kids who are not so great.

As en example, ask anyone who has smoked pot how many think their parents have been great role-models, involved in what they do and told them about the dangers of drugs. I bet you there will be a lot of people raising their hands, and yet they still smoked it.

Again... at some point people have to be acountable for their own actions, and not everything pinned down to their environment.

Zelkiiro

10-10-2006, 07:15 AM

As for gun banning in general, just remember: The only people you'll take the guns away from if you ban them are the law-abiding, nonviolent citizens, which solves around zilch of the problem.In other words, most of the shootings were done by "law-abiding" citizens, not thugs. You can have a pristine record, but it only takes one incident to make you go grab that gun and shoot someone without really thinking of the consequences.
What Grive is saying that...

If guns were banned, the regular Average Joe will turn them in, while those who have malicious intent will provide the copy-and-paste "Nope, no guns here," and even if their guns were taken away, don't you think they'd just as easily obtain one illegaly?

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 07:17 AM

What Grive is saying that...

If guns were banned, the regular Average Joe will turn them in, while those who have malicious intent will provide the copy-and-paste "Nope, no guns here," and even if their guns were taken away, don't you think they'd just as easily obtain one illegaly?

Not really... as with most things black market, they would probably be more expensive because of the difficulty to smuggle them, and also because there would be less of them. Just like drugs.

Mana

10-10-2006, 07:54 AM

Not really... as with most things black market, they would probably be more expensive because of the difficulty to smuggle them, and also because there would be less of them. Just like drugs.

I dunno, I know an awful lot of people who do drugs, both now and in the past. Maybe it's just because I live in Chicago, but there never seems to be a shortage, and according to aquiantences that I have, there are several dealers in my apartment complex alone (which is small and about 15 miles outside of the city in a no nothing suburbs), let alone other, bigger suburbs, and of course the city itself. Despite the multi-billion dollar War on Drugs, illegal substances are very plentiful.

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 08:28 AM

I dunno, I know an awful lot of people who do drugs, both now and in the past. Maybe it's just because I live in Chicago, but there never seems to be a shortage, and according to aquiantences that I have, there are several dealers in my apartment complex alone (which is small and about 15 miles outside of the city in a no nothing suburbs), let alone other, bigger suburbs, and of course the city itself. Despite the multi-billion dollar War on Drugs, illegal substances are very plentiful.

But you would have to agree on the premise that if they were legalized, they would probably be cheaper. The only reason they are plentiful is because the demand exists for them, and even then, I would assume (since I'm not into finding out were I can find drugs at) that the stuff that is harder to manufacture would either cost more or be less readily available.

This is just an assumption, don't take it as a hard fact.

Roark

10-10-2006, 08:33 AM

Could you clarify? If it is something you don't want to say in public, PM me instead.

It was mostly a joke. Short version:
Determinism, Fatalism, Predestination/Calvanism, Behaviourism, Geneticism, etc.

Slightly longer version:
If Physics/Deity governs all interactions in the universe AND if brain/mind = pure physical device THEN brain governed by physics/deity. If mind governed by strict laws then not governed by "will."

Alternate:
If temporally omniscient deity/future contingents propositions have a truth value, then all actions either will or will not occur. This means all actions are predestined and our actions match these unknown future events by necesarilly (in the strict definition of the word).

Alternate II: Society/upbringing/genetics inform all actions. Every action can ultimately be traced back to an uncontrollable factor. Luck and circumstances dictate actions, not will.

Edit:
Oh, and by "people" I meant Hume, Calvin, Chomsky, Frankfurt, etc.

Mana

10-10-2006, 08:39 AM

Oh, yeah, were drugs legalized they'd be cheaper probably, but I'm guessing there would be a heavy tax on it (similar to alcohol/tobacco), which would even out the price somewhat, but it woudl still be cheaper.

I don't believe that really matters, though. I don't think people expect buying a gun to be a cheap endeavor, even now where it is legal to purchase one. Were firearms actually outlawed, any sort of black market vending for them would surely increase (from the illegal gun sales we already have), but I'm sure any prices from that would factor in both supply and demand, and how easy it would be to manufacture them illegaly under government eyes, none of those factors I have any real knowledge about. Yet, like all things, eventually it would stabilize. While a junkie may need a fix every other day or so, once a citizen has a gun, they have a gun, and all they would need are cleaning supplies for it and some kind of ammunition.

