School Violence

[Nioca]

(I didn't ignore this earlier, I just wanted to think on my response for a while before posting)

 

There is virtually no reason for hand-held automatic weapons, even in military use. The only machine guns most armies use are bigger things, with tripods or at least bipods. The handheld things are extremely dangerous, in that you can fire off a fast hail of bullets that might very well hurt or kill a lot of people. They are not reliable for self-defense, though, because despite what you see in the action movies, it is essentially impossible to aim that hail of bullets. Seriously: what trained soldiers learn is not how to aim submachine guns, but that you can't really aim them. If you keep an Uzi under your bed to defend yourself from murderous intruders, you are alarmingly likely to fire off all your ammunition without hitting any of the intruders. You would probably be better defended with a baseball bat.

This is why most assault rifles are Burst-Fire now, rather than fully automatic (although some still have a full-auto option). And while big machine guns are all well and good, they're not really helpful when you need man-portable suppressive fire.

 

Semi-automatic weapons are not so hard to control, and are typical for military use. So there might be an argument that they're useful for self-defense. They're not very plausible for hunting, though, because animals don't stick around to be shot at twice, even if the second shot comes fast. Old-fashioned bolt-action rifles are quite fine for hunting any game. If you feel you need more firepower than that, you should just become a better hunter. Bolt-action rifles are also still dangerous to people, though. They killed a lot of people in the World Wars, and an expert can fire them awfully fast. So I'd say it's not really true that anyone needs semi-automatic weapons for self-defense, either. By the same token, cutting back to only old-fashioned bolt-action rifles won't prevent gun massacres. But they might slow them down a bit, and they might even discourage them a bit, just because firing a bolt action rifle takes a bit more physical skill, and is less like a video game.

 

Handguns are normally semi-automatic. They're scary and dangerous because they can be concealed, and because they can swing around quickly, so it's quite easy to hit someone accidentally with them. It's also quite hard to hit something on purpose with them. Unless you really know what you are doing, you would again very likely be better defended with a bat. Handguns have no application in hunting, and they don't make much sense for home defense even if you are an expert pistol shot, because you don't need to conceal a weapon in your own home. They are arguably a legitimate sporting item. Pistol shooting at targets is a difficult skill, and some kind of primitive predator instinct makes all kinds of target-hitting games somehow rewarding. So you might argue that if someone enjoys target shooting with a pistol, and doesn't intend to harm anyone else, then they should be able to do it. The way I see it, though, you could say the same for crack cocaine. At some point the danger to society just outweighs the right to individual enjoyment. You could make a simulator that would be really pretty close to the experience of firing a real pistol, and that would be close enough to the sport, if you ask me.

Okay, yes, if you're an expert, you can fire a bolt-action rifle very quickly and accurately. And therein lies the catch: how many people do you think would actually have the expertise necessary to do that? Considering that your standard home-invasion scenario involves being in extremely close-quarters with one's assailant/invader, and also factoring in the kind of stress the shooter would be under, your average joe off the street would likely have one, maybe two shots to hit a moving target before said target could close and disarm them (assuming the intruder didn't have a weapon of their own and kills the homeowner while they're attempting to work the action). And, no offense, but if I feel the need to carry a weapon to defend myself, I want something that gives me more than one chance to take down my attacker, not something I'd be better off using as a bludgeon. Furthermore, if the person needs to carry a firearm with them to defend themselves (such as in the case of a stalker or someone actively threatening your life)... well, good luck fitting a bolt-action rifle into a purse (and while open carry might be technically legal in some areas, walking around holding a rifle is still liable to get you arrested anyway without a damn good reason for why you're doing it).

 

Finally, one other problem with using bolt-action rifles (and rifles in general) for self-defense is that they tend to be very powerful, and tend to maintain terminal velocity for very long ranges. If you miss, or if that shot overpenetrates? That bullet's likely to keep going till it finds something else to embed itself in. It's a risk present in all kinds of firearms, of course (and most firearms safety stresses being conscious of what's behind your target), but it's less prevalent* in pistol caliber weapons. Which, in my book, makes pistols a whole lot safer to use as a self-defense weapon than full-sized rifles.

 

*Barring certain oversized cartridges. *cough* .50 Action Express *cough*

 

Don't get me wrong; Bolt-action rifles are very, very good at what they do. But when it comes to self-defense, your average civilian needs something that's simple, portable, easy to use, fast to utilize, and has low penetration; handguns serve this purpose a whole lot better than bolt-action rifles.

[Soul of Wit]

You make it sound so cut-and-dry, and it's really not. Banning guns tends to be a hit-and-miss measure. Sometimes, it works, and overall violence drops. Other times, it actually causes violent crime to increase. And sometimes, it does nothing. If banning guns was a sure-fire way to stop violence, it would have been done a long time ago. But it's not; It's a big and very complicated issue (Pro- and anti- gun advocates are doing little to help the issue; It's surprisingly difficult to get solid facts and statistics, since most sources and sturdies tend to be slanted to the viewpoint of either anti- or pro-, rather than neutral. Not to mention the pleathora of different factors and such that can impact gun violence and overall violence).

