posted
In this excerpt from Bowling For Columbine (at around 4:30) The estimated average annual gun deaths in Germany are 381; France 255; Canada 165; the UK 68; Australia 65; Japan 39; and never one to think small 11,127 in the US. But that's Michael Moore who is absolutely wrong 100% of the time and is also fat.
I'm pretty sure I don't think guns should be banned outright. But I do like the idea of making certain that the people who own them know how to properly secure and use them. And with the annual inspection thing.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
how about a nice sane limit of two or three guns per person? Currently, hundreds (if not thousands) own more than 100 firearms. How about a yearly mental inspection on those people?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
I don't think one person owning one gun or a hundred guns is going to change anything. Because even if he were a psycho, he'd never be able to carry them all loaded with ammunition.
I don't think guns are the issue, it's the people who get thier hands on them. Even if handguns were completely banned, and a criminal offense to own one, it won't stop a criminal who is already outside the law. What's one more law to them? It might make it harder for them to acquire a gun, but it would make it a lot safer to force thier way into someones home or business when they don't have to worry whether or not the victim is packing a little friend.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Limitimg the number of firearms a person can own would curb the rampant illegal resale of said firearms. Thousands of guns are reported "lost or stolen" each year- many by the same owners year after year. As there's no legislation preventing those "owners" from buying more firearms for their (cough "collection", the cycle continues.
Not to mention all the states where guns can be bought legally (mostly at gun shows) without any background check- all that's needed is proof of permit.
If you've never been to one, gun shows are scary places of seriously right-wing and extremist points of view. The last show I went to (with a military friend looking for a handgun for his wife for while he ws on active duty) had a giant nazi flag on the all facing the entrance.
Just the kind of nuts we want trading easily updradable automatic weapons.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Reminds me of Marc Maron talking about going to a gun show & feels lout of place because he's Jewish.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Limitimg the number of firearms a person can own would curb the rampant illegal resale of said firearms. Thousands of guns are reported "lost or stolen" each year- many by the same owners year after year. As there's no legislation preventing those "owners" from buying more firearms for their (cough "collection", the cycle continues.
Not to mention all the states where guns can be bought legally (mostly at gun shows) without any background check- all that's needed is proof of permit.
If you've never been to one, gun shows are scary places of seriously right-wing and extremist points of view. The last show I went to (with a military friend looking for a handgun for his wife for while he ws on active duty) had a giant nazi flag on the all facing the entrance.
Just the kind of nuts we want trading easily updradable automatic weapons.
Well, I just got told.
But not everyone starts a (cough) "collection" for the sole purpose of illegally selling them. I've never been to a gun show, but I've seen them on the TV once or twice. Mainly to see what they had for WWII era weapons. I was mainly looking at the pieces themselves and not the Dale Gribble wannabes that were displaying them.
Lowering the number of firearms a person can own may be an easy way of reducing illegal resale, but what about the legitimate collectors who have no criminal intent?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
You can have the gun de-milled or have their firing pins removed and still have your collectable without it being a lethal weapon. It's not like you were planning on useing a 50 year-old WWII rifile anyway, right?
And no, most "collectors" dont start a collection with the intent of reselling them, that's just the shield the gun dealers hide behind...and some easy cash when the collection becomes unweildy.
Most gun collectors collect for the same mania that anyone collects anything: they have a certain romantic notion to the subject matter and want all the cool toys for their collection -for bragging rights. Unfortunately, unlike comic books, or baseball cards, guns can kill- and their lethal nature far outlives any benign collector's hobby (I refer more to the guys stockpiling AK-47's than someone collecting WWII or old west memoribilia).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: No way would anyone with a sword/knife/whatever have been able to kill 32 people: anyone tossing a chair would have stopped Cho: that argument does not hold water.
Tossing a chair?
I think a problem here is that people are viewing guns from a point of view of what we might call "gun-fear", instead of what would be more the case of a generic "psycho-weapon-fear". Tossing a chair at a gun-wielding Cho could've been as effective in certain scenarios as tossing a chair at a sword-wielding Cho in those same certain scenarios.
