Gun control and school shootings

[Goofball]

Would stricter gun control stop some school shootings? Wayne Lo seems to think so:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18442224/site/newsweek/

The relevant bits:


Do you believe that stricter gun control would help prevent such tragedies?
The people who do these things are people who don’t want contact. They wouldn’t be capable of going out there and stabbing people to death. But there’s such a disconnect when you’re using a gun. You don’t even feel like you’re killing anybody. The fact that I was able to buy a rifle in 15 minutes, that’s absurd. I was 18. I couldn’t have rented a car to drive home from school, yet I could purchase a rifle.
You were from Montana, and a member of the NRA. Had guns and hunting been a part of your life?
That night was the first time I fired a gun. Why should a person who has never touched a gun be able to buy one and the first time he fires it, be able to kill people? You wouldn’t be able to drive a car without a license.
What sort of gun control do you propose, then?
Ideally, guns should be eliminated, but I know that won’t happen. There should be stricter checks. Obviously a waiting period would be great. Personally, I only had five days left of school before winter break: school got out on Friday, and I did that on a Monday. If I had a two-week waiting period for the gun, I wouldn’t have done it.


Interesting.

[rory_20_uk]

Although some have mentioned that increasing the cost of guns and removing low quality "throwaway" guns, making guns linked to a ring or fingerprint or instigating decent background checks to assess supplicants might be a good idea, these are all deeply flawed, and will only help to create a larger bureaucracy.

The real answer is far simpler: give guns to everyone. If every student had a pistol I am sure you'd agree that the number of shootings at schools would not be at the level it is now...

~:smoking:

[drone]

Obviously, the solution is to ban immigrants from purchasing firearms. It used to be that Americans had a can-do attitude about shooting up schools and the workplace, but it's apparent now that they can't be bothered, and the harder working immigrants seem to do a better job of it anyway. All you red-blooded American loners and psychos are now on notice: they are motivated, disgruntled, and they are coming for your jobs! Write your congressman today!

[Goofball]

Although some have mentioned that increasing the cost of guns and removing low quality "throwaway" guns, making guns linked to a ring or fingerprint or instigating decent background checks to assess supplicants might be a good idea, these are all deeply flawed, and will only help to create a larger bureaucracy.

The real answer is far simpler: give guns to everyone. If every student had a pistol I am sure you'd agree that the number of shootings at schools would not be at the level it is now...

~:smoking:

I heartily agree. If every student had a pistol I am absolutely certain that the number of shootings at schools would not be at the level it is now.

:bullseye:

[Don Corleone]

If we really want to end school shootings, why not schackle the students and herd them to and from class with cattle prods? That, or we can prescribe throrazine for everyone under the age of 21.

So, if I become a serial rapist, do I get to be interviewed in fifteen years as the resident expert on women's rights? Come on Goofy, this isn't one of your better efforts. We should ban guns because an amoral sociopath tells us we should? You ever think that he has a vested interest in seeing to it that only people as willing to break the law as he is are armed?

As for the text you quoted, yes, a gun is more impersonal of a way than a knife. And a planted timebomb is even more impersonal yet. Or is sweet, helpful Wayne Lo beyond using bombs?

[BigTex]

I heartily agree. If every student had a pistol I am absolutely certain that the number of shootings at schools would not be at the level it is now.

:bullseye:

Ironically when guns were common place in schools, shootings at school didn't happen. You may be on to something, bring back marksman teams and fire arm classes to schools.

Simple fact of the matter is killings with guns or other weapons on schools is not linked to the availibility of weapons. They'd still happen if all the knives if all the kitchen utensils if all the guns were banned. They'd happen with pens and pencils.

This is a cultural and psychological issue, not an issue of gun control.

VT happened with a target pistol and a 9mm, he shot 60 people and killed 30 with some of the weakest guns available. No ammount of gun control would have prevented this.

[HoreTore]

VT happened with a target pistol and a 9mm, he shot 60 people and killed 30 with some of the weakest guns available. No ammount of gun control would have prevented this.

Whatever your stance on this issue is, claiming that "no amount of gun control" could have prevented it, is just wrong. If there was absolute gun control, as in no guns anywhere, there is NO WAY he could have killed 30 people on a rampage with a knife/axe/etc. You can do that only with a gun. If the gun didn't exist, he wouldn't have done it. He might have killed one, two, three with an axe, but not 30.

Yes, a bomb could have killed the same number of people. BUT, that bomb would have to be placed and built very carefully in order to do that. Just look at the suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel, even on buses they straggle to kill over 10. Not to mention the fact that building a bomb from scratch with materials you can buy requires a lot more knowledge than what you need to buy a gun.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone should be trained to use a gun and everyone should be taught what guns do. Make them a part of normal life and they will cease to facinate.

If children learn marxmanship from 12 upwards it will eventually be no more than a part of PE.

You can kill a lot of people with a cricket bat.

[Goofball]

If we really want to end school shootings, why not schackle the students and herd them to and from class with cattle prods? That, or we can prescribe throrazine for everyone under the age of 21.

So, if I become a serial rapist, do I get to be interviewed in fifteen years as the resident expert on women's rights? Come on Goofy, this isn't one of your better efforts. We should ban guns because an amoral sociopath tells us we should? You ever think that he has a vested interest in seeing to it that only people as willing to break the law as he is are armed?

As for the text you quoted, yes, a gun is more impersonal of a way than a knife. And a planted timebomb is even more impersonal yet. Or is sweet, helpful Wayne Lo beyond using bombs?

Your emotion has apparently gotten the better of your analogy-smithing ability. A serial rapist would be a poor expert on women's rights. But he would be an excellent source of information on the methodology and motivation behind serial raping.

But you miss my point. I was not trying to say that gun control is the solution to all school shootings. That's why I quite deliberately italicized the word "some" in my initial post.

But what comes across quite clearly from this interview is that a relatively uninvasive form of gun control, the "waiting period," would have prevented this killer from taking the action he did.

As Denis Leary so wisely said:

"If you're the kind of person that can't wait two weeks to buy a handgun, then you're exactly the type of person who needs to wait two weeks to buy a handgun..."

I also find it strange that at 18 you can buy a gun, but not rent a car. I believe it's the same in Canada.

Seems slightly whacked to me.

The gun control issue in the U.S. always perplexes me, because the two sides that make the most noise are the extremes.

On one side, you have the guys who don't want any controls; no regulations, no registration, no licenses, no nothing.

On the other side, you have the airy-fairys who want absolutely no guns, nowhere, nohow.

I suspect, just like abortion, the vast majority of the population falls somewhere in between each of the two camps, but nobody in politics listens to the middle.

[Don Corleone]

If you're talking about background checks and waiting periods, I'm on board. But neither you nor your buddy Wayne said that. You just said gun-control. When it's not specified, when I hear gun control, I take that to mean seizing all firearms from everyone that bothers to obey the law.

As for my analogy, I think it is fitting. If we're going to ask a guy who shot up a school, the extreme act of making a school unsafe, how to keep kids in school safe, shouldn't we ask guys who violate women's rights in the extreme how to ensure their rights?

[Lemur]

Ironically when guns were common place in schools, shootings at school didn't happen. You may be on to something, bring back marksman teams and fire arm classes to schools.
You mean like in 1966 when Charles Whitman gunned down 16 and wounded thirty-something students? Or in 1927, when a nutter used explosives to kill 45 and wound 58? Or in 1891, when a crazy man fired a shotgun into a group of students?

Let's not discuss golden yesteryears. They rarely live up to expectations.

List of documented school massacres in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres)

[Goofball]

If you're talking about background checks and waiting periods, I'm on board. But neither you nor your buddy Wayne said that.

Really? In the section that I purposely quoted my "buddy" (nice touch that, calling Wayne my buddy in your post, thereby associating me and my views with he and his and making anything else I say seem eeeeeevil, mwahahaha) he specifically said:

"If I had a two-week waiting period for the gun, I wouldn’t have done it."

That was pretty much the focal point for my post and what I had hoped for this discussion.

Sorry you missed it.


You just said gun-control. When it's not specified, when I hear gun control, I take that to mean seizing all firearms from everyone that bothers to obey the law.

Why would you take it to mean that? I ask the question honestly. This might be provide a little window into why gun gontrol is such an emotional debate in the U.S.

When I hear the words "gun control," I think licenses, safety courses, waiting periods, and background checks. Seizing all firearms is not gun control, it's gun prohibition.


As for my analogy, I think it is fitting. If we're going to ask a guy who shot up a school, the extreme act of making a school unsafe, how to keep kids in school safe, shouldn't we ask guys who violate women's rights in the extreme how to ensure their rights?

We're not asking him how to keep kids in school safe, we're asking him what factors might have prevented him from doing what he did. He specifically said a waiting period would have done so.