 

I personally am in favor of an assault weapons ban, simply because I believe no civilian (barring security and paramilitary organizations) needs the kind of firepower a machine pistol, SMG, assault rifle, or other rapid-firing machine gun can provide. But I also find the idea of a gun buyback rather laughable, simply because the whole idea is flawed on a fundamental level: namely, that people will just turn over their guns because the government says so. They tried gun buyback for a few years here in the US. It was ineffective and an utter waste of taxpayer dollars. There is a "Gun Bounty" system in place in a few Florida cities which specifically target illegal guns that's showing greater promise, though. Being a Michigander, though, I really don't have the details on the gun bounty system beyond what Wikipedia provides.

 

P.S. Please refrain from calling gun supporters "gun nuts". Just because someone supports second amendment rights to carry firearms or owns a gun does not make them a trigger-happy homicidal lunatic.

What is cut and dry is that doing nothing is not an option that I'm in favor of. The Australia model worked in Australia. I have no basis to think that it wouldn't work in the US.

 

A gun nut is someone who thinks that their right to own any gun trumps the rights of the rest of us to live in a sane world. Gun policy in the US is insane. It needs to change. Anyone who supports the status quo is a gun nut. I'll stand by that.

[Nioca]

What is cut and dry is that doing nothing is not an option that I'm in favor of. The Australia model worked in Australia.

Did it? I decided to poke around for statistics, and best I can tell, there's been little-to-no change in violent crime in the years since the gun bans took effect. Hard to say for 100% certain, since different sources say different things, but from what I found, it seems like homicides remained steady till 2003 (then dropped slightly), and overall violent crime has been slowly increasing. In any case, it's not exactly encouraging regarding its effectiveness. If you can point me to solid, unbiased statistics showing it's actually been effective in Australia, then feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Furthermore, the situation in Australia is vastly different from the situation in America. Australians didn't have gun rights like Americans, and firearms were far less prevelant in Australia to begin with. I think SoT's already mentioned that a gun buyback program like Australia's would be a far more massive (and far more expensive) undertaking when it comes to the United States. So trying to say that, "if it worked for Australia, it'll work here" just plain doesn't work.

[Randomizer]

Arizona gun stores are selling out of assault rifles as customers stock up in fear that they won't be sold soon.

 

I've had two times that I was glad that I was elsewhere when it happened. The first was in elementary school in the early 1970s during lunch when my classmates were walking across the playground. An older sister of a student pulled a handgun and turned to point it at them. Everyone ran and it didn't go off.

 

In the mid 1980s at my University of Arizona dorm. a student got drunk and told the others in his wing that he was going out to his car to get his shotgun to kill them so he could get their girlfriends. THe staff called the campus rent-a-cops who took their time to walk the roughly 300 feet (100 meters) from their station to the dorm. So the staff sent an Army ROTC major to find the student since no one had any confidence in the campus cops. He passed the problem to a Marine ROTC staff member who was returning from target practice and still had his .45 caliber gun with him. The marine told us later that walking around in military fatigues holding a gun with the police on the way wasn't a good idea so he changed into civilian clothes and put the gun in a paper bag. By the time he got outside the police finally showed up and got the drunk student and his weapon.

 

The university swept the incident under the rug by expelling the student the next day and sending hi, home with his Fortune 500 company VP father. This was a standard practice to keep the real news about dangerous incidents hidden from the public.

 

I knew at least 3 students that kept guns in their cars while they lived in the dorms. Campus regulations prohibited guns and explosives in the buildings. However we were allowed swords, knives, quarterstaff, throwing stars, ....

[adc.]

I'm afraid I haven't seen anyone that insane yet. I consider those kinds of people as psychos. The mind can be erratic when it comes to disorders you know.

 

Obviously, killing 20 children that you don't know is never really a good idea, and it never will be either. I know that I'm just a teen, and I don't live at The U.S., but I still do pity those who lost their lives without a valid reason. I don't plan on banning guns if I was a president, but if I was one, then I would keep weapons out of civilians' hands, unless they have a mega-strict license that allows them to. That goes for murderous intruders too,

-----------

-Red-eyed phantom

[A less presumptuous name.]

I'm afraid I haven't seen anyone that insane yet. I consider those kinds of people as psychos. The mind can be erratic when it comes to disorders you know.

Can you please do some more research about psychiatric disorders before posting about them?

[Brocktree]

Restore the assault weapons ban and institute a gun buyback program. Look at what other countries have done. Australia has effectively halted mass murders.

 

Stop talking about "gun control" and start calling it "mass murder weapon control". Apparently, some of the gun nuts (like my liberal Congressman, John Dingell) need to be reminded that measures to reduce mass murder are more than worth it.

 

If we can spend a fortune on <fill in your least favorite federal program here> then we can afford to buy back guns.

 

Australia isn't America. Personally, I admire the United States for valuing freedom over a false sense of security. If people in the U.S.A don't like guns, then don't buy them. If they don't like living around people with guns, move to a gun free area. Expecting people to give up a freedom enshrined in their Constitution simply to make you feel a little bit safer is the high of tyranny. Demanding otherwise law-abiding citizens to hand in their firearms when government enforcers are armed to the teeth stinks of hypocrisy.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

Australia isn't America. Personally, I admire the United States for valuing freedom over a false sense of security. If people in the U.S.A don't like guns, then don't buy them. If they don't like living around people with guns, move to a gun free area. Expecting people to give up a freedom enshrined in their Constitution simply to make you feel a little bit safer is the high of tyranny. Demanding otherwise law-abiding citizens to hand in their firearms when government enforcers are armed to the teeth stinks of hypocrisy.

