A few weeks ago, I was cast in a short film which is a parodical look at action movies and lesbian relationships. My part is as the lovable Asian male sidekick to the evil female lead villainess.
Obviously, this film would use a lot of gunplay, so I spent time rounding up realistic gun replicas (airsoft and the like) from friends. I eventually ended up with almost a dozen pistols and submachineguns, making my home office into a sort of armory. And like any boy with a toy would do, I did indeed spend time looking in the mirror while brandishing a pitsol or two, trying vainly to look like the Hong Kong gangster movie characters I'd been cast to portray. Or James Bond. Or John Wayne.
Then the Virginia Tech shootings happened... And I haven't touched them since. In fact, I was pretty releived to deliver the box full of gun replicas to my producer and have HIM be disgusted by the sight of an Asian guy pointing weapons at people, for a while. I imagine that when this thing has passed, I'll be able to pick up one of those replicas and spent a few shooting days pointing them at hot lesbians in cheerleader outfits. As it stands, I can barely look into the mirror without seeing the face of that coward looking back at me with a gun in hand.
I believe in gun control. I also believe in gradual cultural change that will allow gun control NOT to be roadblocked by enthusiasts, extremists, or people who just like guns. I do not consider myself educated in either side of the gun control debate, but I do firmly beleive that what I'm feeling right now, and my belief in gun control, is not just a natural or kneejerk reaction to tragedies such as the Virginia Tech shootings. So instead, to close out my post and open it to everyone's opinions on this alledgedly hot-button topic, I post something from a West Wing episode I watched on TV a few months ago that really spoke to me:
"But for a brilliant surgical team and two centimeters of a miracle, this guy's dead right now. From bullets fired from a gun bought legally. They bought guns, they loaded 'em, they drove from Wheeling to Rosslyn, and until they pulled the trigger they had yet to commit a crime. I am so off the charts tired of the gun lobby tossing around words like personal freedom and nobody calling 'em on it. It's not about personal freedom. And it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It's just that some people like guns."
Sorkin rocks.
Mark
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Millions of people legally own guns in the US. How many of them are involved in violent crimes? My only regret was that no one was allowed a gun on campus to stop this madman sooner.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
First, Sorkin's quote, while well written, is unfortunately nonsense. Some people liking guns IS personal freedom. What does the think the phrase means?
Second, the constitution of the United States forbids gun control. Some courts have said it doesn't. They need to actually read the damn second amendment. There is NO reading of it, consistent with the rules of English grammar, that doesn't make it perfectly clear that people have a right to own firearms.
Third, the Constitution should be changed to allow gun control (along with a number of other updates). Obviously there is no possible need for a private individual to own an automatic rifle. Background checks should be necessary before buying a weapon. Safety training should be mandatory. Some of these things may already be laws. Some may be laws and not be enforced. I don't know, but that's a bare minimum of sane safety.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
1. The way I've interpreted it is that he was talking about the freedom to buy and own guns, and how this can subsequently lead to gun crime. Anyone can like guns. NOT anyone should be able to buy or own them.
2. Agreed, as archaic as it is.
3. Agreed, as impossible as some seem to make it out.
To be fair, Canada's gun registration act has also met with intense resistance (especially out here in the west) and is now basically dead. It is true that only a fraction of existing guns are used in crimes. But proportional or not, surely the abscence of easily obtainable guns will reduce what crimes there are. Can a psychopath walk into a building and kill thirty people with a sword he bought at the House of Knives and sharpened himself? Would he?
Mark
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Second, the constitution of the United States forbids gun control. Some courts have said it doesn't. They need to actually read the damn second amendment. There is NO reading of it, consistent with the rules of English grammar, that doesn't make it perfectly clear that people have a right to own firearms.
Third, the Constitution should be changed to allow gun control (along with a number of other updates). Obviously there is no possible need for a private individual to own an automatic rifle. Background checks should be necessary before buying a weapon. Safety training should be mandatory. Some of these things may already be laws. Some may be laws and not be enforced. I don't know, but that's a bare minimum of sane safety.
Agreed on both counts. The key to the Second Amendment is the fact that it specifies "a well-regulated militia."
Ultimately, though--America as a society doesn't have a gun problem so much as it does a people problem. There's a disturbing level of apathy toward others that in my opinion is a primary cause of not only tragedies like the ones at Columbine and VA Tech, but also a lot of more chronic societal ills.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"There is NO reading of it, consistent with the rules of English grammar, that doesn't make it perfectly clear that people have a right to own firearms."
And nuclear bombs. After all, they're "arms".
"The key to the Second Amendment is the fact that it specifies 'a well-regulated militia.'"
Actually, it specifies "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Which it isn't. We have a standing army now.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ...