Tyrdium

10-10-2006, 08:44 AM

But you would have to agree on the premise that if they were legalized, they would probably be cheaper. The only reason they are plentiful is because the demand exists for them, and even then, I would assume (since I'm not into finding out were I can find drugs at) that the stuff that is harder to manufacture would either cost more or be less readily available.Sure, but that doesn't mean that they aren't available. Criminals probably aren't going to be buying them on the spur of the moment, either.

(NB: I don't mean the people who randomly decide to shoot someone. I mean career criminals and the like.)

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 08:50 AM

It was mostly a joke. Short version:
Determinism, Fatalism, Predestination/Calvanism, Behaviourism, Geneticism, etc.

Slightly longer version:
If Physics/Deity governs all interactions in the universe AND if brain/mind = pure physical device THEN brain governed by physics/deity. If mind governed by strict laws then not governed by "will."

Alternate:
If temporally omniscient deity/future contingents propositions have a truth value, then all actions either will or will not occur. This means all actions are predestined and our actions match these unknown future events by necesarilly (in the strict definition of the word).

Alternate II: Society/upbringing/genetics inform all actions. Every action can ultimately be traced back to an uncontrollable factor. Luck and circumstances dictate actions, not will.

Edit:
Oh, and by "people" I meant Hume, Calvin, Chomsky, Frankfurt, etc.

* soundchazer shrugs

I go by the maxim written by Ortega y Gasset: "I am myself and my circumstances".

Meaning, both my innate personality and my environment have a say on what I do and how I behave, since reality is for me in many ways a matter of personal perception, which is tinted by our experiences.

Therefore, while I'm a firm believer that ultimately we make our choices, I also believe that sometimes choices have to be limited for the greater good in any social dynamic (family, local community, etc.)

I hope this makes sense, and hopefully you won't clobber me with your more organized intellect. That is one thing I really applaud from most philosophers... they are taught to think in a very rational and organized fashion. My mind, unfortunately, doesn't work that way most of the time.

loner

10-10-2006, 11:03 AM

Loner... please don't come talk to me about parenting until you have a kid of your own. That little theory of yours is fine and dandy, but you can't have your kid under surveilance 24/7 even if you wanted to, unless you want to really cross that line of trust with them and invade their privacy. Yes, you can teach them right from wrong, but if they just happen to mess with the wrong crowd, in school for example, there is always the possibility they will turn out wrong regardless of your efforts as a parent. Yeah, you can do things like asking them to invite their friends over to check them out, but if they don't want to, you can't really force them to do it.

If you read the bios of many of the people who ended up being multiple killers or serial murderers, they grew up in well adjusted families and were never abused nor neglected. At then end of the day, it is all about free will.

Kinda condescending, ne? I don't have a kid of my own, but I've been raised by a single parent who managed to do all that, and handle a very heavy workload (she did her Ph. D. while I was in elementary and middle school, then taught at a university with a very heavy schedule). But she managed to achieve a balance so that she doesn't come across as overbearing, yet still manage to keep up-to-date with what's going on with me. She didn't put me under a security camera or anything. What she did do is talk to my friends' parents and my teachers and get to know my situation. And she managed to engrain the idea that "GUNS ARE HARMFUL AND BAD! DON'T TOUCH IT UNLESS YOUR LIFE IS IN DEFINITE, IMMEDIATE DANGER!" into my head. I'd never dare to even think about using a gun to harm somebody. I suppose you can call me a coward. I'm still afraid of the gun.

Yeah parenthood is a thankless job, but if my mom can do it all by herself, then my little theory is not impossible. Yeah, there's always the possibility of things just going wrong. But the fact that our society is not full of serial murderers, that the majority of people are law-abiding citizens who would never pick up a gun unless their lives are in danger, show that most parents can get it right too. Yeah, when kids grow up and become adults, they are out of your control and many other things outside of your reach will have a stronger influence on the them. But the teenagers responsible for these school shootings were not adults and should not be out of their parents' control. Parents should know when something's going bad. Kids don't just turn into mass killers immediately. It's a process, and parents should have the time and chance to find out that something is wrong.

Finally, no offence, but I can't accept a parent going into parenthood thinking there is a good chance his/her kid will turn out bad regardless of his/her efforts, that the kid might well turn into a serial killer. Maybe it's "pragmatic", but it sounds like you are giving up the fight before even throwing a punch.