False sense of security? Sure, tell that to the parents who lost there kids, I'm sure they will clap for you. While ensuring freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is probably important it is much more important to ensure that people actually stay alive, that's when they will be actually able to enjoy those freedoms. Argue all you like but it's simple enough to understand that less guns means a lesser chance that some maniac will have them and that means a lesser chance of such heart-wrenching incidents taking place. Shooting down(no pun intended please) any proposals on technicalities or on absurd logic of "we are not like them" or "It won't work here" even before trying it is at least in my opinion an indication of the fact that you simply don't care, If you are skeptical then you can try the suggestion on a smaller scale maybe with people who are more willing but just harking about constitutional rights when people are dying is plane stupid.

[Kelandon]

Australia isn't America.

This is true, but in order for it to be logically relevant, you need to point out an important difference. You have not.

 

Personally, I admire the United States for valuing freedom over a false sense of security.

The point was that the gun control measures in Australia gave a real sense of security, not a false one. And real security, while we're at it, which is more important: gun crime in fact plummeted.

 

If people in the U.S.A don't like guns, then don't buy them. If they don't like living around people with guns, move to a gun free area.

Huh? It looks as though you're saying that people in the U.S. who don't like guns should move to a place where there are no guns, but you're also saying that no place in the U.S. should be allowed to ban guns (and therefore be sure that there are no guns). I think what you're saying is, "We got guns! If you don't like it, get out!" That could be described (if one were being charitable in one's descriptions) as a position but not an argument.

 

Expecting people to give up a freedom enshrined in their Constitution simply to make you feel a little bit safer is the high of tyranny.

Nobody's talking about "feeling a little bit safer." We're talking about kids getting shot at school. If someone's free speech got a lot of people killed, I might start thinking a bit about curtailing that free speech. (Oh wait! That's what the "clear and present danger" and "imminent lawless action" business in First Amendment law is all about!) So maybe we're talking about asking people to accept modest limits on their constitutional rights in order to save kids' lives, but that's not tyranny. That's basic human decency.

 

Demanding otherwise law-abiding citizens to hand in their firearms when government enforcers are armed to the teeth stinks of hypocrisy.

It appears that you're saying that ordinary citizens should be allowed to have guns because police and military personnel have guns. This is obviously ridiculous on its face. Should ordinary citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Or biological weapons? Our military (or "government enforcers," as you call them) has those.

 

In short, your post fails to make any sort of logical argument or even express much of a coherent thought. On the bright side, though, your post was not nearly as much of a fail as the NRA's press conference yesterday.

[Brocktree]

This is true, but in order for it to be logically relevant, you need to point out an important difference. You have not.

 

I don't feel any compulsion to. I live in Australia, and I've talked to many Americans who fall on both sides of this issue. I'm confident that there are significant differences. Whether you choose to believe me or not doesn't really matter, I just thought that providing you with an Australian's perspective might help you out.

 

The point was that the gun control measures in Australia gave a real sense of security, not a false one. And real security, while we're at it, which is more important: gun crime in fact plummeted.

 

Debatable, since gun crime really wasn't a pressing issue prior to the Port Arthur massacre. If anything, Australians already had a very dim view of firearms, Port Arthur was just the nail in the coffin. Good luck trying to get Americans to voluntarily hand all of their firearms in.

 

Furthermore, violent crime has steadily increased in Australia, in spite of the gun control measures we have implemented. Colour me unimpressed.

 

Huh? It looks as though you're saying that people in the U.S. who don't like guns should move to a place where there are no guns, but you're also saying that no place in the U.S. should be allowed to ban guns (and therefore be sure that there are no guns).

 

Nope. If you're going to try and argue with me, at least respond to what I said, rather than what you would like me to say.

 

I think what you're saying is, "We got guns! If you don't like it, get out!" That could be described (if one were being charitable in one's descriptions) as a position but not an argument.

 

Correct. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to state a position. If you don't like living near people who own guns, then move away from them. If America's gun culture troubles you, then expatriate. There are many countries in Europe whose culture despise firearms.

 

Nobody's talking about "feeling a little bit safer." We're talking about kids getting shot at school.

 

And? How many kids die each year in school shootings? Considering how many kids there are in America, and considering how many guns are in circulation, I'd say that the risk of getting shot is actually quite low. Why are a few dead children suddenly such a pressing issue, that we need to restrict the rights of so many citizens?

 

If someone's free speech got a lot of people killed, I might start thinking a bit about curtailing that free speech.

 

And yet we don't preemptively censor all outlets of free speech, simply because someone *might* cause harm with their speech.

 

So maybe we're talking about asking people to accept modest limits on their constitutional rights in order to save kids' lives, but that's not tyranny. That's basic human decency.