But if you still believe that talking with criminals about what they did and why they did it is somehow useless or immoral, may I direct your attention to a bunch of people who work at Quantico who would most likely disagree with you...

[Adrian II]

This is a cultural and psychological issue, not an issue of gun control.Yup. Your approach yields no definitive answers either, but it is far superior to the availability thingy. I always take the same line in gun threads, but I rarely pursue it because I am sick and tired of the genre.

Lo says little of importance on the whole issue, although he may be right that in his case the easy availability of the rifle in combination with his sudden impulse was an enabling factor. I have no reason to believe he is a psychopath. Most murderers and even most terrorists and mass-murderers aren't. His comments about Asian culture seem to be on the mark, more so than those on the legislation issue. I recall reading somewhere that China gets its share of spree-killers and postal incidents, but the perpetrators use knives more often than guns. The result is usually less bloody. What would interest me, however, is the cultural and psychological background.

However, Lo is clearly not telling the whole story on his own escapade there, and the interviewer doesn't exactly push him.

[BigTex]

Whatever your stance on this issue is, claiming that "no amount of gun control" could have prevented it, is just wrong. If there was absolute gun control, as in no guns anywhere, there is NO WAY he could have killed 30 people on a rampage with a knife/axe/etc. You can do that only with a gun. If the gun didn't exist, he wouldn't have done it. He might have killed one, two, three with an axe, but not 30.

Yes, a bomb could have killed the same number of people. BUT, that bomb would have to be placed and built very carefully in order to do that. Just look at the suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel, even on buses they straggle to kill over 10. Not to mention the fact that building a bomb from scratch with materials you can buy requires a lot more knowledge than what you need to buy a gun.

There's no such thing as absolute gun control. Figment of your imagination and impossible to create. There will always be guns, no matter if you ban them or not. No amount of gun control can prevent a highly intelligent murderer from killing, with guns.

Lets remember 9/11 was done with box cutters and kitchen knives. That killed 3,000. Banning guns or severe gun control wont prevent mass killings. The tool doesnt kill, the person kills. Guns are not evil people are evil, train people on how to use them and watch out for the poor loners and this could have been prevented. Thats the only way this could have been prevented.

A bomb would have easily killed far more, the police were confused and backpack filled with fertilizer is easy to hide. The man wasnt an idiot and could have done it with a bomb if he so choose.


I have no reason to believe he is a psychopath.

Never said he was a psycopath, but he was a loner.


Or in 1927, when a nutter used explosives to kill 45 and wound 58?

Now that has nothing to do with guns killing people. Infact it has to do more with my point. People will kill with whatever they can get, and guns arent the only thing that cause mass killings. A backpack of fertilizer is easier to hide, easier to construct, far easier to get, and will kill many more then any mass shooting.

[Adrian II]

Never said he was a psychopath (..)I know. I was answering Don Corleone there.

[Don Corleone]

Really? In the section that I purposely quoted my "buddy" (nice touch that, calling Wayne my buddy in your post, thereby associating me and my views with he and his and making anything else I say seem eeeeeevil, mwahahaha) he specifically said:

"If I had a two-week waiting period for the gun, I wouldn’t have done it."

That was pretty much the focal point for my post and what I had hoped for this discussion.

Sorry you missed it.

My apologies on the 'your buddy' crack. I honestly wasn't trying to demonize you by linking the two of you so much as the way the Irish refer to 'your man' when the individual in question is very likely no such thing. In light of the current conversation, your interpretation is perfectly valid (though wrong) and so I do offer my apoloiges for a smear that was unintended.

As for the waiting period, that wasn't what the thrust of the article was about. Yes, he did qualify one particular statement in that manner. However, neither the article, nor your statements on the matter made it clear you were specifically talking about a 2-week waiting period, only


Why would you take it to mean that? I ask the question honestly. This might be provide a little window into why gun gontrol is such an emotional debate in the U.S.

When I hear the words "gun control," I think licenses, safety courses, waiting periods, and background checks. Seizing all firearms is not gun control, it's gun prohibition. It may be to you. But surf the website for the Brady Center or any other 'gun control' advocacy group. They'll say very straightforwardly that registration, background checks, waiting period, banning classes of rifles and shotguns... all of these are steps towards their ultimate goal, the end of personal gun ownership. Trust me, it's written into all of their charters. Rember, this is American politics we're talking about here. The middle solution does not exist. Yes, we 'gun-nuts' may seem a touch paranoid and combative, but it's a reactionary position, and a well-founded one at that. Sometimes you become paranoid because they really are out to get you.




We're not asking him how to keep kids in school safe, we're asking him what factors might have prevented him from doing what he did. He specifically said a waiting period would have done so.

But if you still believe that talking with criminals about what they did and why they did it is somehow useless or immoral, may I direct your attention to a bunch of people who work at Quantico who would most likely disagree with you... Touche'. Personally, the man's judgement as well as his morals are in question in my book. However, if I'm questioning methodology and tactics, he indeed would have something to offer the conversation. However, I disagree with his snowjob that a waiting period would have slowed him down. He ordered his ammunition from a mail order service. He had some forethought going into this, it wasn't a 'I snapped one day'. Dylan Kleebold (sp?) and Eric Harris practiced for weeks before carrying out Columbine. It's a myth that these people drive to the gun shop, then to the scenes of their crimes. Typically, they spend much more time planning it out.

[Xiahou]

You mean like in 1966 when Charles Whitman gunned down 16 and wounded thirty-something students? Or in 1927, when a nutter used explosives to kill 45 and wound 58? Or in 1891, when a crazy man fired a shotgun into a group of students?

Let's not discuss golden yesteryears. They rarely live up to expectations.

List of documented school massacres in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres)
Let's look at the frequency shall we? :idea2:

Let's be honest, even today, school shootings are statistically insignificant by almost any measure- be it total deaths, total homicides, total shootings, or even total deaths by firearm. In no category does it make up even a fraction of a percent. However, as to Big Tex's comment- look at how many school shootings we've had in the last twenty years and compare them to earlier times when there was far less gun control. According to your own link, you could go decades and decades between shootings- recently, they've been every few years or less. When you consider that in the first half of the 20th century school shooting teams were common with students bringing rifles to school with them regularly, perhaps more gun control isnt the answer.


Everyone should be trained to use a gun and everyone should be taught what guns do. Make them a part of normal life and they will cease to facinate.

If children learn marxmanship from 12 upwards it will eventually be no more than a part of PE.Personally, I think that's a good idea. Make it part of the curriculum.

[Lemur]

When you consider that in the first half of the 20th century school shooting teams were common with students bringing rifles to school with them regularly, perhaps more gun control isnt the answer.
Just to be clear, I am not in favor of greater or more complicated gun control. As I have said in other threads, any attempt to restrict gun ownership in the U.S. is impractical, and therefore not really worth getting sweaty about.

[Marshal Murat]

The issue with earlier gun problems at schools was there were...
1)Fewer schools
2)A lower amount of fire-per-capita (5 rounds in a couple minutes(pistol) or 5 rounds (revolver) vs. 10-round clip in a minute or less)
3)More family network.

There was less gun control in the 1880s than in the 1980s, but the rate of fire was lower, and once the gunman had expended those rounds, he was at the mercy of the survivors.
Now you could get a :rifle: with a good rate of fire, pick off people at longer ranges, and still be able to survive the first few shots.

The abilities have changed, and not all for the good.
I say there should be revisions.

[BigTex]

3)More family network.

Ding ding ding, looks like we have a winner. Guns were just as common prior to the 1950's, had just the same rate of fire. colt .45 was invented prior to WWI and the tommy gun during. They were easier to get. The only difference was culture.

This guy was a loner who barely talked to his family even. The availibility of the weapons had little to do with this. Not mention there was an all out ban on guns in VT, which has a population larger then some small towns.

It isnt the availibility, an all out ban has obviously failed. It's psychological and doesnt have a thing to do with the weapon used.

[English assassin]

Although some have mentioned that increasing the cost of guns and removing low quality "throwaway" guns, making guns linked to a ring or fingerprint or instigating decent background checks to assess supplicants might be a good idea, these are all deeply flawed, and will only help to create a larger bureaucracy.

OH, damn, saw a documentary but can't find a link. Anyway, the long and the short of it was, the gunstores in some American town all agreed to stop selling $80 saturday night specials. The cheapest guns they carried were quality handguns starting at about $300.

Shootings came right down. So the evidence in that town anyway was that impulse shootings were directly linked to the availability of low quality handguns (that no "real" shooter would want to own anyway).

@ DC, I've moved a bit on this issue over the years, and now I'm not sure that your concern about gun registration isn't well founded. But its hard to argue against permits for gun purchases (number and identify of guns not to be recorded). After all, you agree that there have to be background checks for mental illness and criminal record, which is about the same thing.