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I think it was Toby Ziegler in a later West Wing episode that pointed out that the second part is predicated on the "well regulated militia" bit. (Sorkin does, indeed, rock.)
Thanks for sharing your story, Mark. I'd been building a bunch of gun-props for the show, and took no small pride in feeling them, trying them out, pointing them at things. Yeah, haven't touched the things at all this week.
[ April 21, 2007, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: bX ]
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Being so far removed (i.e. across the Atlantic) I find it difficult to properly relate to the stories that I see on the news. Guns are completly foreign to me outside of the occasional activites my scout group used to do with the army cadets.
In the UK, the murder rate is under 2 per hundred thousand people, and the number of these commited by firearms is about 7%. There were soething like 750 murders last year in the country (60 million ish people in total), so, although the figures are low, there is still a gun problem here. With some of the most strict gun laws in the world.
If we travel go across the channel to Europe you meet France, another nation with strict gun laws (although the underground gun culture is becoming a real problem). If you keep going left and then down a bit, you find Switzerland (who despite liking the work of Orson Welles, I find myself obliged to point out did not invent the cuckoo clock). Last time I checked, you can buy an assult rifle (like a Kalashnikov, beloved of terrorists everywhere) quite legaly.
Men between 18 and 30 (depending on rank upto their mid 50's) are conscripts - they serve at least 2 weeks a year in the militia. As a result every fit man has an assult rifle, or if you are an officer or in the medical corps a pistol. They are given ammuntition and this is inspected regualy, to make sure it's not been used unless they have been told to.
Ammuntion is subsidised if it fits in an army issue gun, and shooting clubs can be found in any small town. Most of the shootings in Switzerland (around 300 per annum from a population of 7 1/2 million) is either a suicide or a murder of a family member.
Currently anybody over 18 can buy a gun - a semiautomatic no less - without a permit. Nor does paper work get in the way of buying a sporting rifle or a historic repeating gun. Here there are more guns than people.
So what we find is a nation with a strong historic claim to a right to bear arms, infact a requirement to bear arms. The difference is the fact that as members of the militia they are kept under tight control and supervision.
Next year Switzerland becomes a bit more European - they join the Schenge treaty, or something or other, and as such they will have to make it a crime to possess an unlawful firearm, and have to put numbers on guns. They will also be restricting the private sale of second hand weapons, requiring official documentation.
On the other hand, you can't blast your horn at somebody if they cut you up on the road. Just like not turning off your engine at traffic lights or a junction, it's against the law. Instead, you note the cars number plate and look it up when you get home in a readily available directory so you can phone them up and abuse them at your leisure.
Switzerland, it seems, is bit of an odity, a blot on the map that outsiders can't quite get their heads around, so I don't think that their way can be anybody else's, but it does strike me as an interesting parellel to the gun politics we see in America, sitting across the pond from our cousins.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's because Switzerland is not a nation. It's a bank run as a nation, & as such, is predicated on a banker's code of conduct. Also, that makes me think of a quote from Red Square:
Peter: "You know what they say about crime in Munich?" Arkady: "No. What do they say?" Peter: "It's against the law."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Switzerland is also the size of my parking lot. Hardly a microcozm of the United States in general- they also lack the culture wherein sodiers brought live firearms home from two back-to-back world wars followed by two smaller wars. Thus were tens of thousands of firearms first introduced to mainstream America....and the criminal element here as well.
quote:Third, the Constitution should be changed to allow gun control (along with a number of other updates). Obviously there is no possible need for a private individual to own an automatic rifle. Background checks should be necessary before buying a weapon. Safety training should be mandatory. Some of these things may already be laws. Some may be laws and not be enforced. I don't know, but that's a bare minimum of sane safety.
I completely agree- however, the NRA (heavy RNC contributors who somehow weild more influence than a congressman) will never allow a bill requiring mandatory training- why, that would take away your right to own afirearm with no fucking clue what it can do to a person- hell, they've tried everything they can to undrmine the Brady Bill as it is- a 30 day "cooling off" period?!? But I want a killing machine now! They strongly feel that every American has the right to defend themselves- with as many firearms as they like- in thousands of cases, this means owning dozens of firearms- assualt rifles, sniper rifles capable of killing from a mile away, guns made to penetrate kevlar vests- whatever that person wants. bragging rights to the Boys and all that, ya know After all, they're his toys...er...guns, and he has a constutional right to bear them. They call these psychos "gun enthuisasts" or "gun collectors" (as though they were as harmless as comic books or baseball cards).
A gun is a tool with no other purpose than to end another's life. How can that be good? Hundreds of kids still die each year from gun-related accidents, thousands of guns go missing each year and only a fraction are reported to police. yet, the NRA lobby has defeated bills requiring mandatory, childproof electronic safetys and is against holding a gun owner criminally responsible for an unreported lost gun
I'm not saying "outlaw guns", as it's really too late for that, but any attempt to even limit the availability of new firearms (to everyone) is met generally and in WAshington with disdain and hostility.