Recall that in the case of many of his victims, which were largely clustered in three or four classrooms, he walked right up to them and used the .22. In some cases simple barricades were effective at blocking entry into the room, though he was able to fire through the windows . . . using a sword or other object to break the glass could've worked also, allowing him to injure the nearby barricaders just as effectively.
In other case, an ROTC student tackled Cho from behind, but still got fatally wounded. I'm sure the gun helped there, but a sharp object could've been as effective.
quote:Nothing points to Cho having the ability to make an explosive- no points there either.
Ability? Making an explosive requires no special ability. The only reason the IEDs in Iraq are effective is because (a) they're frickin' huge and (b) in many cases they are highly developed military-grade items of Iranian manufacture featuring staged explosive penetrator devices.
Again, Cho could probably have killed more people simply by chaining the doors, setting off the fire alarm, waiting for people to get stuck at the doors, and then setting off explosives or simply Molotov'ing everybody.
A loon is a loon, and if he's dead set on mass murder he does not need a gun to make it happen. (9/11 didn't feature a single firearm.)
quote:Even the airline passengers during the 9/11 attacks- in a confined space and against several well trained aggressors (armed with box-cutter knives) managed to mount an effective offense- something they'd probably never have attempted against someone with a gun.
And an armed pilot . . . not to mention passengers not trained to be passive . . . could've halted the terrorists pretty quick. It was only the fact that the Flight 93 folks had learned of what was afoot that day that gave them the impetus to launch their counterattack, and I daresay that move would've been made whether there had been guns or not.
quote:it's a hell of a lot tougher to kill someone with a blade, and they fight back.
A .22 is one of the least lethal firearms to something man-size. People often have this Hollywood image of people dying immediately from any gunshot (unless they need to have some cool last words or reveal some plot point), but the reality is that a small calibre shot to something non-vital kills primarily by bleed-out. There is more of a psychological aspect to being shot, and a difference inasmuch as the compression producing a bit more shock to the area, but you could do the same and worse with a swung blade.
Cho shot people (especially the injured) repeatedly to achieve more kills, while other injured parties ran or, in some cases, tried to draw him away from finishing others. People who'd been seriously stabbed or chopped upon would've fared no better in such a scenario.
A wall of people bum-rushing him would've been as effective against him in a gun scenario or a machete & knife scenario, but I rather doubt anyone was in that mindset other than the ROTC guy at the time.
I am not saying Cho should've been allowed to purchase firearms . . . he was a known nutcase. But taking away everyone's self-defense options just because they can be misused by others isn't going to stop a damn thing.
That's why the UK has its new Violent Crime Prevention Act in the works, despite an existing gun ban . . . the new legislation tries to curb knives.
But what people don't understand is that violent crime is a cultural phenomenon and must be controlled through cultural means. Humans are industrious, and if they have murder in their mind they're going to do it with whatever tools are available.
You can outlaw fire, sticks, pointy things, and nasty chemicals all you like, but people are still going to keep murdering other people so long as a corrupt culture with no respect for others is in place.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Point, but even having a gun de-milled, or even the firing pin, or chamber removed, or even having the barrel sealed, it doesn't take a lot of effort to reactivate it. And who in thier right mind would do that to an antique rifle? I've got a Winchester 1894, it was made in 1898, and it still works, and I still take it to the range once in a while. And I would never have it deactivated. It would like an old car without an engine. Worthless.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Note Jamaica . . . extreme gun control (no guns or bullets for anyone ever), but a murder rate per capita some eight times higher than in the US.
Then I googled their gun laws and found references to their extreme gun control.
But if guns are big bad people-killers that manufacture means, motive, and opportunity in otherwise-innocent gun owners, how are all those Jamaicans dying?
I mean it's one thing when a certain area becomes gun-free and gun crimes still happen. Guns are still available next door, in effect, so it's hardly fair to criticize that.
But in the 60's Hawaii banned guns, yet the murder rate tripled by the mid-70's.
There's also another Hollywood aspect to this, I think. We're so used to the image of the Wild West with everyone having a gun on their hip and shooting one another over card games and having gunfights every other day that the mental association has been made of guns and rampant violent crime. But in reality, events like OK Corral or Billy the Kid stuff became so famous because they were so rare.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
People in Jamaica are dying mostly due to gangs and a severe lack of police. Severe lack of decent jobs, crappy schools and overpopulation in key areas and extreme bigotry and violence towards gays are real issues as well. I've heard several horror stories from friends from Jamacia that make me never want to visit.