 

Again with the kids! Honestly, what's with all the caterwauling? Kids die in droves all over the world from easily preventable causes (abuse, neglect, conscription, starvation, accident, disease, etc.), and yet on this one particular issue everyone gets on their high horse. If gun crime is of such a concern to parents, then the answer is simple: Don't have guns in the house. Move away from areas with high gun crime.

 

It appears that you're saying that ordinary citizens should be allowed to have guns because police and military personnel have guns. This is obviously ridiculous on its face. Should ordinary citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Or biological weapons? Our military (or "government enforcers," as you call them) has those.

 

Why does a government enforcement agency need to be heavily armed when policing an unarmed populace?

 

In short, your post fails to make any sort of logical argument or even express much of a coherent thought. On the bright side, though, your post was not nearly as much of a fail as the NRA's press conference yesterday.

 

Thanks.

[Brocktree]

False sense of security? Sure, tell that to the parents who lost there kids, I'm sure they will clap for you.

 

Yet guns have also saved lives, by driving off intruders with violent intent. Tell me, how would your gun control measures have effected the multitudes of men and women who used a firearm to scare off violent criminals? Would you tell them that they should not have had a gun? That they should have remained powerless as their children were victimised and killed? I'm sure they would clap for you.

 

See, I can pull the 'think of children' nonsense too!

[keira]

hey so uh i'd like to remind everyone that the conversation does not need to escalate to loud things that get locked

 

[Mosquito---Slayer]

Yet guns have also saved lives, by driving off intruders with violent intent. Tell me, how would your gun control measures have effected the multitudes of men and women who used a firearm to scare off violent criminals? Would you tell them that they should not have had a gun? That they should have remained powerless as their children were victimised and killed? I'm sure they would clap for you.

The point of this thread if you have followed it decently was that the bigger heavier assault rifles should be banned whilst retaining the smaller ones, also try to understand that a ban works both ways, if I am preventing good people from having a gun, I am also applying that logic to criminals,additionally there are enough things in the world including smaller guns that can be used to scare of non-social elements and police exists for a reason, by your logic maybe we should also allow households to store nukes, after all nothing else will scare the crap out of anti-social elements faster and better.

As for the children comment I simply wanted to imply that if no step is taken in spite of so many deaths that is practically an Insult to the family members of those guys, basically you are telling them that this has happened and this will happen in the future because we don't care so shut up, and I don't find that very appropriate.

[Kelandon]

Debatable, since gun crime really wasn't a pressing issue prior to the Port Arthur massacre. If anything, Australians already had a very dim view of firearms, Port Arthur was just the nail in the coffin. Good luck trying to get Americans to voluntarily hand all of their firearms in.

 

Furthermore, violent crime has steadily increased in Australia, in spite of the gun control measures we have implemented. Colour me unimpressed.

You may be unimpressed, but the risk of dying by gunshot has fallen 50% (source: http://abcnews.go.co...55#.UNazDKX7pNw). That's a lot of lives saved.

 

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to state a position. If you don't like living near people who own guns, then move away from them. If America's gun culture troubles you, then expatriate. There are many countries in Europe whose culture despise firearms.

Forgive me if I believe that we're better than that. We in America can reform our laws to make ourselves safer. We passed an assault weapons ban before, and our country didn't collapse. We can do it again.

 

And? How many kids die each year in school shootings? Considering how many kids there are in America, and considering how many guns are in circulation, I'd say that the risk of getting shot is actually quite low. Why are a few dead children suddenly such a pressing issue, that we need to restrict the rights of so many citizens?

I'm glad that you've taken to openly making light of the murder of "a few" children, because it casts your position in clearer relief.

 

Yes, any child's chance of getting shot is relatively low. However, about one child or teen is shot and killed per typical day, by Slate's count: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html. That's still too many; it's estimated that there is the equivalent of about six Newtown shootings per year (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/child-gun-deaths-newtown_n_2347920.html).

 

The fact remains that our gun-related death rate per capita is ridiculously high (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate). It's more than double the next highest rate in the developed world (Canada) and many times the rate in Europe. That is in fact a lot of deaths.

 

And how many people does it take, really? How many people have to die before it matters?

 

And yet we don't preemptively censor all outlets of free speech, simply because someone *might* cause harm with their speech.

We do have laws restricting freedom of speech in cases where it is likely to cause imminent harm to others. Likewise, we can have laws restricting gun possession when it not only is likely to but in fact does cause serious harm and death to people every day.

 

Again with the kids! Honestly, what's with all the caterwauling? Kids die in droves all over the world from easily preventable causes (abuse, neglect, conscription, starvation, accident, disease, etc.), and yet on this one particular issue everyone gets on their high horse.

When your entire position boils down to not caring when kids die, there's something wrong with your position.

 

If gun crime is of such a concern to parents, then the answer is simple: Don't have guns in the house. Move away from areas with high gun crime.

Like, say, to Connecticut? I would venture to say that that didn't help as much as the parents in Newtown hoped it would.

 

Why does a government enforcement agency need to be heavily armed when policing an unarmed populace?

What are you even talking about right now? Are you saying that in a hypothetical situation in which citizens are totally unarmed, the police shouldn't need guns, either? That hardly seems relevant to reality.

 

Yet guns have also saved lives, by driving off intruders with violent intent. Tell me, how would your gun control measures have effected the multitudes of men and women who used a firearm to scare off violent criminals? Would you tell them that they should not have had a gun? That they should have remained powerless as their children were victimised and killed? I'm sure they would clap for you.