We've all been taught how cool guns are and how fun it is to make something blow up from a distance- is it any wonder that the mentally ill take it further? After all, if they rave attention, what better way to gain it than to become notorious? Sure working for this Cho fucktard.
Having ten guns seems to make some folks feel more protected somehow- one for each of their ten hands, I guess.
As to the old "they'd find another way of kiling if they really wanted to" line of thought- yeah, this nut would have kiled 31 people with a club or a machette? Riiight.
I personally think that the only solution is both in prevention (catching potential nuts early and preventing them from buying firearms/weapons) and limiting the number of guns produced/sold each year.
Each year thousands of firearms are destroyed by police but they never see a reduction of guns on the street- this might at least curb the ease of buying an illegal gun...and give the police a chance to balance the scales a little.
But where dos the NRA get so much money to lobby Washington and to support politicians that will block gun reform laws? Surely it's not from their dues-paying membership alone, is it? Surely it'd be outrageous to learn that the people blocking gun control laws are the gun manufacturers that sell the guns that kill people? Surely the gun manufacturers dont contribute millions to the NRA for such loving support and protection? The following information is based on NRA's audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. The numbers have risen since then, but you get the point.
Source of Funds Members' dues 80,014,193 Contributions 71,459,995 Program fees 34,189,413 Royalties and other 11,176,815 Investment income 8,251,673 Unrealized gain on derivative instrument 310,402
Total Income $205,402,491
That buys a lot of influence down on Capitol Hill, boyos....what's a few dead people compared with that kind of scratch?
But hey, it's our right to bear arms- the founding fathers being all kowing and inhumanly perfect wrote the constution that way, knowing full well that guns would become capable of killing dozens in minutes (or seconds!) waay back when it took a seriously fast, well-trained soldier over a minute to reload a weapon.
Habeas Corpus is dead but this horse-shit is alive and killing.
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Wow, I never knew the NRA was so effective. Perhaps I should send them more money this year.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
... And as always, the pro-NRA crowd's answer to every problem is more guns, less reasoning.
Allowing weapons on university campuses? Jesus fucking Christ.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
PLus the call to arm teachers- completely overlooking the tecahers arrested this year for both violence towards students and predatory behavior.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff Raven: Wow, I never knew the NRA was so effective. Perhaps I should send them more money this year.
Why? It's the claim to membership numbers that make them seem legit- not so much the money itself. They less people examine their finances, the better off they are.
The membership makes their slogan "guns dont kill people, crazy people with guns kill people" nonsense sound somehow like the majority of americans are behind them
Okay, everyone in Utah and North Dakota are behind them, but that hardly counts.
...and they have Charlton Heston to speak for them publicly: every christian conservative politiician's noctournal emission. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't really know what to say since I don't think I'm as knowledgeable on gun safety. But it is a real threat . I live in NYC, a place known to have a serious gun problem. My mother told me last night she heard gun shots. I would like for people like Heston to stay at my house in the Bronx without his precious gun and see if he would still be pro-gun.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Surely it'd be outrageous to learn that the people blocking gun control laws are the gun manufacturers that sell the guns that kill people? Surely the gun manufacturers dont contribute millions to the NRA for such loving support and protection?"
Now, I'm as cynical as the next guy, but I don't think that's the reason I don't find this surprising at all. It seems entirely logical. The firearms industry makes money by producing and selling a product. They're going to give money to a large influential group that's trying to make sure their industry remains viable. That's entirely expected.
The problem isn't that they want to continue making a profit by making it easy to kill people. It's that they wanted to start doing so in the first place.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well companies like Colt started as US army suppliers, but also sold to the adverage homesteader or whatever- then there was a real need to carry a gun. Other companies got involved to build a better mousetrap and because building killing machines is so damn profitable.
Today we have police, businesses have security guards and states have the National Guard, not to mention armed goons like the FBI, ATF and KFC.
People generally enjoy the thought that they can kill someone at will without all that kung-fu movie stuff that takes so long. Besides, it's as easy as changing the channel- just a touch of a finger and someone goes away forever- the ultimate personal spam blocker.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I always thought it was interesting that we have a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Like "Here's a bunch of things we know are really bad for us, but we love them anyway."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:And nuclear bombs. After all, they're "arms".
I've always wondered about that. Nobody complains about the nuclear-weapon-control laws. Actually, are there any? Is it illegal for a private citizen to possess a nuclear weapon?
quote:I think it was Toby Ziegler in a later West Wing episode that pointed out that the second part is predicated on the "well regulated militia" bit.