Surely some sort of system where you apply for a permit, your medical and criminal records are checked, and then you are issued with a photo-ID permit good for, say, a year, to buy guns and ammunition, would be advisable? No central record of who had applied for permits need be kept, (indeed it could be made illegal to keep those records) and it need not be a condition of continued ownership of either guns or ammunition that you have an in force permit, only if you want to make another purchase.

Also, you can't drink until you are 21, but you can buy firearms at 18? Very odd. Lower the drinking age immediately !

[Odin]

U.S. society has changed to the degree that serious national gun control legislation should be on the table. It pains me, I used to hunt with my old man as a kid, and my grandfather in the blue ridge mountains. I have been a member of NRA for some time and own fire arms.

All that said, I would be kidding myself and less then genuine if I didnt admit we have a serious issue. I dont have a wonderful solution, I admit that but I would start with these 3 items as a national policy (I understand it delves into constitutional issues at the state level and runs counter to the seperation of state and the feds)

1. 21 years or older to purchase a gun

2. 30 day waiting period for all relevant criminal checks to be processed

3. Certificate of completion of 3 courses pertaining to gun safety, usage, and operation.

Again I know that a federal law would be nearly impossible as gun laws are primarily a state run enterprise. That said I do believe we are in an era in the U.S. where our society has developed to the point of needing a more firm hand from the feds.

[sapi]

:dizzy2:

Seriously, that's my automatic response to some of the postings in this thread, and to the issue of gun control in America in general.

I'm not even going to both addressing the simple fact that better gun control = less shootings, as I know that no amount of common sense will change the views of someone who has been brought up to treat firearms the way that they do (and I also understand that I'm in danger of having my case picked apart simply for using the phrase 'common sense' there).

No, what I find so puzzling is the way that people can honestly stand up and say (and from what I see believe) that further deregulation, not control, is the answer to the problem of school shootings.

I'm inclined to think that it's something to do with the American psyche, a focus on 'rights' rather than responsibilities, but some people (and I'm not necessarily referring to anyone who's posted in this thread) take this whole line of thought way too far.

Sadly, as always seems to happen, a tragedy on this scale in America has once again led to polarising debate rather than action, even born of compromise.

I still can't get my head around the fact that after such a horrific massacre as Virginia Tech, and after the long list of gun related incidents and shootings stretching back over the decades, that the public continues to react in this way.

As macabre as it sounds, while we (that is, Australia) hold the 'record' for the most casualties in a peacetime gun-related massacre (not counting terrorist attacks, obviously), there have been very few cases along the same lines after the Port Arthur massacre.

Why? Because after such a terrible event, the public realised that it was everyone's responsibility to take action for the community, and since then we've had much stricter gun laws.

They're not perfect; I know - armed gang crime is increasing, as is the number of people with 'recreational' weapons. And I know Australia isn't America.

But what I am interested to note is what seems to be a huge difference in psyche between the two nations.

And while I'm unlikely to have convinced anyone at all with this post - as has been stated before, this issue is far too polarising for that - I would like to throw out the idea that while, as is oft said, "guns don't kill people - people kill people", through inaction everyone may have a little bit of blood on their hands.

Increased gun training is not the answer. Increased familiarity is not the answer. And by god, increasing the number of weapons in circulation is definitely not the answer.

We may never find the answer.

But maybe, just maybe, it's hiding inside all of us.

After all, what use is having a right if it's not used responsibly?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Let's be honest, even today, school shootings are statistically insignificant by almost any measure- be it total deaths, total homicides, total shootings, or even total deaths by firearm. In no category does it make up even a fraction of a percent. However, as to Big Tex's comment- look at how many school shootings we've had in the last twenty years and compare them to earlier times when there was far less gun control.

I think what everyones missing is we need more media control. These things are happening more frequently now IMO because kids see and hear about them now. They want their 5 minutes of fame.

[HoreTore]

Also, you can't drink until you are 21, but you can buy firearms at 18? Very odd. Lower the drinking age immediately !

You can't drink until you are 21 in the US? What the heck do the teens over there do??

Ah....they shoot people, of course....

[English assassin]

Increased gun training is not the answer. Increased familiarity is not the answer. And by god, increasing the number of weapons in circulation is definitely not the answer

The answer depends on the question.

If the question is "how can we ensure as far as possible that a mad person does not kill lots of people on campus" then removing guns from circulation may be part of the answer.

If the question is "How do we balance the rights of the vast majority of responsible individuals who for one reason or another wish to own firearms, and are doing no harm, in so doing, against protecting the public at large from nutter" then I think there is room for debate.

What it seems to me your post illustrates is the mindset that is the ultimate end point of the gun control lobby, namely the easy equation that guns=bad. We have gone down this route in the UK too, where now next to nobody is familar with guns at all, so that armed response units are sometimes called out to children playing with water pistols, because the public had been so conditioned that anything gunshaped is bound to be dangerous and criminal. And perfectly legal hunters have, de facto if not de jure, to phone their local police before going out on their land, so that when the inevitable panicked calls that "There's a man with a gun in a field" come into the station, the police know not to send a firearms unit.

Naturally this state of general ignorance means that there will never be any chance at all that our laws will be liberalised. Hooray, say the gun control nuts, although even this has not satisfied them, and they continue to try to restrict even the very tightly regulated gun ownership that is left. Like other fanatics, you can never satisfy them, no gun control will be tight enough for them.

So I'd say to the US that the UK and Australia are not necessarily the model to follow.

[Don Corleone]

Thank you EA, for a very measured, considerate response. And I agree with you. I don't even have a problem with registering firearms (this is where Xiahou is gonna smack me one). I understand the argument that registering guns leaves a laundry list for when the gun-grabbers finally get approval to seize guns, but frankly, if it comes to that, they'll just do door-to-door searches on every NRA member or anybody that's passed a background check in the past 10 years.

Sapi, I don't know what to tell you mate. I've been around and around and around this block so many times, I'm tired of hearing my arguments, I can only imagine how you feel about them. You seem to be intent on focusing on a tiny fraction of cases and using it as anecdotal evidence to deprive a large segment of the population their fundamental right to self-protection. I personally think responsible, law abiding people should be free to exercise their constitutional rights, and passing all the laws in the world isn't going to make a criminal behave. So as crazed and lunatic fringe as that sounds to you, I guess it's a good thing you live in Oz and I live in the USA, as each of us has the policies in place we desire. :bow:

[Major Robert Dump]

I have to admit, the ATF firearms hotline is a bit of a sham. It has no relevant way to verify whether or not the applicant is facing non-felony domestic abuse charges, taking medications, or dishonrably discharged from the military. The database may pick these things up after the gun has been purchased and taken home, but during the momet of truth in the gun store it all depends on the honesty of the buyer

[gunslinger]

:I'm inclined to think that it's something to do with the American psyche, a focus on 'rights' rather than responsibilities, but some people (and I'm not necessarily referring to anyone who's posted in this thread) take this whole line of thought way too far.

I think that for a significant percentage of the pro-gun crowd in America, the issue of "responsibilities" is what actually drives them to protect their rights. I feel a responsibility to protect myself, to protect my family, and even to protect you if you are a perfect stranger who is being victimized right in front of me, and this responsibilty goes beyond simply making a phone call and standing by until the police arrive several minutes later. I think that this is a common attitude among Americans, at least outside of the big cities. That is why we don't want our right to bear arms taken away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But what comes across quite clearly from this interview is that a relatively uninvasive form of gun control, the "waiting period," would have prevented this killer from taking the action he did.

Are you talking VT shootings? Where the guy bought his first gun months ago?

Oh, I see you're talking about this other guy. I still don't support waiting periods. Also - waiting periods for handguns are more common than for rifles, like this Wayne guy bought. I wouldn't take him as expert on motivation for school shooters; he actually surrendered to police.


As Denis Leary so wisely said:

"If you're the kind of person that can't wait two weeks to buy a handgun, then you're exactly the type of person who needs to wait two weeks to buy a handgun..."

So a woman who needs to protect herself from an abusive ex-husband is screwed. I guess they just need to wait to weeks. Want to defend your home from a escalating riot or imminent looters? You're also screwed. Yay! While criminals don't give a crap about waiting periods at all.


I also find it strange that at 18 you can buy a gun, but not rent a car. I believe it's the same in Canada.
But you can buy a car.


On one side, you have the guys who don't want any controls; no regulations, no registration, no licenses, no nothing.

That's not so crazy. Licenses, registrations, and regulations are mostly crap. Basically, I think law abiding citizens should be able to purchase, hassle free, any small arms they want. Instant background checks would be okay.


On the other side, you have the airy-fairys who want absolutely no guns, nowhere, nohow.

That is, as you say, naive.


I suspect, just like abortion, the vast majority of the population falls somewhere in between each of the two camps, but nobody in politics listens to the middle.

I suspect most lean towards the first camp, this being America.