 

See, I can pull the 'think of children' nonsense too!

Yes, but when you say it, it's actually nonsense, instead of facts that you call nonsense because you don't like them. These "multitudes" are virtually nonexistent. If you buy a gun for self-defense, it is many, many times more likely to be used to hurt someone in your household than to defend someone in your household.

[Lilith]

brocktree please stay out of politics threads and stick to posting useful and interesting things about games

[Nioca]

...y'know, I actually had a nice post written up. It had facts to debate what Kelandon was saying, actual facts. It had a snarky comment about criminals not obeying laws, but otherwise was very respectful. But as I was typing it up, a new post came up. I read it, and I thought, "screw it".

 

You see, this is what's wrong with gun control debates. It has nothing to do with gun control. All it has to do with is each side taking a steaming dump on each other at every opportune moment, screaming tautologies at the top of their lungs in hopes that they'll be heard, and monopolizing on people's suffering whenever it's convenient for them. I mean, really. We've gone from fairly civil discourse here to utter dreck in a matter of a few posts. The bullcrap flies so hard and fast between both sides that you can't even find the truth anymore. Things like Newtown should encourage people to look at everything, EVERYTHING, that can be done to prevent disasters like that from happening again; and instead, we get... this.

 

*sigh*

[BMA]

Again with the kids! Honestly, what's with all the caterwauling? Kids die in droves all over the world from easily preventable causes (abuse, neglect, conscription, starvation, accident, disease, etc.), and yet on this one particular issue everyone gets on their high horse.

 

Both of those statements are perfectly true. I'd say BT is looking at the big picture (but maybe you could have worded it better ?) The reason for this, I'd say, is that the sources of the easily-preventable causes you've mentioned are widely distributed all over the world. You can't just point a location out and say "Here is the problem. The solution is a law. And here is that law which ought to be passed". Besides, in the case of the shooting, the very image of a killer going around shooting children has a higher 'horror-level' than the same children dying of malnutrition or disease. And if you don't think so, you're just a monster in the mainstream eye.

[Brocktree]

You may be unimpressed, but the risk of dying by gunshot has fallen 50% (source: http://abcnews.go.co...55#.UNazDKX7pNw). That's a lot of lives saved.

 

Where's the raw data? Who collected it? Who analyzed it? Is abcnews a reliable, unbiased source of secondary information? Have violent crimes decreased? Have fatalities due to violent crimes decreased? Have crimes against property decreased? If you can't answer these questions, then I think it's a little premature to laud the results of Australia's gun buyback.

 

Furthermore, it's important to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Even if there was a decrease in gun related violence after the buyback, that in no way is proof that the gun buyback caused a reduction in gun related crime.

 

But let me just add: Even if you could conclusively demonstrate that banning firearms resulted in a decrease in violent crime, I *still* would not support it.

 

Forgive me if I believe that we're better than that. We in America can reform our laws to make ourselves safer. We passed an assault weapons ban before, and our country didn't collapse. We can do it again.

 

'We'? You're speaking for all Americans now? From where I'm standing, it seems that many Americans are not interested in further firearm restrictions, and I don't understand why they should be forced to conform to the standards of others.

 

I'm glad that you've taken to openly making light of the murder of "a few" children, because it casts your position in clearer relief.

 

Yep. Let me be crystal clear to everyone here. *I don't care about the children* That might save you some time when you make a futile attempt to guilt me.

 

Yes, any child's chance of getting shot is relatively low. However, about one child or teen is shot and killed per typical day, by Slate's count: http://www.slate.com..._shooting.html. That's still too many;

 

Not to many Americans, it seems. And Huffington Post? Slate.com? Aren't they tabloids?

 

The fact remains that our gun-related death rate per capita is ridiculously high (source: http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate). It's more than double the next highest rate in the developed world (Canada) and many times the rate in Europe. That is in fact a lot of deaths.

 

Dying is a fact of life. If you are born, then it's guaranteed that you will die at some point. Personally, I'm far more worried about dying slowly of cancer or stroke, rather than being shot. Hell, I'd *rather* be shot than linger in palliative care for months.

 

We do have laws restricting freedom of speech in cases where it is likely to cause imminent harm to others.

 

But we don't preemptively silence people because they might say something bad. Likewise, we should not prohibit people from owning firearms simply because they might do something bad with them.

 

When your entire position boils down to not caring when kids die, there's something wrong with your position.

 

You're *still* going on about that? Come on dude, now you're just trolling me.

 

What are you even talking about right now? Are you saying that in a hypothetical situation in which citizens are totally unarmed, the police shouldn't need guns, either? That hardly seems relevant to reality.

 

I'm simply observing that if we expect citizens to disarm, surely we should expect likewise of law enforcement. What possible need would they have for high-powered firearms against a disarmed populace?

 

Yes, but when you say it, it's actually nonsense, instead of facts that you call nonsense because you don't like them. These "multitudes" are virtually nonexistent.

 

False. These multitudes are plentiful .

 

If you buy a gun for self-defense, it is many, many times more likely to be used to hurt someone in your household than to defend someone in your household.