It is predicated on that in the sense that it's a stated reason for the amendment to exist. It is NOT predicated on it in the sense of a legal requirement. At least not as the language of the amendment is written.
There are legitimate uses for handguns. They can't be eliminated entirely, because self defense really is a legitimate use for them. But gun control of some form needs to be made legal, and it needs to be enforced.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by bX: I always thought it was interesting that we have a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Like "Here's a bunch of things we know are really bad for us, but we love them anyway."
There's a bureau for them to endure the government is being paid for their use- via permits and taxes mainly- protecting the public's wellfare is secondary.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Is it illegal for a private citizen to possess a nuclear weapon?"
At the very least, I expect it is illegal to possess the requisite radioactive materials without a permit. Maybe that's the answer to gun control. Make all guns legal, but make gunpowder a controlled substance.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
That might be hard, seeing as anyone can go to the library, or look it up on wikipedia, and research how to make it themselves.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, try enriching uranium isotope though- a hazardous and restricted material to say the least, not to mention the materials needed for an implosive device even the strength of the first A-Bomb.
Sadly, there's plenty of readily available, legal materials that can be purchased and made into conventional bombs. (Just ask the Right To Life organization)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yeah, there's no way of preventing people from making home made gunpowder, it is after all a medievil invention. You may as well try to control slingshots and flints.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:There are legitimate uses for handguns. They can't be eliminated entirely, because self defense really is a legitimate use for them.
Rubbish. In the UK "self defence" has not been considered a good reason to want ot own a gun for 61 years. As in since the second world war.
You need to prove that you need it either for work, or sport. On top of that you need to name two people of "good charicter", who may be interviewed by the police, you need a your doctor to OK the application. You need to have a gun cabenet installed and inspected by the police, and then you have a face to face interview with police firearms officers. Next, Special Branch carry out a through background check. Then you can get a gun.
After this you need to renew your licence periodicaly, and each time you do this you need to have the police come and look at your gun cabenet to make sure it's safe. The police can also issue furthur conditions, to which you must comply or forfit the licence and firearms.
That said, you can get a mac10 off the high street in Brixton for a monkey, and circumvent these rules, but the penalty for possesion of an unlicenced (and therefor illegal) fire arm is five years mandatory at Her Maj's pleasure and an unlimited fine.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The UK is not the US. If you can survive without anyone needing a gun for self defense, good for you. But all it takes is one story of a woman alone in her house when two men try to break in and rape her to make you reconsider that.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Oddly enough, most UK police don't even carry firearms, and I'm pretty sure that people break in to womens houses to rape them in other countries too. I don't understand the position that the US is somehow in a special place that justifies its average citizens to need guns, where so many other countries just as advanced have made great strides in legal and cultural reformation so that they don't.
BTW, I watched "Hot Fuzz" on the weekend, and I think I'm okay to pick up a prop gun again.
Mark
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I don't have much of an interest in guns. Don't think they're really necessary unless its to hunt. In which case, a rifle does a fine job. Take an automatic weapon to game and, well, there's not much left.
That being said, it may be necessary in the future for me to get the appropriate licenses/certifications to own/use a firearm given my career choice. You cannot work for the Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut Geological Surveys unless you have a firearms license.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This is true. However, this does not REQUIRE you to own a gun. It's just so you can use a rifle int he event you need to when you're attacked by the polar bears.
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Oddly enough, most UK police don't even carry firearms, and I'm pretty sure that people break in to womens houses to rape them in other countries too. I don't understand the position that the US is somehow in a special place that justifies its average citizens to need guns, where so many other countries just as advanced have made great strides in legal and cultural reformation so that they don't.
BTW, I watched "Hot Fuzz" on the weekend, and I think I'm okay to pick up a prop gun again.
Mark
Mate, have you ever actually met any coppers, or even ex-coppers? Seriously, based on the ones I've run into (not while being arrested mind you!) I wouldn't trust most of those muppets with a cap gun, never mind a lethal weapon. But then I have a similar opinion of squaddies and they get to play with tanks and explosives.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: The UK is not the US. If you can survive without anyone needing a gun for self defense, good for you. But all it takes is one story of a woman alone in her house when two men try to break in and rape her to make you reconsider that.
Because that never happens in the UK.
No logic to that statement mate Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Part of the popularity of firearms in this country is how the media hypes every horrible situation (regardless of how rare or unprecedented) into a "It could happen to you or your defenseless kids" special followed by a "Would you know how to react in case of a TERRORIST ATTACK!?!" special "must see television event".
I bet the gun makers made a pretty penny after 9/11- the more scared people are, the greater their political-power base.
Much like their pals, the Republicans. Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Our founding fathers didn't trust an all-powerful government. That's why they included the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms is the check on a potentially oppressive government. While we do have the right to protect ourselves from possible harm from others, we also have the right to protect ourselves from our government.