But that's Jamaica.
[quote]But what people don't understand is that violent crime is a cultural phenomenon and must be controlled through cultural means. Humans are industrious, and if they have murder in their mind they're going to do it with whatever tools are available.[/i] Agreed, but a huge part of our "culture" is that guns are readily available, easy to use and can be used often without consequences. Almost all action movies /TV shows portray the use of guns without any real-life consequences- it's subtle, but the mentally ill (like Cho obviously was) wont make the distinction: just check the pictures of him happily posing with his handguns- such a sense of power and elation on his face.
Also to Cho himself, that whole "he could've used explosives" still holds no water: explosives are extremely difficult to aquire (100 times tougher than firearms at least) and making your own- even primitave gasoline bombs) is very difficult without killing yourself in the process or having to throw it (molotav cocktail) with yields poor results and usually only makes a fire (which is something that rarely is used as an intentional way of killing someone).
Guns have a fear stigma that other weapons lack- no one charges a nut with a gun becaus you can be shot several times before you're in range to hit them with anything- any other type of weapon can be faced with at least some chance of success.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
You know, ammonia based fertilizer and diesel fuel mix to create ANFO, AKA: Fertilizer Bomb. You can mix it in your bathtub. And fertilizer and diesel fuel aren't that hard to come by, especially in a rural environment. It's very stable, you could mix it with a cement truck. It's usually mixed on site at the mine. There aren't many dangers in the creation phase as a batch underdosed with fuel oil will only produce a weaker blast, while overdosing fuel oil will only produce more fumes after detonation. Some of the more sophisticated formulas can actually yield a better result than TNT. So don't discount his possible use of explosives so readily. He could have easily loaded up a car with the stuff and blown it up in front of the school when all those people were being evacuated. Scary thought no?
You're right that guns have a stigma about them. You're right that no one would charge a nut with a gun. But would that nut be feelin lucky if the guy he was facing also had a gun? If I were a nut I'd think twice about pointing a gun at another armed person.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
He also could have stolen a blimp, filled it with hydrogen and plowed it into a populated area! Except he didn't. He used guns. Guns that, to my knowledge, were purchased legally. It's true that the victims could have purchased their own weapons, and it's also true that he probably would have been less likely to go, guns blazing, into an armed crowd (or at least would have been stopped sooner).
But these hypotheticals miss the point. None of those things happened. The kid went on a kill-crazy rampage and he chose to use guns. Now 32 people are dead. That's pretty good grounds for discussing gun-control.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't understand the arguments being made here. "Take away the guns and he could use [explosives | swords | etc.]". How does that make any sense?
Guns should be controlled. Explosives should be controlled. Weapons in general should be controlled.
Sure, you have to stop somewhere. I'm not advocating for control of box cutters, fingernail clippers, scissors... But, how many people would he have managed to kill with any of those?
The claim that "he could have killed just as many people with x as with guns" is not a convincing argument to stop gun control. It's just a convincing argument to control x, too.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Late to this discussion because gun-control wank tires me, but I thought I'd weigh in on a couple aspects.
Kurt, Those countries' gun-death rates you quoted above? What's that boil down to percentage-wise? I mean, the U.S. has a slightly larger population than those other countries.
Also, yes, he did use guns that he purchased legally (even though he shouldn't have been able to -- indeed, shouldn't have been released from the hospital after he was discovered to be a "danger to himself or others"). You're missing the larger point, though. He was looking into other avenues as well. Hd it not been guns, we might have been hearing a month later about the horrific explosions that killed [xx] people on campus that he had hidden and remote-detonated. The point is: he was determined to go out and take as many with him as he could. Laws don't stop that sort of determination. This is also why I despise the fear-tactics the FedGov and TSA employ in our airports. All that "security" won't stop someone determined to hijack/blow up an airliner.
Gun control all comes down to responsible parenting, and better identification and treatment of people with miswired brains.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