 

So now you know me better than I know myself?

[Lilith]

seriously ghaldring just walk away

[Brocktree]

If that is an official request from the moderating team, I'm fine with that. It's not my forum, after all. I simply wished to post my position, not engage in endless back and forth with people spoiling for a fight.

 

Do note, however, that I'm not the only one who has the ability to walk away.

[Lilith]

If that is an official request from the moderating team, I'm fine with that. It's not my forum, after all. I simply wished to post my position, not engage in endless back and forth with people spoiling for a fight.

 

Do note, however, that I'm not the only one who has the ability to walk away.

 

It's not an official request yet, but I think it'd be a really good idea for everyone if you took my advice. It looks like you've already said just about everything you have to say, in any case.

[BMA]

meme idea

 

 

 

 

 

[Sudanna]

Heavens'ta Betsy. It always turns into something worth watching once you throw in a loon or two. Keep it up, BT, for the sake of good entertainment.

[Prince of Kitties]

Umm. Last I heard, a person is significantly more likely to be murdered by someone they know - an acquaintance, a friend, even a family member - than by a stranger. We humans do not usually have as much self-control as we like to think. One of the reasons I do not want firearms in my house, is that I don't want to have a highly lethal weapon around when I'm feeling sad and/or angry.

 

(And yes, IMO there is such a thing as a healthy level of distrust in one's self, as well as a healthy level of trust. Too much anger makes people irrational and stupid, and trusting one's self in such a state is a bad idea.)

 

I would also point out that in the case of armed home invasion, a gun safely locked away somewhere out of easy reach (as per the legal requirements) will not do one much good. Sleeping with a gun under the pillow would work, but there are good reasons that that is illegal.

[Harehunter]

Folks who've known me for a while here already know my position on the Second Amendment. For the record, I think the Supreme Court has gotten it right. It does not apply strictly to an organized militia, but it is an individual right. As an officer in the U.S. armed forces I took an oath to "Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." That oath most definitely includes all the amendments. I sincerely believe that there is a reason that freedom of speech and religion is the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment.

 

I have debated with a few of you as to the wisdom of enacting a law that ensures the right of individuals to own firearms. The history of the United States has been one full of conflict. The right of the individuals to protect their homes and their lives against all those who would choose to take it from them is a basic right. Enacting a law that would ban all firearms would not stop the use of them in the commission murder. It would limit the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves against those who would illegally acquire firearms regardless of the law.

 

Now to the topic of semi-automatic weapons. There is a lot of opinion being cast about on both sides, with studies being cited from various sources to support their claims. I have already learned from my discussions with Slarty that you cannot use studies from obviously biased sources such as the Heritage Foundation or the Huffington Post. Both sources are biased in the extreme on opposite sides of whatever debate is going on. As someone who has studied statistical methods, and having seen too many studies that just don't pass the smell test, I am highly skeptical of all studies until I have read the underlying details. From what I have read, there is nothing conclusive on either side of the debate regarding high-caliber semi-automatic weapons. I can cite studies from both sides that appear to be valid, but again, I have to consider the source.

 

The real question in my mind is this: Is it possible to prevent people who are determined to commit murder, on any scale, from acquiring a weapon capable of the act? Firearms are not the only thing available for use as a weapon. An automobile has been used in at least one case I can cite. Knives, clubs, whatever comes to hand can and have been used as weapons. I once sat on a jury where the murder weapon was a fire extinguisher. For a sufficiently determined individual bent on destruction and possible murder, bulldozers and armored vehicles from the National Guard post have been used. Many, many people own guns of all calibers and loading method, and they do not commit crimes, nor do they have accidents where a child kills themselves or someone else. There are reports where people, including teenagers, have used firearms to defend their home, their business and their lives. There are also reports where firearms are used to commit crimes. I find it curious that our media networks tell you more about a story that supports their bias, while ignoring those that contradict it. What is disturbing is when a news report is "edited" in such a way as to distort the facts. This cuts both ways.

 

And then there is Major Nidal Hassan. This character was known about for years, yet nothing was done to prevent him from committing mass murder on an army post. It was not considered correct to release him from the service because of his religious views. After all, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are guaranteed in the First Amendment, yes, even to soldiers. As for the Connecticut shooter, I have not yet heard enough to conclude if mental health was at issue or not. The right to privacy with regard to medical issues, including mental health, is also well established.

 

Identifying people with the motive to commit mass murder, and having a process that could be used to prevent them is, IMHO, the action that I would consider just. We have our basic rights protected by the Constitution of The United States, but we also have a system of courts that are empowered to abrogate those rights when a case is presented to them that provides just cause. This is the due process of the law that is already in place. But for this system to work, the people of the community have to be alert and aware of potential threats and be willing to press suit against them.

[Randomizer]

In the recent Connecticut case the guns were purchased by the shooter's mother and stored in a gun case in the same basement as the shooter lived in at home. I don't think how securely it was locked has been mentioned.

 

So pretty much all current legal restrictions wouldn't have prevented the shooter from getting them. Extension of the assault rifle ban would have prevent the Bushmaster from being available to him.

[Brocktree]

If the shooter had received some treatment for his mental health issues, then he likely wouldn't have wanted to kill people in the first place.