OH, damn, saw a documentary but can't find a link. Anyway, the long and the short of it was, the gunstores in some American town all agreed to stop selling $80 saturday night specials. The cheapest guns they carried were quality handguns starting at about $300.

So, no guns for the poor then? Got to keep the peasants down, eh?


@ DC, I've moved a bit on this issue over the years, and now I'm not sure that your concern about gun registration isn't well founded.
Considering it does basically nothing to fight crime, while providing the gov't when a quick list of who owns what, and states in the USA have taken advantage of this to sieze guns banned years after they were registered, I think it is antithetical to liberty.


But its hard to argue against permits for gun purchases (number and identify of guns not to be recorded). After all, you agree that there have to be background checks for mental illness and criminal record, which is about the same thing.

Permits? Bah! I agree with instant background checks, but not permits whatsoever.


Surely some sort of system where you apply for a permit, your medical and criminal records are checked, and then you are issued with a photo-ID permit good for, say, a year, to buy guns and ammunition, would be advisable? No central record of who had applied for permits need be kept, (indeed it could be made illegal to keep those records) and it need not be a condition of continued ownership of either guns or ammunition that you have an in force permit, only if you want to make another purchase.

Why? The idea that you have to pay to exercise a right is absurd. This would do nothing to fight crime. A instant background check would be better - they are updated more often and more convenient for the consumer, and less government control of your life.


Also, you can't drink until you are 21, but you can buy firearms at 18? Very odd. Lower the drinking age immediately !

Agreed. And the handgun buying age.


After all, what use is having a right if it's not used responsibly?
Take the right from the one who abuses it, not me.


And perfectly legal hunters have, de facto if not de jure, to phone their local police before going out on their land, so that when the inevitable panicked calls that "There's a man with a gun in a field" come into the station, the police know not to send a firearms unit.

Good grief. I know some guys who legally openly carry pistols in some states and cities will get police called on them. I love being able to go out on my back porch and shoot off a hundred rounds.

The anti-gunners here don't want anyone to know how to use a gun, they want fear. They want fear in the minds of everyone, they want people to be paralyzed when they see a gun.


That said I do believe we are in an era in the U.S. where our society has developed to the point of needing a more firm hand from the feds.

Well, I hope the chains don't rest too heavily on you.

Would certain gun laws stop certain scenarios of school shootings? I suppose so - but I don't believe possible safety benefits are worth giving up liberties.

Also, an interesting study on availability of guns vs violence in countries, that concludes that the amount of firearms in society does not correlate with murder and suicide rates.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives.

Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.”

“The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “What these two seasoned researchers have revealed is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun laws. It seems hardly a coincidence that here in America, the highest crime rates are in places with strict gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. However, in areas here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership violent crime rates are lower.

“The authors note an earlier study by Kates that showed a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, while overall gun ownership increased 103 percent and handgun ownership went up 163 percent,” he continued. “Yet during that period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.”

Get the paper here:

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/

To remind you people who think taking guns away would reduce murder and suicide, gun availability does not correlate with violence!

Now I'm going to go shoot a block of would a bunch of times. Yee-haw!

CR

PS - HoreTore - don't think for a second kids under 21 are deterred from drinking.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....ah the quiet charm of a comfortably familiar argument.

Sapi:

It may seem odd that you can purchase long-arms or a car at 18 but cannot rent a car, own a handgun in most state, or legally have a beer outside your parent's home, but far more people are killed by teenagers mis-using cars than those mis-using guns; and I believe that holds true per capita and not just with raw numbers. One is a tool designed for deadly effect. The other is a tool designed for transportation. Mis-use of either is to be avoided.

Your other, and far more telling point, regards responsibility. You point to Australia, with good examples regarding the general response following the deaths at Port Arthur. For you, that responsibility was expressed through collective action - the government enacting laws & regulations - as this was thought the best means of providing for the common good. For we'uns in the USA, that sense of collective responsibility is simply not the same. We are a culture storied in the myth of the rugged individual and our responses to any issue of public concern often take on a very individualist framework. You suggest that the government decreasing the number of guns in circulation can only serve to decrease the risks associated with their prevelance. Working from EXACTLY the same data/scenarios, Rabbit and other who are "pro" gun will claim the polar opposite. The cultural and intellectual framework we bring to the problem -- and our experience of government action in this culture -- suggests that government simply cannot do the job, that the government can only react after the issue is resolved, and that defense must therefore rest with the individual if safety is to be achieved.


Horetore:

You are correct that sweeping efforts at gun contrl would decrease or eliminate the number of VT-type horror stories that crop up. However, for gun control to work at that kind of absolutist level would involve the confiscation of all working firearms. Not only would that require a constitutional ammendment to give the government that power, but I suspect that even if such an ammendment were passed the result would be civil war and not dis-armament.

As you were raised in a culture that disdains firearms (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong), I have been raised in a culture where our nation came into being -in good part - because of the private ownership of firearms. Our earliest heros were the frontier scouts and hunters -- Rogers, Boone, Crockett, Bridger -- and our revolutionary war heros -- Washington, Hamilton, Allen, Marion. For all of them, firearms were a primary tool and basic to their success.

Btw, the vast majority of our teens do not shoot people, and certainly do not do so as an alternative to drinking. Our older teens actually manage to consume just as much, and quite possibly more, alcohol than do their Euro counterparts -- though illegal, it is quite popular. Prohibition rarely works, and never works quite as it is intended.

[Tribesman]

Get the paper here:

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/

To remind you people who think taking guns away would reduce murder and suicide, gun availability does not correlate with violence!

have you read it Rabbit ?
It is actually a better paper than another similar one which is often cited on gun sites .

[sapi]

Take the right from the one who abuses it, not me.
Taking the right from someone who abuses it just isn't going to work, because in most cases you only know who to take said right away from after they have already committed the offence.

Once that's happened, it's far, far too late to do anything.


It may seem odd that you can purchase long-arms or a car at 18 but cannot rent a car, own a handgun in most state, or legally have a beer outside your parent's home, but far more people are killed by teenagers mis-using cars than those mis-using guns; and I believe that holds true per capita and not just with raw numbers. One is a tool designed for deadly effect. The other is a tool designed for transportation. Mis-use of either is to be avoided.Very true (although in many places you can in fact have a beer outside your parent's place at 18 :grin2:)

However, while both a gun and a car are tools that, if misused, can lead to deaths, one is a necessity in the modern world and the other, while it may be argued as such, is in fact not one.

Would a gun really be necessary if it wasn't for the vicious cycle of armament?

And yes, I do understand that it's far too late to break that now, so again, you're right.


Your other, and far more telling point, regards responsibility. You point to Australia, with good examples regarding the general response following the deaths at Port Arthur. For you, that responsibility was expressed through collective action - the government enacting laws & regulations - as this was thought the best means of providing for the common good. For we'uns in the USA, that sense of collective responsibility is simply not the same. We are a culture storied in the myth of the rugged individual and our responses to any issue of public concern often take on a very individualist framework. You suggest that the government decreasing the number of guns in circulation can only serve to decrease the risks associated with their prevelance. Working from EXACTLY the same data/scenarios, Rabbit and other who are "pro" gun will claim the polar opposite. The cultural and intellectual framework we bring to the problem -- and our experience of government action in this culture -- suggests that government simply cannot do the job, that the government can only react after the issue is resolved, and that defense must therefore rest with the individual if safety is to be achieved.Again, that's very true, but it still would not be the case if guns were in circulation, as you wouldn't need to defend yourself with guns.

As things stand today, of course, that point is indefensible, and I freely admit that.

The sad truth, unfortunately, is that the only way to take action against guns and those who use them in the modern world is through unified action, something that is simply not going to happen.

As things stand, the only thing that really can be done is to provide educational awareness to everyone of what these weapons can do, and teach people not necessarily how to use them but what using them on another person can and will do.

As has been stated, a gun is a far more detached method of killing someone than practically any other (except modern missiles and bombs, which I sincerely hope no deranged individual ever gets their hands on :beam:) and so in order to teach people about them the disconnection between shooter and victim must be broken.

I honestly can't say how though...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Perhaps we should consider the school shooting in Virginia tech a terrorist attack, and let the CIA and USA army solve this type of problem, which they have a lot of experience in after the Iraq war?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Would a gun really be necessary if it wasn't for the vicious cycle of armament?

This isn't quite right really, though, is it? I think it would be quite useful to have a gun if you were a 5'2" woman attacked by some 6'8" criminal who spends most of his free time polishing his abs in the gym-even if said aggressor was unarmed. Or even if you were just on ordinary bloke attacked by such a man.

[BigTex]

As has been stated, a gun is a far more detached method of killing someone than practically any other (except modern missiles and bombs, which I sincerely hope no deranged individual ever gets their hands on ) and so in order to teach people about them the disconnection between shooter and victim must be broken.

