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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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...

[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...

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

Let's look at the frequency shall we?

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 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]

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.

[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.