 

Heavens'ta Betsy. It always turns into something worth watching once you throw in a loon or two. Keep it up, BT, for the sake of good entertainment.

 

LOL! So personal attacks are OK, but expressing a socially inappropriate opinion is not. Screw it. I'm not contributing to this forum any more.

[Prince of Kitties]

If the shooter had received some treatment for his mental health issues, then he likely wouldn't have wanted to kill people in the first place.

 

For once I actually agree.

 

IMO it would be helpful if mental health care didn't cary such a stigma here. We've come a long way, in terms of treating mental illness as opposed to punishing people for it, but we still have a long way to go (particularly in terms of popular opinion).

[Lilith]

Folks who've known me for a while here already know my position on the Second Amendment. For the record, I think the Supreme Court has gotten it right. It does not apply strictly to an organized militia, but it is an individual right. As an officer in the U.S. armed forces I took an oath to "Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." That oath most definitely includes all the amendments. I sincerely believe that there is a reason that freedom of speech and religion is the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment.

 

is it because that's the order in which they were added to the constitution

 

Heavens'ta Betsy. It always turns into something worth watching once you throw in a loon or two. Keep it up, BT, for the sake of good entertainment.

 

hey nalyd brocktree has a point (although she shouldn't assume that everything posted is considered acceptable just because the mods haven't seen it yet): that was not really a cool thing to say. knock it off

[Sudanna]

I'm. . . simply stating a position.

[Lilith]

calling a poster on these forums a loon is a bit more than stating a position bro

[A less presumptuous name.]

Oh for the love of… Can someone PLEASE give me s credible source for the shooter having a mental illness?

[Kelandon]

I don't think he was ever diagnosed with anything. On the other hand, you don't do what he did if you're completely right in the head.

[Prince of Kitties]

On the other hand, "completely right in the head" entails a lot more than not having a known mental illness or personality disorder. "Sane" encompasses plenty of unethical and irrational stuff.

 

Heck, we're posting these messages using machines that were (in part) build using slave labor. Ain't none of us completely right in the head.

[Tyranicus]

Heck, we're posting these messages using machines that were (in part) build using slave labor. Ain't none of us completely right in the head.

I'm not saying everything is exactly as it should be in some Asian factories, but the workers do get paid. This, and the fact that they willingly entered into the employment contracts they have, makes them, by definition, employees and not slaves.

[Lilith]

I'm not saying everything is exactly as it should be in some Asian factories, but the workers do get paid. This, and the fact that they entered into the employment contracts they have, makes them, by definition, employees and not slaves.

 

do some reading up on the conditions under which the materials for electronic components are mined: some mines are in fact worked by outright chattel slaves, as in people who are rounded up at gunpoint and forced to work there until they drop dead. coltan mining in Colombia is a good/depressing place to start looking

[Prince of Kitties]

Lilith is correct, I'm referring to tantalum mining. The current revolution in compter technology has also been a humanitarian disaster, probably on about the same scale as the Second World War. But corporations only care about profits, and governments only care about their continued existence, and everyone cares about cheap computers... And almost nobody cares about the many, many unfortunate people who are variously raped, murdered, and/or enslaved in the name of such things. That a lot of them have dark skin probably doesn't help.

 

I can think of more to say on the issue, but I think I'd better stop posting for now, lest I blow a fuse.

 

Edit: suffice to say that if we as a species were "right in the head," the absence of violent nutcases shooting elementary school students would be just the very beginning of how different things would be.

[A less presumptuous name.]

On the other hand, you don't do what he did if you're completely right in the head.

Just because you, and indeed most people, cannot understand the action, doesn't mean that the action was a result of mental illness or anything of the sort.

[Lilith]

more to the point mental illness is defined and diagnosed primarily through behaviour, and inference from behaviour to its underlying causes is speculative at best. even if we decide that a spree killing is incontrovertible evidence of mental illness, that in itself doesn't actually tell us anything useful about how to prevent spree killings

[Death Knight]

Is it possible to get someone like this help from a doctor through family guidance? I have a few family members that got help through a doctor with medication and are able to live mostly-fully functional lives.

[BMA]

Just because you, and indeed most people, cannot understand the action, doesn't mean that the action was a result of mental illness or anything of the sort.

 

That depends on what you mean by a mental illness. A person (even as a child) is expected to have a general idea of how to behave in a society, and while not coming up to these standards doesn't necessarily make you 'mentally disabled', going so far from the normal line of thinking as to go around shooting others certainly does.

[keira]

um if you have a problem and the solution is "go into a school and kill 20 kids" then you are extremely mentally ill. there is zero justification or logic for it. none. but that's not the issue, the issue is finding out about the illness and taking measures to ensure that that person can't unload on a schoolhouse.

[BMA]

that's not the issue, the issue is finding out about the illness and taking measures to ensure that that person can't unload on a schoolhouse.

 

Yes, but we're not all in agreement about whether he's 'mentally ill' or not in the first place which I thought was an underlying issue. Analyzing and classifying his problem (mental or not) into a category can help detect other troubled individuals and help them get treated before they have to take it out on others.