How is a gun no more impersonal then a blade? Most samuri would consider their swords to have their own spirits, and believed they did not kill the blade choose too. Throughout europe swords have been named, they have been given personality to allow one to detach. A dagger is no more impersonal then a 9mm. You pull the trigger you see them wounded, bleeding, and screaming. You cannot call that detached.A person who can disconnect that from their actions can disconnect from any other weapon also.

Total or even harsh bans on guns are impossible in the US. We have a large rural population many of which need guns for protection. Having lived in Northern CA, puma's will lay on top of your house at night, hunt and stalk your dogs. In Texas there are coyote's aligators and wild boar. Guns are a fact of life.

Banning guns will of course stop "gun related deaths" no brainer there. The problem is the deaths will merely occur with different weapons. As has been seen in the UK the number of knifings has skyrocketed after the strict regulation of guns. With the availibility of high amonium nitrate fertilizers banning guns will lead to more use of bombs, something that will cause far more deaths.


Also, you can't drink until you are 21, but you can buy firearms at 18? Very odd. Lower the drinking age immediately !

So you can die for your country and yet not drink a drop of alochol legally, sad really. So they can die to protect you but cannot buy a gun to protect themselves?

[sapi]

This isn't quite right really, though, is it? I think it would be quite useful to have a gun if you were a 5'2" woman attacked by some 6'8" criminal who spends most of his free time polishing his abs in the gym-even if said aggressor was unarmed. Or even if you were just on ordinary bloke attacked by such a man.I don't think that shooting dead attackers in the street is quite the solution to that problem :grin2:



How is a gun no more impersonal then a blade? Most samuri would consider their swords to have their own spirits, and believed they did not kill the blade choose too. Throughout europe swords have been named, they have been given personality to allow one to detach. A dagger is no more impersonal then a 9mm. You pull the trigger you see them wounded, bleeding, and screaming. You cannot call that detached.A person who can disconnect that from their actions can disconnect from any other weapon also.
It takes strength and skill to use a sword or any other type of blunt or blade weapon; anyone can pull the trigger of a gun...


Total or even harsh bans on guns are impossible in the US. We have a large rural population many of which need guns for protection. Having lived in Northern CA, puma's will lay on top of your house at night, hunt and stalk your dogs. In Texas there are coyote's aligators and wild boar. Guns are a fact of life.In rural areas, yes, that's as much a fact of life as it is here.

But I don't think that there are many pumas or wild boar in a big city....



Banning guns will of course stop "gun related deaths" no brainer there. The problem is the deaths will merely occur with different weapons. As has been seen in the UK the number of knifings has skyrocketed after the strict regulation of guns. With the availibility of high amonium nitrate fertilizers banning guns will lead to more use of bombs, something that will cause far more deaths.Knifings increased because they were the next easily avaliable weapon, yes, but the fact remains that you couldn't go on a 30 person killing rampage with a knife.


So you can die for your country and yet not drink a drop of alochol legally, sad really. So they can die to protect you but cannot buy a gun to protect themselves?Are you suggesting that soldiers deserve special dispensation and exemption from any gun control legislation that might hypothetically be in place?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I don't think that shooting dead attackers in the street is quite the solution to that problem

Not a long term solution, no. But you avoided the thrust of my point. It would be useful to have a gun in that situation, yes?


As has been seen in the UK the number of knifings has skyrocketed after the strict regulation of guns.

While it's true that the number of kinfings has risen, I think this is a case of correlation, not causation. Even before the government game down hard on handguns, the UK was not like The US in that respect. Very few people owned them anyway(legally-I can't speak for the criminal fraternity)-I never saw a handgun, or knew of anyone who owned one, before the ban.

[sapi]

Not a long term solution, no. But you avoided the thrust of my point. It would be useful to have a gun in that situation, yes?
Yes, it would be useful to have a gun in that situation.

It would also be useful to have a gun if you had homicidal tendencies, and I'm afraid that that group of people, too, are celebrating the current gun laws.

A society which automatically thinks of a gun as a way to defend against crime has some serious problems above and beyond the obvious...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

It would also be useful to have a gun if you had homicidal tendencies, and I'm afraid that that group of people, too, are celebrating the current gun laws.

If I had homicidal tendencies I think I would probably prefer to commit my murders somewhere where the population weren't tooled up and packing heat. So I'm not sure this is true either.

I don't want to give the impression I'm some kind of rabid survivalist; I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit here. This an issue I stand very much on the fence on-I've certainly never felt I needed a handgun to be safe, and I think that that is a good situation to be in. However, I do recognise that different gun laws work better in different countries, and that guns do have a utility for people who aren't criminals. I can also appreciate the argument from liberty that most Americans cite.

Ultimately, the only way we're ever going to resolve this is to completely legalise guns in somewhere like the UK and observe the consequences. Which will never happen.

[sapi]

I don't want to give the impression I'm some kind of rabid survivalist. This an issue I stand very much on the fence on-I've certainly never felt I needed a handgun to be safe, and I think that that is a good situation to be in. However, I do recognise that different gun laws work better in different countries, and that guns do have a utility for people who aren't criminals. I can also appreciate the argument from liberty that most Americans cite.Yeh, I can see where you're coming from here :bow:

I guess I just believe that state stability and safety is more important than personal freedoms in cases like these, which isn't likely to be a popular viewpoint.


Ultimately, the only way we're ever going to resolve this is to completely legalise guns in somewhere like the UK and observe the consequences. Which will never happen....Who knows? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Note to everyone acting as though college kids carrying guns will cause more deaths - in Utah a student with a permit to carry can carry their pistol to class. So let's not be so quick about assumptions.


You mean like in 1966 when Charles Whitman gunned down 16 and wounded thirty-something students?


Ah, the guy who was slowed by students, teachers, and others shooting back at him with rifles from university grounds?


A society which automatically thinks of a gun as a way to defend against crime has some serious problems above and beyond the obvious...

So, something beyond being logical and practical? Not avant-garde enough to use a cell phone to tell the cops to come pick up your body?


If I had homicidal tendencies I think I would probably prefer to commit my murders somewhere where the population weren't tooled up and packing heat. So I'm not sure this is true either.

I don't want to give the impression I'm some kind of rabid survivalist; I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit here.

Well, I applaud you for keeping a more open mind than many British do about firearms. And don't worry - to Americans at least, you don't seem like a rabid survivalist. You'd need several rifles and to live in Idaho way out in the boonies to be considered that. And to be worried about UN conspiracies.


It is actually a better paper than another similar one which is often cited on gun sites .
Out of curiosity, what is that paper that is worse in your opinion? Many different ones are quoted on gun cites.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Out of curiosity, what is that paper that is worse in your opinion?
To take a really wild guess I would say that it is the one you read when on two occasions you named countries that have banned guns that don't in fact have gun bans .:yes:

[Don Corleone]

Come on Tribesman, you're playing verbal games, and not very good ones at that. Technically, yes, Jamaica throws people in jail for unlicensed firearms. But as a practical matter, all firearms are unlicensed because unless you're in the government or can afford to bribe somebody who is, you'll never get a license.

That's like saying as the dictator of a country, I allow for a free press. But if every article that gets printed has to have my personal approval, and no article I disagree with gets printed, how free is it?

Tribesman's busting your chops CR, but it really amounts to loose language. Change your statement to 'for all practical purposes have banned guns' and you can put an end to this foolishness.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As effectively as Tribes' pounces on imprecise language, he'd make a heck of a public defender.

[scooter_the_shooter]

A society which automatically thinks of a gun as a way to defend against crime has some serious problems above and beyond the obvious...

You talk to the crazed axe murderer inside your house and analyze his feelings. I'll keep my gp100 thank you.




I guess I just believe that state stability and safety is more important than personal freedoms in cases like these, which isn't likely to be a popular viewpoint. You would make a fine subject!







It would also be useful to have a gun if you had homicidal tendencies,

It'd also be useful to have something to barricade the doors in a populated building, some gasoline and a match.....nut jobs bent on killing are just that.....nut jobs bent on killing and they're going to try to kill.

[Tribesman]

Come on Tribesman, you're playing verbal games, and not very good ones at that.
Ah but Don the good doctors paper makes very specific claims . Jamaica and Ireland have completely banned guns:yes:
That happens to be completely false . Since Rabbit has made the same claims about those two countries in the past I am guessing that his source was that paper .

[Ironside]

You talk to the crazed axe murderer inside your house and analyze his feelings. I'll keep my gp100 thank you.


Here's a hint for you, the problem is that you actually consider this as a realistic scenario that's worth protecting against.

Or to put it differently, getting a gun against zombies when half the world has been overrun by them is a smart thing, but preparing for a zombie invasion today is nuts.

So either you need a gun to protect yourself from a irrational fear, which is problematic, or you're protacting yourself from a rational fear which is very problematic, but the problems are on very different planes.

[English assassin]

I never saw a handgun, or knew of anyone who owned one, before the ban.