And I still say that for a society that can potentially have a gun in every citizen's hands, murders and massacres are for the most part a rare thing. Unless you live in Philadelphia, that is.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not being funny mate, but do you have the figures to back up that statement?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
That's the funny thing about the Constitution. It was amended to allow citizens to bear arms and for man organized militia to take down the government that is deemed corrupt or isn't ruling properly, etc etc as that's what they had to do to form the US in the first place.
These days, if someone attempts the same, they're labelled a nutjob and killed. So, if attempts to bring down the government and replace it with a better one is such a bad thing nowadays, what's the point of being able to bear arms and form an organized militia?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
People, it all boils down to responsibility. Is the government responsible for gun control? Yes, there should be some safegaurd in place that requires people to get a license to own a gun. Much the same as your driver's license. Take a quick course and pass some tests, and only then can you buy a gun. Shooter's Ed would help to create a bit of responsibility in those people the same way a Driver's Ed couse would.
The responsibility also rests on the gun owner as well. Hopefully they take a gun course to educate themselves on the proper handling of a firearm. Maybe even create a trained citizens militia.
There are circumstances where having a gun, even unloaded, can save your life. Burglery, armed robbery, home invasions, etc. I don't know what the law in the states is, but in Canada if there's someone in your home and you fear for your life, (ie: he was a gun or knife or is otherwise trying to kill you) you won't be held accountable for killing him. Inversely if the robber hurt himself breaking into your home, he can sue you for thousands of dollars.
I'm going to skip the rest of the legitimate uses of guns because they've already been discussed.
There are people who like guns for several reasons, including target shooting, trick shooting, skeet shooting. There are some who like them for aesthetic purposes, or for historical value. For them, there are replica guns, and I'm not talking about deactivated originals. These are non-firing near exact replica's. And I say near, because the chamber and barrel won't fire a live round. It won't even accept a round due to minute changes in them. The replica won't accept a chamber or any other critical parts from a real gun either.
I, myself am a gun enthusiast. I know that's kind of a faux pas thing to say in these times. But I'm one of those people who like guns for historical reasons. I would love to have a Mauser C96, MP40, M1 Garand, or Sten MkV. Of course I'd also like to have a P-38J, but what are the chances of that?
Guns have been around for so long that they've become a part of our culture really. I don't think they, in and of themselves are bad. It's the people who use them for irresponsible and selfish reasons. Guns are a tool, whose purpose happens to be the ending of another creatures existence. But like all tools there is a time, a place, and a safe way of using it. And that's what people need to learn. I plan to buy a gun someday, and get a hunting liscense. So I'm going to take a gun safety course at the same time.
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Not being funny mate, but do you have the figures to back up that statement?
Says "An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005," and I'm using 2005 because the site said 2006 was "preliminary."
That's one murder per 17973 people per year. That's seems pretty rare to me.
edit: These numbers are for murders total. I couldn't find numbers for murders by guns, but it's obviously less than the above.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote: Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
And HERE is some decent reporting on the Hitler/gun control stuff.
I have law enforcement members that are in my family and friends. (yes I know, its hard to believe I have friends) And what they've said to me is that in general the police are there to come take your report after a robbery so you can file a claim against your insurance. For the most part it is UNLIKELY that you will be able to summon law enforcement or have an officer that will be able to respond to an incident until well after the danger has passed. The public needs to be able to respond themselves to the situation, whether it is to submit and surrender in hopes of hastening a robber's departure or in defending yourself against an attacker. Yes an officer is putting his life on the line everyday he puts on the uniform, but they simply cannot be everywhere protecting everyone every minute. And when they can't get there in time, they get blamed for something they have NO control over.
The problem is that the public has had it ingrained into them to not resist, just do what the criminal wants to get him away from you as quickly as possible. That has only served to embolden the criminal element. Now that they know the average person will not put up a fight, their consideration has become having a witness that might testify against them if they do get caught. Face it, CSI isn't going to happen in most cases like they show it on TV so the only real threat is someone fingering the criminal. That makes a pretty good incentive to eliminate the threat. What the public needs to do is FIGHT BACK when attacked. Then the Judicial System needs to strike HARD for those who would perpetrate violent crime. Only then will we have less crime.
End rant.
Now excepting all incoming flames.... Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Good Point. I don't have a problem with legal guns, just with illegal gun and gun nuts who think that everyones out to take their precious guns.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jeff, those figures represent homicides, but leave out the robberies, ahootings, crippelings and of course loss of monetary concerns (be it through theft or time out of work to recover).
The toll for gun is far greater than you allude to. Example.
quote:The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.
Well, I guess guns are okay after all! It's waaay "down" to only 39,400 gun victims as of '97.
