Another school shooting

[thejeff]

Icyshadow wrote:

Well, I just hope we never let it get that far. Good thing SOPA was stopped before the internet got censored and put under government control. Also, what would politics help when we're in the phase that opposition of any kind (including verbal or political) will just get you a bullet to the head, and every nation's government in the world has chosen to stick with this kind of plan as well? That's pretty much the dead end, assuming we remain ignorant of what a corrupt government and a rich elite can do.

We're not in that phase. How about we stop it, without guns, long before we get to that phase.

Even in that phase, you alone with a gun won't be able to do anything. You with the support of tens of thousands of your fellow citizens can, even without the guns. Non violent resistance works. It often works better than violent resistance.
They need you. Even the tyrannical government needs people to work. Deny them that and they fall.

[Angstspawn]

Even if I disagree with the option I understand you can defend yourself from a robber or even a gang with a good weapon and the appropriate training but not an organized army.

More so, even if not American, I find awful this way to treat US government. Wasn't the government able (for sure with Americans) to make that country the greatest country of the world.
US governments and politicians were serving the people without utterly failing them for more than 200 years and this is the only feed-back they deserve? For sure it's not perfect, but it's never.
They managed to protect their fellow citizens from countless threats over that years. Mistakes? Most probably they made some but you can't just flush all those lives given or dedicated to the United States of America by its politicians. You can't spit at them just because you want to keep your big bangbang. Ignorance nor egoism is an excuse

When I read some post the only thing coming to my mind is that you don't deserve such a great country and, that you call yourself patriots is at best an imposture!

[Icyshadow]

thejeff wrote:

Angstspawn wrote:

US have the most powerful military forces and weapons in the world, how can any of you think you even have a chance if government is turning against you??

Some of you were in the army, you know probably much better than I what special units are able to. How can you believe you'd survive a direct confrontation?
How your guns will protect you against the M230 chain gun of an Apache or, a few Hellfire missiles?

Stop the nonsense argue of being able to oppose government, you never were, you're not and never will. At least not with your guns.

And think of it this way, especially those who were in the army: Would you follow orders to gun down peaceful unarmed protesters? Or would you be more likely to follow orders to attack an armed dangerous terrorist/militia cell?

Look at Syria. The revolt there started with huge peaceful protests that were attacked by the regimes forces. They continued coming out despite the deaths and gradually the army began to desert until the deserters formed a military force of their own and opposed the regime directly.

If the initial protestors had been armed and responded violently, they still would have been overwhelmed, but they would have been easily portrayed as terrorists and rebels and they never would have had the moral force that has gotten the support of much of the country and so much of the former military.

The government is us. The military is us. The police are us. They are not some foreign power that is nothing but a tool of tyranny. They are made up of people.

Be that as true as it is, the sad fact is that money remains a powerful motivator, no matter which "side" you are on...

[Smarnil le couard]

Icyshadow wrote:

@Smarnil

I'd get professional help, but my family would disown me the moment I do and the doctors keep offering me pills.

What I need is therapy, not pills. I am aware of my depression (and other problems), and all I can do now is live with it.

I'm truly sorry to hear that : take care of yourself. Nobody should have to live with the angst of fear because of a mental condition (and lack of proper treatment).

Maybe your family could surprise you by its understanding of your plight.

Also, if you do own a gun, you should consider giving it away for safekeeping, as long as you suffer from depression. A bad impulse is all it takes if you do own a gun.

[Icyshadow]

thejeff wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Well, I just hope we never let it get that far. Good thing SOPA was stopped before the internet got censored and put under government control. Also, what would politics help when we're in the phase that opposition of any kind (including verbal or political) will just get you a bullet to the head, and every nation's government in the world has chosen to stick with this kind of plan as well? That's pretty much the dead end, assuming we remain ignorant of what a corrupt government and a rich elite can do.

We're not in that phase. How about we stop it, without guns, long before we get to that phase.

Even in that phase, you alone with a gun won't be able to do anything. You with the support of tens of thousands of your fellow citizens can, even without the guns. Non violent resistance works. It often works better than violent resistance.
They need you. Even the tyrannical government needs people to work. Deny them that and they fall.

If we go with only unarmed resistance, chances are we're just put in death camps for our troubles instead. The nazi regime soldiers were completely unsympathetic to the plights of any people left in those places to die, and hardly anyone even resisted. They didn't care if you were gay, jewish, gypsy or whatever. You were going to die for something and going against that ruling meant for the soldiers that they got a bullet to the head or the honor of joining the guys being killed. I'm a little bit cynical as to how many would (or even could) rebel when we've gone that far.

@Smarnil

I doubt my worries about the current world condition are based off merely my mental issues (SOPA, again). And no, I do not own a gun.

[thejeff]

Icyshadow wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Well, I just hope we never let it get that far. Good thing SOPA was stopped before the internet got censored and put under government control. Also, what would politics help when we're in the phase that opposition of any kind (including verbal or political) will just get you a bullet to the head, and every nation's government in the world has chosen to stick with this kind of plan as well? That's pretty much the dead end, assuming we remain ignorant of what a corrupt government and a rich elite can do.