And that is why they were banned. No one knew enough to question the need for the ban, and the law abiding people who were going to have the property and hobby taken from them were too small a group to matter.

The Dunblane massacre was appalling and it was absolutely right to ask "how do we stop this recurring". But because of the UK public's convenient ignorance/fear of anything gun related, built up over the years by measures designed to make it really quite hard to try out shooting to see if you might like it as a pastime, it was easy to sell the solution of banning handguns. (Just to make this really stupid, the Tories set out banning all handguns except .22LR target pistols, which at least did have the small merit of covering the guns Hamilton actually owned. Then labour extended the ban to .22 LR pistols, thereby outlawing competitive sport shooting. Why? There was no why, but the the public, a pistol is a pistol.)

A better informed public might have queried whether this was the best solution. A better informed public might have thought that there were, maybe, some pretty hard questions to be answered by the police firearms licensing team who had allowed Hamilton to keep his weapons, when their own beat officers were telling them he was a danger. In the states those questions might have been asked. Hell, there might even have been the kick up the bum of a law suit.

I'm pretty relaxed about the firearms laws we have in the UK, tight though they are, (although target pistol should be brought back) but the real problem isn't that firearms are tightly controlled. That's Ok for us, (although I am ****** off that even the tightest laws in the world aren't enough for Gun Control Network, who daily argue from crimes committed with illegally held guns that legally held guns should be removed.) The real problem for us is that the result of the tight control is a population so fearful of guns, and so likely to regard any form of shooting, even a farmer using a 12 bore for pest control, as dangerous and wrong, that you can't have a sensible discussion on the issues. The shooting organisations have been too slow to pick up on this. Once air rifles/pistols go on ticket, as will surely happen sooner or later thanks to chavs shooting cats, that will be it for shooting in the UK, as the one remaining "feeder" to other shooting disciplines will be removed.

Its really the same problem as the states has in reverse. Hence, probably why these dicussions in the backroom rarely progress

[Don Corleone]

Well, if it helps at all EA, you've given me a peek behind the curtain. Thus far, in what, three years of debating the 2nd ammendment here in the backroom, one recurring question has plagued me. "Why do Europeans care so much about the private property and self defense rights of citizens an ocean away?"

In reading your last post, it finally occurred to me. There's an entire generation of young, intelligent thoughtful Europeans that actually do respect personal liberties. But to them, the idea that owning a gun actually rises to the level of a personal liberty, on par with voting in the election or writing a contentious letter to the editor, simply does not register with them.

Your average young, educated European for example, has lived his entire thinking life in a timeframe when shooting in Europe has been mostly outlawed. To him, a rational, wise, thinking young man, nobody owns guns except for criminals themselves. Why on Earth would law abiding citizens even care about gun control in the first place? Decent people simply wouldn't own firearms, even were they to be fully legalized in all forms tomorrow. Am I right?

So when he sees arguments from somebody like myself, who actually owns guns and keeps them in the house, I must come across as a bit of a nutter (to use your parlance) in the first place. Sure, he can mentally grasp that Don Corleone isn't really in the Corleone family and is a decent enough chap. And that view is the dominant one outside of gun control threads. But I imagine that gun control threads are a bit unnerving to your average European male <25. They're forced to reconcile two gut level instincts: I know this person to be decent; but only criminals own guns and this guy is fully admitting he owns guns and what's more, he seems to want everyone else to as well....

Well, I don't know that this will help progress the arguments any further. But at least I now can empathize with the opposition a bit. I've always thought it was a simple matter of "I don't care what your rights are, I don't care how law abiding you are, I don't care if all gun violence is committed with firearms that are already illegal, I want to ban firearms, logic be damned." So, in short, I hope I remember the epiphany I received from reading your post the next time I'm involved in one of these debates. I may not change my views of the issue at all, but I should at the very least be able to change my view of my opposition.

Note: I used BKS as an archetypal educated European young man. I meant no disrepsect and in fact, I don't believe his personal views on gun control are even as strongly held as some. Should he disagree with the characterization or being used as a role model, I'll be more than happy to change my reference to a nameless figure.

[English assassin]

That's a big part of it I think DC. Remember also that its relatively more unusual in the UK for any of us to serve in the forces, and even the police are unarmed. Scouts are in terminal decline (and probably don't do shooting any more), likewise Army cadets (which was my first time shooting), etc.

Unless he grows up on a farm, a "normal" person simply won't come across shooting as a pastime at all.

This also means that the huge majority of shooting stories in the media are about crimes, simply because there is very little non-criminal newsworthy shooting related activity going on.

The shooting organisations are getting a bit more organised. I have noticed, for example, three different mass audience TV programmes in the last year in which presenters (two chefs and a survival expert) have allowed themselves to be shown shooting cooking and eating game. This is not by chance. (Thank you Rick Stein, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Ray Mears :2thumbsup: ). And there are programmes to try to introduce people to shooting, but its next to impossible because of the restrictions.

[drone]

Just saw this:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618392,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, many gun control advocates are renewing calls for imposing tighter restrictions on firearms purchases. But the federal government, as it turns out, is having a hard enough time keeping up with current regulations.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is not meeting its own goal for monitoring licensed firearms dealers. At the current rate of inspections, says an ATF spokeswoman, it would take 17 years to inspect all existing license holders. ATF's stated goal is to complete a routine inspection every three years. "At our current staffing levels we are unable to meet that goal," ATF's chief public affairs officer, Sheree Mixell, told TIME.
I knew enforcement was lax, but I didn't know it was this bad. Cracking down on the shady dealers should be the first step, passing new laws won't do anything except add to the jail time after the deed.

[Don Corleone]

Just saw this:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1618392,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

I knew enforcement was lax, but I didn't know it was this bad. Cracking down on the shady dealers should be the first step, passing new laws won't do anything except add to the jail time after the deed.

Preach on, Brother Drone. Let's enforce the laws we already have before we go creating new ones. :yes:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

BKS for example, has lived his entire thinking life in a timeframe when shooting in Europe has been mostly outlawed. To him, a rational, wise, thinking young man, nobody owns guns except for criminals themselves. Why on Earth would law abiding citizens even care about gun control in the first place? Decent people simply wouldn't own firearms, even were they to be fully legalized in all forms tomorrow. Am I right?

Did you read my posts? If this is the impression I gave, I might need to go back and edit them.

[Don Corleone]

Sorry, BKS, I was afraid of that. I actually selected you as a 'young, smart european guy' based on your proven track record of being just that. Perhaps I was better served with my first instinct of 'nameless, faceless generic representative'. I've edited my post along that line.

Actually, if anything, I'm surprised by how accomodating your views on the matter are. Sorry, using you was a very poor choice. (In truth, I picked you more based on how difficult it is to actually offend you then your views per se).

[Ironside]

BKS for example, has lived his entire thinking life in a timeframe when shooting in Europe has been mostly outlawed. To him, a rational, wise, thinking young man, nobody owns guns except for criminals themselves. Why on Earth would law abiding citizens even care about gun control in the first place? Decent people simply wouldn't own firearms, even were they to be fully legalized in all forms tomorrow. Am I right?


If you exclude the hunters and the occational sport shooter you're pretty much correct, the idea of getting a gun for self-defense is very alien for most people here.

As for the answer on this:

"Why do Europeans care so much about the private property and self defense rights of citizens an ocean away?"

Let me put it this way: What happens in the US does usually not stay in the US and people is aware of this.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Don't worry about it. I was just a little confused when I read your post-had to go back through the thread to see if I'd made any rabidly anti-gun control statement.

You're right about me never having had any kind of contact with guns, though. It's something I'd like to rectify at some point, as target shooting sounds like an enjoyable pastime. But there's no way to do it over here, unfortunately.

[Goofball]

You talk to the crazed axe murderer inside your house and analyze his feelings. I'll keep my gp100 thank you.

Ah... The fabled "crazed axe murderer."

I propose a modified version of Godwin's Law, which I will dub "Goofball's Law."

As an online discussion about gun control grows longer, the probability of of a participant invoking the "crazed axe murderer" approaches 1.

I'd like to see some numbers on this because from listening to discussions in here, it would seem that crazed axe murderers breaking in to peoples' homes bent on nothing less than creating middle-class chop-suey are a very common item in the U.S.

[Don Corleone]

Ah... The fabled "crazed axe murderer."

I propose a modified version of Godwin's Law, which I will dub "Goofball's Law."

As an online discussion about gun control grows longer, the probability of of a participant invoking the "crazed axe murderer" approaches 1.

I'd like to see some numbers on this because from listening to discussions in here, it would seem that crazed axe murderers breaking in to peoples' homes bent on nothing less than creating middle-class chop-suey are a very common item in the U.S.