Really, I think it's time we, as a species grew the fuck up and realise that a killing machine is not "cool" and to own one bcecuse you think it is is assinine.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Living in peace" is antithetical to the laws of ecology. Erratic Retaliator demands that a strike must be made or received from time to time.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A lazy man's answer- so easy to simply accept that people wil be violent and that umans are capable of nothing better than to wallow in their base instincts.
Only when we demand a higher stndard of our peers and ourselves will things really improve.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
There IS no "higher standard." And you fail to understand what I'm getting at. Which is partly my own fault: I'm not there to teach you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Riight- go live in a cave then: after all, that's the stagnant attitude you've adopted. Everyone wants the bright shiney future of Star Trek, but no one wants to really work towards it.
It's soo much easier to take the selfish approach and declare the world and everyone in it a lost cause by blaming it on our supposed violent nature.
I hereby sentence you to go live in a Tibetan monastary untill you learn your lesson- in celibacy!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Again, you fail to understand, but again, that is because I have not taught you.
I am far from being stagnant, or not working towards anything, or oversimplifying anything.
Also, the threat of celibacy doesn't work on me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, basically, what you're saying is "your argument against me is wrong because you don't understand what I'm saying, but I'm not going to tell you what I'm saying"?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Well, I would, but I'd have to go to Florida & spend about a month sitting around with him & teaching him.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
isn't40 million ak 47'senough?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Evidently not, since I don't have one yet. And I am NOT going to end up like Milton did with the birthday cake.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Naturally as soon as VT happened the lefties started harping on gun control, 'cause guns were involved. A gun did give a relatively efficient method of murder, but the psycho could've killed as many if not more via other means once he'd chained up the exits.
Of course, the fact that the kid was a left-leaning wacko with a couple of wee pistols in a gun-free zone gets left under the radar in the liberal media. Same with that leftist nut who threatened a Republican with a rifle in Nevada.
The presence of firearms might make trouble in some individual cases, or even many of them, but the thought of a disarmed populace is appalling. In some cases, the point of guns is to make trouble for those who would prefer you to be disarmed, be they criminals or totalitarians.
Now, should a guy with a record of being a nutjob have been able to get a gun? No, clearly not. But while this should've been a watershed event on keeping our loonies contained a bit better (hell, people on mental disability in this country can still vote!), instead the lefties have screwed it up by making it about guns.
'Cause, you know, chained doors, a fire alarm, and some gas-cans/IEDs wouldn't have killed anybody.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
(did he really, seriously, just say "liberal media?")
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Would you have preferred drive-by media? There is a growing distinction between liberal and conservative media these days.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'Cause, you know, chained doors, a fire alarm, and some gas-cans/IEDs wouldn't have killed anybody."
I'm left wondering who these "anti-gun, pro-IED" people are. Most people I know who are anti-gun are also anti-bomb.
"There is a growing distinction between liberal and conservative media these days."
I would say the opposite. There's a growing similarity between the just-plain-conservative media, and the conservative-because-they-are-corporate-tools media.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I'm left wondering who these "anti-gun, pro-IED" people are. Most people I know who are anti-gun are also anti-bomb.
That would be me.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What? You're anti-gun, anti-bomb, or anti-gun, pro-bomb?
In recent months there's been a spate of murders of young black men, predominantly in south London. While at least one of these involved one kid being shot in his own bed using a machine-pistol, most of them have been committed by gangs wielding knives and hammers. I don't know if the pro-gun wingnuts in the States have picked up on these (knowledge of world affairs not being any of your's strong points), but if they had I'm sure they'd have lauded the circumstances. Primarily, of course, because to these people a few less black people is a Good Thing; ostensibly, though, they'd be quick to crow that it is proof that our gun control legislation does not stop murders.
Most of these kids weren't involved in anything gang-related, so it appears their murders were either cases of mistaken identity, or they were randomly-selected as targets of opportunity for gang initiations. I'm quite sure that had the gangs had the access to firearms, they'd have just gunned them down (unless the close-in getting-hands-bloody bit is all part of the initiation). But they weren't, because guns are illegal here and they're not that easy to get hold of! When guns are prevalent, then all it takes for one to be stolen or sold improperly and it becomes "Huh, an illegal gun, nothing we can do about that, it's immune from gun control legislation."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Guardian implies that the same scrawny nut could have killed a bunch of people without a gun: bullshit. If he had a machette or other large blade and locked 30 college kids in a room, he's have that machette up his ass within minutes.
Guns are a pussy weapon- plain and simple. You just kill via remote control with no direct interaction- just point and click. That's why it's both so popular and so prevalant- it's easy. it's why the whole world adopted them as the tool of warfare- any idiot can be trained on their use in no time.