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 12:23 PM

Kinda condescending, ne? I don't have a kid of my own, but I've been raised by a single parent who managed to do all that, and handle a very heavy workload (she did her Ph. D. while I was in elementary and middle school, then taught at a university with a very heavy schedule). But she managed to achieve a balance so that she doesn't come across as overbearing, yet still manage to keep up-to-date with what's going on with me. She didn't put me under a security camera or anything. What she did do is talk to my friends' parents and my teachers and get to know my situation. And she managed to engrain the idea that "GUNS ARE HARMFUL AND BAD! DON'T TOUCH IT UNLESS YOUR LIFE IS IN DEFINITE, IMMEDIATE DANGER!" into my head. I'd never dare to even think about using a gun to harm somebody. I suppose you can call me a coward. I'm still afraid of the gun.

Yeah parenthood is a thankless job, but if my mom can do it all by herself, then my little theory is not impossible. Yeah, there's always the possibility of things just going wrong. But the fact that our society is not full of serial murderers, that the majority of people are law-abiding citizens who would never pick up a gun unless their lives are in danger, show that most parents can get it right too. Yeah, when kids grow up and become adults, they are out of your control and many other things outside of your reach will have a stronger influence on the them. But the teenagers responsible for these school shootings were not adults and should not be out of their parents' control. Parents should know when something's going bad. Kids don't just turn into mass killers immediately. It's a process, and parents should have the time and chance to find out that something is wrong.

Finally, no offence, but I can't accept a parent going into parenthood thinking there is a good chance his/her kid will turn out bad regardless of his/her efforts, that the kid might well turn into a serial killer. Maybe it's "pragmatic", but it sounds like you are giving up the fight before even throwing a punch.

You can say it's condescending all you want, but the truth is that parenthood is one of those things that are completely different seen from the outside than once you are immersed in it. While your opinion is respectable, it lacks some of the knowledge that comes with the territory. You have yet to deal with some of the issues that every parent has to face. I used to tell myself before being a parent, all the things I intended to do with my kids once I had them, and believe me, things have a way of not going according to plan once you finally find out that these little persons have a mind of their own and will sometimes do things you were not expecting.

And believe me, I'm not the type to throw in the towel, but I have seen some really wonderful parents suffer when their kids don't turn out to be the most reliable, respectable human beings, because they feel they failed. That is just the way it is. You have to hope and work for them to be the best, but you need to have a plan B if that doesn't end happening. As long as you as a parent do everything in your power to do right for your kids, by providing them the best environment possible (be active at school, meet their friends and their parents, etc.) and keeping the communication lines open and know that you are doing your job, then that should be enough. And believe me, I will tell my kids "GUNS ARE BAD. STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM THEM!"

Don't get me wrong, I do believe the Columbine case was in many ways a case of bad parenting. Their parents didn't even fathom to know what was going on in their lives. It seems that communication was the main culprit, and the parents pretty much left the kids alone once they decided they could not talk to them, but I have read many other cases about criminals and some will really baffle you when you see how normal their lives were. And no, I don;t go around thinking my life could become a serial killer. If I thought that way, why would I have kids to begin with?

Griveton

10-10-2006, 03:25 PM

As far as Swiss Knives, you didn't read the rest of the paragraph which said "In addition, he found that assaults with a firearm were much more lethal than those in which the attacker uses a knife, even though the circumstances of gun and knife attacks closely resemble each other in most respects."

And keep in mind, knive's main purpose is not to kill or hurt (unlike guns), and again, unlike a gun, you need to get close to the person you want to kill (unless it is a throwing knife, and even then you would have to be a marksman to get a knife to be lethal that way). In other words, with a knife, you have to grab the weapon, get close to the victim, and do a stab movement. It requires far more concentration, better aim, more strength, etc. to do damage. That is one of the reasons why I would venture to say that murders using a knife are more likely to be premeditated than gun crimes. It just requires more effort than the gun, and certainly, the posibility of killing with a knife would be lower than a gun.

No, I did read everything. The thing you seem to be missing is that making guns disappear will not make the opportunities to hurt disappear. In a heated argument, someone pulls a gun and kills the other person. Taking the gun away does not mean the argument will turn civil from now on. It just means that the person will try to use something else.

If, say, buses were suddenly outlawed, that doesn't mean people will no longer travel by land. It means more people will take the train. Maybe not as many as there were people taking the bus, yes.

The big question is, how big a percentage will actually be deterred because of this?

And could you imagine the Columbine kids making as much damage as they did with a bat, or a club, or a knife?

Could you not?