They're actually a cottage industry down here. They've even got a category in the Yellow Pages. Generally, they advertise their services as a revenge-oriented type service. Somebody steals your reserved parking space at work? Well, hire "Charlie". Charlie just got out of the local state hospital, has fully weaned himself off of his medications and specializes in chainsaws, axes and other assorted lawn tools.... :skull:

All kidding aside, regardless of how likely such an occurrence is, Goof, you've yet to convince me that my responsible ownership should be forefit due to the illegal and reckless behavior of others. In short, using your arguments, I'd like to make the argument to bring back Prohibition. And in the spirit of respect for autonomy of other nations that you and others have shown, I insist that the UN pass this initiative on a global basis. After all, far more people die from alcohol related incidents each year than firearms, and you don't have a legitimate need for alcohol. You just want it. I'm sorry, there are irresponsible people out there that cannot handle alcohol being freely available, so we must ban it for everyone, worldwide. Then we will all be safe.

[English assassin]

You're right about me never having had any kind of contact with guns, though. It's something I'd like to rectify at some point, as target shooting sounds like an enjoyable pastime. But there's no way to do it over here, unfortunately.

You are at Uni aren't you? There must be a shooting club?

If not, and if you are interested, try http://www.goshooting.org.uk/ but its not a comprehensive list. There's at least three London clubs I know of that aren't listed for a start. Or I could post a query for you on a UK shooting forum I'm a member of, if you wanted.

[Goofball]

They're actually a cottage industry down here. They've even got a category in the Yellow Pages. Generally, they advertise their services as a revenge-oriented type service. Somebody steals your reserved parking space at work? Well, hire "Charlie". Charlie just got out of the local state hospital, has fully weaned himself off of his medications and specializes in chainsaws, axes and other assorted lawn tools.... :skull:

Okay...

That's good stuff...

:laugh4:


All kidding aside, regardless of how likely such an occurrence is, Goof, you've yet to convince me that my responsible ownership should be forefit due to the illegal and reckless behavior of others. In short, using your arguments, I'd like to make the argument to bring back Prohibition. And in the spirit of respect for autonomy of other nations that you and others have shown, I insist that the UN pass this initiative on a global basis. After all, far more people die from alcohol related incidents each year than firearms, and you don't have a legitimate need for alcohol. You just want it. I'm sorry, there are irresponsible people out there that cannot handle alcohol being freely available, so we must ban it for everyone, worldwide. Then we will all be safe.

I understand your point completely Don. When it comes down to it, just about every law in every country that limits freedoms comes down to that very question: Is the limiting of this freedom providing a net benefit to society (or, conversely, is not limiting this freedom providing a net benefit to society)? And there will always be people on both sides of the question no matter what it is. And no, I don't think the onus is on the individual to "prove" the validity of every single freedom. Quite the opposite: If politicians want to limit freedoms, they must vote to do so. Then if they have not made a compelling case that they have done the right thing, they will most certainly lose their jobs to others who will more accurately reflect the will of their constituents.

I personally believe that allowing private ownership of handguns provides no net benefit to society. In fact, I believe that private ownership of handguns provides a net deficit. For that reason, I think ownership of handguns should be criminalized.

Obviously, you disagree.

The problem is that there is no absolute method for quantifying and measuring that net benefit or deficit. If there were, I would like to think that we would not be having this discussion, because whichever one of us that was shown to be incorrect would say "Oh, I guess you're right."

:yes:

[Don Corleone]

I personally believe that allowing private ownership of handguns provides no net benefit to society. In fact, I believe that private ownership of handguns provides a net deficit. For that reason, I think ownership of handguns should be criminalized.

:yes:

Absolutely. By the way, speaking as a drinker myself, I find myself at a loss as to what net benefit society enjoys when I down a Molson or a glass of chianti. Would you care to enlighten me, so that I can confidently set aside my drive for global Prohibition? Otherwise, my sense of concern for the 'kids' has me prioritizing the outlawing of alcohol, which kills far more and provides no net benefit to society, and then moving on to banning handguns, which kills far fewer, but again, doesn't provide a net benefit to society, at least not on the Goofball scale.

[Goofball]

Absolutely. By the way, speaking as a drinker myself, I find myself at a loss as to what net benefit society enjoys when I down a Molson or a glass of chianti. Would you care to enlighten me, so that I can confidently set aside my drive for global Prohibition? Otherwise, my sense of concern for the 'kids' has me prioritizing the outlawing of alcohol, which kills far more and provides no net benefit to society, and then moving on to banning handguns, which kills far fewer, but again, doesn't provide a net benefit to society, at least not on the Goofball scale.

Again, Don, we're going around the same circle.

As I said, there is no way to quantify the net benefit/deficit to society of allowing people to drink booze or own handguns, and that's the problem. Mainly because the benefits offered by either are intangible, so what it comes down to is a decision based on emotion.

I quite enjoy shooting, and have probably put more rounds downrange than many of the avid gun supporters who frequent these boards. But I would give up that freedom without thinking about it if it meant that my son and daughter could go through their entire lives never having to even see a gun. (As a side note, I and my son, who is now three and a half, were visiting some friends who have a 7 year old a couple of months ago. When my friend's son offered my son a toy rifle to play with, my son came running over to show me the "rocket-ship" his friend had lent him. Brought a tear to my eye.)

As far as the comparison between guns and booze goes, it always comes back to this for me:

Guns, when used as intended, are inherently a tool of violence.

Booze, when used as intended, is inherently a tool of enjoying some time with friends on your back deck while grilling steaks and telling lies about women.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guns, when used as intended, are inherently a tool of violence.

So what? A tool of violence is what you want to defend yourself. Society suffers very, very, little from legal ownership of handguns, and, at least in the US, gets good benefits. The vast majority of problems arising from people with guns are people who own guns illegally before they go on to commit more illegal acts - outlawing handgun ownership will do nothing to stop that.


But I would give up that freedom without thinking about it if it meant that my son and daughter could go through their entire lives never having to even see a gun.

You'd give up a freedom just to prevent your children from seeing a mechanical instrument?

CR

[Goofball]

So what? A tool of violence is what you want to defend yourself. Society suffers very, very, little from legal ownership of handguns, and, at least in the US, gets good benefits. The vast majority of problems arising from people with guns are people who own guns illegally before they go on to commit more illegal acts - outlawing handgun ownership will do nothing to stop that.

The guy who shot up Virginia Tech was using legally purchased handguns for their intended purpose.

When a drunk kills a family with his car, he is using neither the booze nor the car as they were intended.


You'd give up a freedom just to prevent your children from seeing a mechanical instrument?

CR

That particular freedom and that particular mechanical object?

Yep.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Ah... The fabled "crazed axe murderer."

I propose a modified version of Godwin's Law, which I will dub "Goofball's Law."

As an online discussion about gun control grows longer, the probability of of a participant invoking the "crazed axe murderer" approaches 1.

I'd like to see some numbers on this because from listening to discussions in here, it would seem that crazed axe murderers breaking in to peoples' homes bent on nothing less than creating middle-class chop-suey are a very common item in the U.S.


It was an exaggeration goofball. You can substitute it for many things. IE dog attacks (not unrealistic where I live, not long a ago on my street three large dogs attacked an old lady.) to violent burglars.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Again, Don,
I quite enjoy shooting, and have probably put more rounds downrange than many of the avid gun supporters who frequent these boards. But I would give up that freedom without thinking about it if it meant that my son and daughter could through their entire lives never have to even see a gun. (As a side note, I and my son, who is now three and a half, were visiting some friends who have a 7 year old a couple of months ago. When my friend's son offered my son a toy rifle to play with, my son came running over to show me the "rocket-ship" his friend had lent him. Brought a tear to my eye.)

As far as the comparison between guns and booze goes, it always comes back to this for me:

Guns, when used as intended, are inherently a tool of violence.

Booze, when used as intended, is inherently a tool of enjoying some time with friends on your back deck while grilling steaks and telling lies about women.



I am somewhat skeptical of you claiming to have shot more then most pro gun orgahs but there is no way to prove that so.... to the next point.


What's it matter if he sees a gun or not.... will the sight of something as hideous as this (http://www.beaglexp.com/archives/BARBIE1%20(2).jpg) scar him for life? (Yes that is a real gun, no it is not mine)


And how is keeping your kid in the dark from what a toy gun is making you proud? What kind of kid doesn't have a cap gun or super soaker?





What it comes down to for me is. If you don't want a gun, fine no problem good for you, it's your choice. When you try to say other people shouldn't have a gun then there is a problem.

[Tribesman]

I am somewhat skeptical of you claiming to have shot more then most pro gun orgahs but there is no way to prove that so.... to the next point.

That would be rather silly skepticism considering his military career .:dizzy2:

I suppose with your clear logic because I am in favour of stringent firearms regulations I obviously neither own a gun or go shooting .

[scooter_the_shooter]

That would be rather silly skepticism considering his military career .:dizzy2:

I suppose with your clear logic because I am in favour of stringent firearms regulations I obviously neither own a gun or go shooting .