Edited December 24, 2012 by BMA

[Mosquito---Slayer]

(Not speaking about the this particular case)

At least technically Mental illness is some sort of psychological problem that corresponds to irrational behavior but is natural, very often(possibly always) you will be able to find medical descriptions/solutions etc. for such cases.

This sort of condition is related to but is not 100% same as that of the condition of the culprit in such cases, a (medically) mentally ill person is probably more likely to indulge in such activities, however persons which do not suffer from such (medical) conditions are also capable of such incidents, for instance a perfectly sane person who has been under a lot of stress for some time or so, such cases are practically undetectable especially when American culture involves a lot of staying alone, cultures in which there is a strong family relation are probably better equipped to deal with such cases. In any cases this is one of the reason I believe in Gun control.

Basically since these cases are extremely hard to detect beforehand, the only possible solution to me seems preemptive measures applicable to everybody, obviously if you don't have a gun you are less likely to go on a shooting spree, I do understand that someone with criminal mentality who is hell-bent on killing people will end up procuring guns in any case, but still I do think(debatable point obviously) that assault and other heavy gun-control has the potential to prevent a decent percentage of such cases ,at least spur of the moment cases.

[Goldengirl]

First of all, I'd like to remind everyone in this discussion to be civil and polite. The flame went out on the gun rights issue, which got pretty heated, but I'd also like to apply this to the discussion of mental illness. Terms like "nuts" "crazy" etc. aren't specific (mental illness is a big category encompassing such different behavioral trends as schizophrenia, depression, ADD, autism, and hypochondria - just among those there are a lot of differences) and carry a heavy negative connotation. For my sake, at the very least, can we avoid using terms like that?

 

That depends on what you mean by a mental illness. A person (even as a child) is expected to have a general idea of how to behave in a society, and while not coming up to these standards doesn't necessarily make you 'mentally disabled', going so far from the normal line of thinking as to go around shooting others certainly does.

 

You're thinking of abnormality. There's a correlation between mental illness and abnormality, but it's not a causation. Some people are just abnormal, and there is no illness behind that. It's been a while since my intro to psych class, but in general a mental illness is a mental condition that impairs or prevents ones daily functioning and also poses some risk of harm to one's own self or others.

[A less presumptuous name.]

um if you have a problem and the solution is "go into a school and kill 20 kids" then you are extremely mentally ill.

Sorry, but that's just not how mental illness works. Also, that further stigmatises the view that people with mental illnesses are or can be dangers to society, when in fact the overwhelming majority of those people are no danger to anyone, except possibly themselves.

 

So, I found this neat article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I invite you all to read it. Please.

 

source

 

A few highlights:

 

Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.

Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.

 

Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.

Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.

[Prince of Kitties]

um if you have a problem and the solution is "go into a school and kill 20 kids" then you are extremely mentally ill. there is zero justification or logic for it. none. but that's not the issue, the issue is finding out about the illness and taking measures to ensure that that person can't unload on a schoolhouse.

 

There was also zero justification or logic to killing Jews, or burning "witches" alive at the stake. I'm not going to argue that sanity is purely relative, but what we consider a sane state of mind leaves a lot to be desired.

[keira]

okay i am not saying all mentally ill people are would-be mass-murderers. that would be silly and absurd. however, as said above, if at any point you are considering going on a murdering rampage, you are not functioning in a correct fashion mentally.

 

I mean i am by no means an expert on the subject so i will defer the vocabulary nitpicking to those who are, but my point stands. And as I don't really have anything to say besides that, I am going to depart the topic.

[Kelandon]

So, I found this neat article in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

That article is not very accurate, or at least phrases literally accurate statements in a misleading way.

 

For example, "Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization."

 

This is true, I guess, but the Columbine shooters had criminal records. The Virginia Tech shooter had a long, documented history of mental illness. The Aurora shooter appears to have had at least some history of mental illness. A significant part of the profile of a mass shooter is some prior run-in with the law or at least some prior history of mental illness. So while the statement is literally true (they tend not to have a history of psychiatric hospitalization per se), if you take it to mean that they have no criminal or mental health history, it's false.

 

This particular shooter in Newtown is exceptional in a number of ways (he used his mother's guns, he didn't have much of a documented history of, well, anything, etc.), but the typical profile stands (as typical if not universal). Moreover, it is possible that he had something that was undiagnosed; you can have, say, the flu even if no doctor tells you that you have the flu, so it's possible that he had some mental illness even though no psychiatrist ever examined him. We can't say that he wasn't mentally ill; the most that we could say is that we don't know. (He did have some sort of problem impairing his day-to-day functioning, and not just because he shot a bunch of first-graders; he had difficulty speaking to anyone but his mother, according to those who knew them. Whether that rose to the level of mental illness, I don't know.)

 

And certainly there are problems going the other way: given that mass shooters tend to have certain characteristics, it's not easy to say that people who have these characteristics are in danger of becoming mass shooters. I don't know if the description is really that specific. That's where preventative policy becomes difficult.

[A less presumptuous name.]

To say that mental function is abnormal because of this is not really accurate. Plenty of species will do what we consider to be terrible things despite having typical neurological functioning. Our morals, which we rely on to prevent such attrocities, are largely social constructs. While it's very possible that a neurological or pysichiatric disorder is respinsible for the Newtown shooter's bevaior, that is not the only explanation.