I know you may find the report trivial, but even though some aspects of it may be obvious, it seems several people here are failing to see the obvious to begin with.

Well, the report is not only trivial, it's just not particularly good at proving your point.

Not really... as with most things black market, they would probably be more expensive because of the difficulty to smuggle them, and also because there would be less of them. Just like drugs.

Because drugs are hard to come by. C'mon, I've been offered some kind of drug in most major cities in every country where it's illegal within hours of arriving there since I was 14. If that's the kind of ban you're hoping guns will suffer from, well, it ain't going to do much at all.

But you would have to agree on the premise that if they were legalized, they would probably be cheaper. The only reason they are plentiful is because the demand exists for them, and even then, I would assume (since I'm not into finding out were I can find drugs at) that the stuff that is harder to manufacture would either cost more or be less readily available.

This is just an assumption, don't take it as a hard fact.

The manufacturing would not be harder or costlier, since what is probably the main market (international armies and law enforcement) will still require these weapons. Thus, you're not really putting any damper on manufacturing, only on sales. And this damper would honestly, be paper thin.

The problem with banning something is that you do not make it disappear, you just relinquish control over it and close your eyes to the hard data you need to make appropiate decisions. Banning alcohol didn't even diminish it's availability, it just made it much, much less controlled, which led to mafias and poor grade liquor. People from all walks of life still got drunk, still partied, and still got cirrhosis. They just did it all with rubbing a mixture of bread grease and rubbing alcohol.

soundchazer

10-10-2006, 04:47 PM

Could you not?

Nope. There is a big difference between using a weapon that can be operated from a safe distance and that has the ability to stop the person at the other end on the first try, and having a weapon where the other person has to be at arm's length and were the ability to dispose of them is not as easily guaranteed. In fact, if three people attacked their agressor with a gun, the probability of all three ended up injured or death are significantly higher than with a knife or a bat, and in fact, the chances of them disarming the attacker are higher.

Because drugs are hard to come by. C'mon, I've been offered some kind of drug in most major cities in every country where it's illegal within hours of arriving there since I was 14. If that's the kind of ban you're hoping guns will suffer from, well, it ain't going to do much at all.

And I have never been offered them (seriously!). So I guess what you are saying "is not particularly good at proving your point".

The manufacturing would not be harder or costlier, since what is probably the main market (international armies and law enforcement) will still require these weapons. Thus, you're not really putting any damper on manufacturing, only on sales. And this damper would honestly, be paper thin.

Really? Then I guess that theory that you guys have been throwing around about law abiding citizens isn't that good then, because you are pretty much saying that "law abiding citizens" are willing to break the law to get a gun. That, or you think that criminals will just stockpile guns for the heck of it, since the damper on sales would be "paper thin".

And if you think the gun industry is not making money out of ordinary citizen, here is some hard facts:

"As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.
- National Institute of Justice, May 1997"

The problem with banning something is that you do not make it disappear, you just relinquish control over it and close your eyes to the hard data you need to make appropiate decisions. Banning alcohol didn't even diminish it's availability, it just made it much, much less controlled, which led to mafias and poor grade liquor. People from all walks of life still got drunk, still partied, and still got cirrhosis. They just did it all with rubbing a mixture of bread grease and rubbing alcohol.

I'm not under the illusion that guns will disappear, only that "law abiding citizens" will stop using them. Again, this falls back to my point that a lot of the gun related fatalities were not gang related or commited with any premeditation. You guys keep thinking about this from the perspective that gun fatalities usually are the work of spooky men with nasty intentions and a criminal record or an insane mind, and that more often than not, is not the case.

Some hard facts about guns:

In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

----

From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

----

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 2003, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 30,136.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics WISQARS online data collection system, 2006.

----

While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40

----

Contrary to popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3-to-4-year-olds, 70% of 5-to-6-year-olds, and 90% of 7-to-8-year-olds can fire most handguns.
-Naureckas, SM, Christoffel, KK, et al. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995.

----

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

----

In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:

* 16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.

----

A nationwide survey about teenagers attitudes toward guns, conducted in 2003, found that:

* 39% Number of teens who said they know someone who has been shot
* 37% of teenagers could get a handgun "if I really wanted to"
* 27% know of a handgun kept in their house, apartment or car
* 59% do not believe that "video games can make teenagers violent"
* 56% do not want armed security guards patrolling their schools
* 90% do not believe that teachers and principals should be able to "bring handguns to school to protect students"

Source: Teenage Research Unlimited, June 2003.