I knew he was in the military and was counting it.


And if you are in favor of strict firearms restrictions on other people.... then why would you shoot? That's like saying "I am against recreational drug use but I like to shoot heroin every once in a while"

[ajaxfetish]

And if you are in favor of strict firearms restrictions on other people.... then why would you shoot? That's like saying "I am against recreational drug use but I like to shoot heroin every once in a while"
Well, not quite. Supporting a total ban on firearms while still using them would indeed be hypocritical, but it would be possible to support strict restrictions while still using firearms, as long as the use was in full compliance with the restrictions the individual advocated.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

And if you are in favor of strict firearms restrictions on other people.... then why would you shoot?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: You just don't get it do you:dizzy2:
You appear to be stuck in a gun nut rut

[gunslinger]

I quite enjoy shooting, and have probably put more rounds downrange than many of the avid gun supporters who frequent these boards. But I would give up that freedom without thinking about it if it meant that my son and daughter could go through their entire lives never having to even see a gun.

My first thought here was to agree with you. If I could majically make ALL of the guns dissapear, then no one would need a gun, and it would be ok to ban them. Then I thought of the proverbial 98 pound weakling, and I decided that I would probably want to make a gun reappear for him if he and his wife were facing a rapist 3 times his size and wielding a knife or baseball bat.


(As a side note, I and my son, who is now three and a half, were visiting some friends who have a 7 year old a couple of months ago. When my friend's son offered my son a toy rifle to play with, my son came running over to show me the "rocket-ship" his friend had lent him. Brought a tear to my eye.)

I have a similar story that nearly brought a tear to my eye. My Dad was showing my four year old son a toy gun that shoots little suction cup darts. Dad told him to pull the trigger on the gun, and my son said, "Daddy says you should never pull the trigger on a gun! You're supposed to squeeeeze the trigger."

[ShadeHonestus]

Just a thought but going by some people's statements on this topic and others....

By principles of argument put forth in the legalizing of drugs, shouldn't the legal restricted ownership of guns work by that same principle. However I do see many who favor legalized drugs also in favor of extremely strict gun laws. I'm just curious as to these positions not being mutually exclusive.

I believe its safe to say that as the illegality of firearms increases the ability of the criminal element to leverage deadly force against an unarmed populace also increases.

[Lemur]

However I do see many who favor legalized drugs also in favor of extremely strict gun laws. I'm just curious as to these positions not being mutually exclusive.
A paradoxical political position? Heaven forfend! Next thing you'll tell me that the people who favor abortion rights don't support capital punishment, or that capital punishment supporters don't endorse euthanasia. Or you'll tell me that the candidates who reference Jesus don't give a darn about the poor and destitute. How many paradoxes can my tiny lemur brain take?

[ShadeHonestus]

A paradoxical political position? Heaven forfend!

Calm down Beavis.

Of course not heaven forfend. The others you listed are brought to bear and express themselves at every corner of the American Politic where there is believed relevancy (and sometimes not). I'm only pointing out this one, in this relative discussion, and wish for those within this paradoxical struggle to express their position and how they personally and politically reconcile the two.

[Banquo's Ghost]

By principles of argument put forth in the legalizing of drugs, shouldn't the legal restricted ownership of guns work by that same principle. However I do see many who favor legalized drugs also in favor of extremely strict gun laws. I'm just curious as to these positions not being mutually exclusive.

Doesn't seem paradoxical to me. Let's face it, if everyone's off their heads on drugs, you hardly want them heavily armed as well...

:wink3:

[Goofball]

I am somewhat skeptical of you claiming to have shot more then most pro gun orgahs but there is no way to prove that so.... to the next point.

I can think of single days where I probably did more shooting than some recreational shooters would do in an entire year. Live fire defensive exercises are a lot of fun.


What's it matter if he sees a gun or not.... will the sight of something as hideous as this (http://www.beaglexp.com/archives/BARBIE1%20(2).jpg) scar him for life? (Yes that is a real gun, no it is not mine)

No, the sight of a gun would not scar him. The underlying point is that if he never sees a gun he will never shoot one at another person, or have another person shoot one at him.


And how is keeping your kid in the dark from what a toy gun is making you proud? What kind of kid doesn't have a cap gun or super soaker?

My kind of kid. What kind of kid needs a toy gun? My kid is perfectly happy with toy trains, toy construction equipment, toy airplanes, and a big stack of picturebooks. I see no need for toy guns. I don't even think the words "toy" and "gun" should ever be used together. Guns are not toys and should never be presented as such.


What it comes down to for me is. If you don't want a gun, fine no problem good for you, it's your choice. When you try to say other people shouldn't have a gun then there is a problem.

My position is not that nobody should be allowed to have any guns. My position is that certain types of people should not be allowed to have any guns, and certain types of guns should not be owned by any people.


Just a thought but going by some people's statements on this topic and others....

By principles of argument put forth in the legalizing of drugs, shouldn't the legal restricted ownership of guns work by that same principle. However I do see many who favor legalized drugs also in favor of extremely strict gun laws. I'm just curious as to these positions not being mutually exclusive.

Not mutually exclusive at all.

I am in favor of strict gun control, under which the government would regulate what type of guns could be sold to whom, and would implement (and enforce) severe penalties for anybody owning or selling guns illegally.

I am also in favor of strict drug control, under which the government would regulate what type of drugs could be sold to whom, and would implement (and enforce) severe penalties for anybody owning or selling drugs illegally. As opposed to the current regime where they simply criminalize the sale and possession of most drugs.

Funnily enough, most police forces seem to agree with me on both counts.

[scooter_the_shooter]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: You just don't get it do you:dizzy2:
You appear to be stuck in a gun nut rut



Tribes I understand what your saying and know people who think like that but I still find the "you can have guns but only the kind I approve of" attitude ridiculous..... how much more of a jackass can you be? (not directed at anyone in this thread)

[Tribesman]

Now then Scooter , talking of ridiculous .
You recently used a little slogan in a gun-topic , some fat bloke made it quite famous when he featured moses saying it in a sort of documentary .
In my opinion anyone who could seriously express that intent is exactly the type of person who should have their access to firearms very severly restricted .

I would even go as far as saying that anyone with such a mindset about an innanimate object would really need close supervision by a responsible adult before you let them use a pair of scissors .

[Goofball]

Tribes I understand what your saying and know people who think like that but I still find the "you can have guns but only the kind I approve of" attitude ridiculous..... how much more of a jackass can you be? (not directed at anyone in this thread)

Good, solid argument, that...

[ShadeHonestus]

Doesn't seem paradoxical to me. Let's face it, if everyone's off their heads on drugs, you hardly want them heavily armed as well....

And likewise with a nation full of guns you hardly want everyone to have free access to copius amounts of narcotics. :beam:



Not mutually exclusive at all.

I am in favor of strict gun control, under which the government would regulate what type of guns could be sold to whom, and would implement (and enforce) severe penalties for anybody owning or selling guns illegally.

I am also in favor of strict drug control, under which the government would regulate what type of drugs could be sold to whom, and would implement (and enforce) severe penalties for anybody owning or selling drugs illegally. As opposed to the current regime where they simply criminalize the sale and possession of most drugs.

Funnily enough, most police forces seem to agree with me on both counts.

I understand your points, but at what point do you limit drug consumption and how? Background checks? Waiting period? How do you control the illegal resale when we can't even do that with food stamps?

[Goofball]

I understand your points, but at what point do you limit drug consumption and how? Background checks? Waiting period? How do you control the illegal resale when we can't even do that with food stamps?

Much like alcohol, I would be fine with drug consumption being limited to adults. On this side of the coin, I am more concerned with taking the criminal element out of the production and distribution of drugs.

[ShadeHonestus]

Much like alcohol, I would be fine with drug consumption being limited to adults. On this side of the coin, I am more concerned with taking the criminal element out of the production and distribution of drugs.

I was under the impression from your previous post...



I am also in favor of strict drug control, under which the government would regulate what type of drugs could be sold to whom.

...that you were for strict drug control. How well have we done limiting alcohol consumption to adults? By the same definition of strict will guns be opened up to all adults?

[Goofball]

I was under the impression from your previous post...



...that you were for strict drug control. How well have we done limiting alcohol consumption to adults? By the same definition of strict will guns be opened up to all adults?

They already are.

[ShadeHonestus]

They already are.

Well they most certainly are not. I was in an establishment in Idaho back in 97 when a U.S. Senator came in and was refused a gun on the basis of his background check. As far as being on topic with the "school shootings" I'm sure you know that had the judge not ordered the gentleman at VT to be placed in voluntary treatment as opposed to being ordered involuntary treatment it would have been red flagged under the background check and he would have been refused the gun purchases he made.

Not to say he couldn't have acquired them illegally with enough diligence.