The gun lobby is pretty quiet on this one- smartly so too- they know full well the backlash waiting if they give their lame-ass "guns dont kill people" line. Instead they're "very concerned about this loophole in the Brady Bill" that allowed Cho to get a gun legally despite being batshit crazy.
Of course, they fail to mention how they've fought to repeal the Brady bill since it's inception.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Yes, I said "liberal media", 'cause they say it's that themselves. Ted Turner (founder of CNN), when making fun of Fox News, said it was okay for there to be a conservative media, since 'we have ours' or words to that effect, to an audience of other liberals.
And yes, I'm aware that "knife control" has been discussed in some countries with a gun ban, which is great 'cause gun crimes also happen in those countries, meaning that in the event of a gunman one would be left with kicking. If that happened, though, I'd imagine there'd be "steel-toe/pointy boot control" soon thereafter.
And no, I didn't posit a machete, though given the situation as it happened I rather doubt that a machete/chainsaw/sword/whatever would've been terribly less effective. The kids were scared and ran for it, which is perfectly understandable . . . but the point is that nobody tried to (or even probably had time to) set up a situation where they could take down Cho, and I find it unlikely that this would've been the case without the popping of gunfire, judging by what I've read. But I freely admit I don't know the precise movements and timeline of those involved.
In any event, I posited something more evil involving fire or a homemade bomb. I'm not saying anyone is anti-gun and pro-bomb . . . I'm saying evil sonsabitches don't need a gun to be evil sonsabitches.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'm totally pro-bomb. It's massively efficient & you really do get the best bang for your buck.
So to speak.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I'm saying evil sonsabitches don't need a gun to be evil sonsabitches.
But it sure helps.
GUns give a sense of power over others (thus their popularity to some extent) and a psycho sure can use that to get up te nerve to carry out his sick fantasies.
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. Nothing points to Cho having the ability to make an explosive- no points there either.
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.
Cho would have gone down- probably after only an assualt with a bladed weapon- it's a hell of a lot tougher to kill someone with a blade, and they fight back.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...ostensibly, though, they'd be quick to crow that it is proof that our gun control legislation does not stop murders."
Of course, if they did try to make that arguement, it wouldn't be difficult to point out that anyone entertaining the idea that "gun control stops all murders" would be an idiot. In the world of reality, though, we could compare the numbers of murders in the US and the UK and see whether gun control stops a lot of murders.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
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.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
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?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
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.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
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.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Reminds me of Marc Maron talking about going to a gun show & feels lout of place because he's Jewish.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
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?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
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).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
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.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
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.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
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.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
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.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
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.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
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.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
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.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
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
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: 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.
Yes . . . and? So what if it's Jamaica? So what if they have other issues? I thought the correlation you guys were making is that guns = lots of dead crime victims, whereas no guns = virtually no dead crime victims.
By pointing to Jamaica's cultural and socio-political issues to explain away the missing correlation there, you just inadvertently agreed with me that those are relevant.
Our disagreement is over how relevant they are, because even given one of many examples where the correlation you seek to prove fails, you're still arguing based on the correlation.
I'm not saying we should ban Saturday night instead of the Saturday Night Special, but banning the latter isn't going to change the nature of the former.
quote: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)
Wha? I'm not talking about military-grade explosives . . . even homemade crap with off-the-shelf supplies will suffice in the example. Hell, for 300 bucks (the approximate cost of one of his guns) you could whip up a 50-gallon drum's worth of a fair approximation of napalm, with just two ingredients that cannot be controlled. Made thick enough it's not even all that smelly. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a delay mechanism for a centrally-located blasting device designed to spread it around and ignite it.
(I'd explain the procedure, but I trust you'll understand that I've been hesitant in giving examples of such things. I doubt Flare has its own Cho lurking, and there are undoubtedly plenty of places on the internet to find such dirty little secrets, but I'm certainly not going to be the one to reveal them. Hell, watch McGyver.)
quote: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).
Wha?
Maybe it's just me, 'cause I used to know a guy who would make various methods of blasting tree stumps on his property, but given the availability of even simple stuff like fireworks I fail to comprehend your thinking that homemade bombs are prohibitively dangerous and/or hard-to-get and/or expensive.
quote: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.
Who was it that talked about throwing a chair? You don't charge a gunman like a WW1 soldier running across No Man's Land . . . you either luck up and tackle him from behind (like the ROTC guy) or you produce a method of deflecting or preventing fire while you advance.
I'm not saying going against a gun-toting badguy is my first choice if I'm unarmed, but the principle here is that I wouldn't want to be unarmed, certainly not disarmed, and I can't figure out why others would in a world where Chos can get guns.
The only valid reason to talk gun control here is in regards to keeping guns out of the hands of crazies like Cho.
quote: Originally posted by bX: Guns that, to my knowledge, were purchased legally.
Precisely. He was known to be mentally ill and dangerous, and that was a failure of Virginia law. A backup to that failure could've existed if the campus had not been a gun-free zone . . . that ROTC kid could've been packing and wouldn't have had to try to tackle a gunman . . . but that didn't happen.
You know, even in New York city schools back in the 60's or so, they had rifle classes. Guns, in school even! Yet no one shot up the schools.
So yes, we can talk gun control inasmuch as loons with guns ought not be allowed, but we should also recognize that a major problem is that there were only two guns at the scene of the crime, and both were the badguy's. We should also recognize the cultural issues that led to this particular badguy, and his desire to be a gun-wielding murdering lunatic.
Because the simple fact is, you cannot control "weapons in general". Even in the environment of a prison, ostensibly the area of greatest weapon control in the world, shivs are commonplace items. But that's the culture of the prison population.
The best thing you can do is to try to have a culture where weapons won't be used so callously. Failing that, make damn sure that the situation is akin to what Yamamoto was pondering regarding an invasion of the United States . . . "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: 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.
I'm guessing you're referring to the Bowling for Columbine stuff, but that was in regards to gun deaths, probably including suicides in the US judging by the usual tactics of the gun control lobby (e.g. the Brady bunch).
Japan's population is IIRC about a third of the US, so yes we have more gun deaths given Moore's numbers. But that's obvious, and doesn't prove the point he sought to make.
And then cross-reference with specific searches by country. Poland, for instance, is another one I just looked up, since some forget it.
They have much stricter gun laws than the US inasmuch as what it takes to acquire one, yet have a 25% higher murder rate than the US. However, murders with firearms occur at about 1/8th the US rate.
More murders, but fewer guns? How the devil could this be?
Again, the issue must be cultural. You can take away the worst tools, and even take away not-so-bad tools, but humans intent on murder will find a way to improvise something, if not just do it by hand.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Well golly, if we're going to be compared to the likes of Bulgaria and Armenia. I mean, we're practically the same place. Hell, Colombia's practically a 51st state at this point. I guess if it could be worse there's no reason for us to try to make it better.
For our wealthy, first-world society, I live in a fairly bad neighborhood here in San Jose. Not a lot of drug-lord assassinations or rocket-attacks, but I've had transients wander in, and there have been repeated attempts to break in. I won't own a gun. Not for self defense. Personally I'm a bit freaked out by something where it's so easy to accidentally kill someone. I have swords. It's harder to kill someone accidentally with a sword.
So we're clear, in as far as my personal gun-control position: I'm not saying we should take away all the guns. I know that's never going to happen, and what's more, I don't think it should happen. But I'm all for making damned certain that people who wish to have a lethal capacity, are qualified and competent to own an item whose primary function is to kill. I have no doubt that the gun owners/enthusiasts on this board, like the millions of responsible gun owners in this country would have no problem demonstrating such capacity. Wouldn't it be better to know, though?
[ May 07, 2007, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: bX ]
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:that ROTC kid could've been packing and wouldn't have had to try to tackle a gunman
I have known quite a few ROTC kids in my time that I would never, ever want to be packing.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The best thing you can do is to try to have a culture where weapons won't be used so callously.
Pointless when you can get them as easily as a cup of coffee and there aren't any barriers thrown up regarding said use.
So yes, we can talk gun control inasmuch as loons with guns ought not be allowed, but we should also recognize that a major problem is that there were only two guns at the scene of the crime...
The guns were there because Cho was: two too many weapons in the hands of one too many untreated lunatics. How's about fixing *that* problem before creating a world where everybody can just pop everybody anyplace anytime as a "backup", hmm?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Pointing to Jamaica as a comparison with the entire United States is like Comparing the worst part of Detroit with all of Asia and expecting an accurate result. The cultures, problems and populations (as well as the availability of cash needed to buy even a cheap handgun) are all completely diffrent.
Guardian, you're making seneraios wherein Cho is lugging "50 gallon drums" of homemade explosive while I'm pointing out that it's both not readily available 9unless you have specific intormation and experience, like you seem to) and that it's an unwieldy pain in the ass to even attempt.
But no guns- they're easy. Just point and click and whoever you want dead, is. ...and for every "Cho" with a long mental illness history, there's a thousand undiagnosed nutters out there capable of legally buying as many guns as they'd ever like....may allready gun owners. You're not in favor of even limiting that?
Like down to one firearm per potential psycho?
Culturally, as you've pointed put, the United States has radically changed since the 1960's, with gun violence increasing geometricly, dont you thnk thelaws (and yes, that outdated Second amendment as well) need to change with the times?
Obviously, clinging to the laws set forth by the founding fathers regarding gun ownership poorly serve us today.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)