We're not in that phase. How about we stop it, without guns, long before we get to that phase.

Even in that phase, you alone with a gun won't be able to do anything. You with the support of tens of thousands of your fellow citizens can, even without the guns. Non violent resistance works. It often works better than violent resistance.
They need you. Even the tyrannical government needs people to work. Deny them that and they fall.

If we go with only unarmed resistance, chances are we're just put in death camps for our troubles instead. The nazi regime soldiers were completely unsympathetic to the plights of any people left in those places to die, and hardly anyone even resisted. They didn't care if you were gay, jewish, gypsy or whatever. You were going to die for something and going against that ruling meant for the soldiers that they got a bullet to the head or the honor of joining the guys being killed. I'm a little bit cynical as to how many would (or even could) rebel when we've gone that far.

First, so let's not go that far.

Second, yeah, that's true. If a large majority wants to oppress or eliminate a minority, they will. Arming that minority doesn't mean they'll win, it just makes it easier to portray them as a threat.
You need popular support to win with nonviolent resistance, but you need it with violent resistance too.

But again, most importantly. We're not there. No where in Europe. Not in the US. There are places closer to that, but they're not places where we're debating gun rights.
We put minority rights and protections in our laws and our constitutions. We fight this out in the courts and in public opinion. In the US, rights for minorities and for gays have not been won by force of arms. I don't know anywhere that they have.

[Angstspawn]

Icyshadow wrote:

If we go with only unarmed resistance, chances are we're just put in death camps for our troubles instead. The nazi regime soldiers were completely unsympathetic to the plights of any people left in those places to die, and hardly anyone even resisted. They didn't care if you were gay, jewish, gypsy or whatever. You were going to die for something and going against that ruling meant for the soldiers that they get a shot in the head or join the guys being killed.

Nazism was thriving on egoism, on the feeling self-sufficiency, on the belief that consensus was a loss of time, on the belief that might is the only way to enforce the laws, the rights.

Icyshadow wrote:

I'm a little bit cynical as to how many would (or even could) rebel when we've gone that far.

Imagine the crisis worsening, the unemployment level reaching 25/30%, another terror attack linking American muslims (who could be former refugees) to Iraq. Imagine again a harsh but very charismatic president in the US at the same time with election coming soon. Imagine him using his charisma to expose how the world should end with the muslim threat definitely for the sake of America.

Then I ask you back the question Icyshadow, how many will raise against a new Final Solution?
Are you sure they'll be able to stop it before it'll be too late?

Simple answers are not always solving complicated problems.
Without being extremly religious I keep that sentence in mind: "An eye for an eye and the world will become blind".

[Icyshadow]

Seemed to me that the only opposition for SOPA didn't come from courts or government, but from the internet and individuals. And yes, we are not there yet. What I worry of is going there, and I do not trust the UN with any of that given it forces multiple countries to binding contracts. Right now you seemingly only get a scolding for refusing to join their plays and such, but something tells me the price for not following along might grow higher and higher.

[FuelDrop]

For those who advocate keeping a gun to defend yourself against the 'government' (ok i'm oversimplifying the argument, I admit it).

Where were you when the PATRIOT act effectively removed your right for the government not to spy on you? I know that technically it's not a constitutional right so it might not count, but it's still the kind of thing I get upset about.

Also, there have been successful non-violent resistances in the past. food for thought, perhaps?

[Mark Sweetman]

Gallo wrote:

Mark Sweetman wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.

So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.

You may want to check your facts on the East Timor bit. Irrespective of the what laws are on the books, East Timor and Yemen cannot be compared. Yemen's private gun ownership rate is 150 times that of East Timor. There used to be lots of guns up there but they were all in the hands of the Indonesian military and their proxies plus the weapons the resistance took off the Indonesian military.

I was specifically referring gun laws not ownership.

Reference

[Icyshadow]

FuelDrop wrote:

For those who advocate keeping a gun to defend yourself against the 'government' (ok i'm oversimplifying the argument, I admit it).

Where were you when the PATRIOT act effectively removed your right for the government not to spy on you? I know that technically it's not a constitutional right so it might not count, but it's still the kind of thing I get upset about.

Also, there have been successful non-violent resistances in the past. food for thought, perhaps?

Oh yeah, you guys had that too. Didn't that one other law allow the government to arrest you merely under "suspicions of terrorism" or something like that?

[thejeff]

Icyshadow wrote:

Seemed to me that the only opposition for SOPA didn't come from courts or government, but from the internet and individuals. And yes, we are not there yet. What I worry of is going there, and I do not trust the UN with any of that given it forces multiple countries to binding contracts. Right now you seemingly only get a scolding for refusing to join their plays and such, but something tells me the price for not following along might grow higher and higher.

"From the internet and individuals"? Public opinion. Political pressure.

That's all part of the process.

Non-violent resistance, in a very mild form.
Not people with guns.

[Saint Caleth]

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Thanks.

Still, I have to point out that the difference between Europe and USA isn't the lack of a "First amendment" (we do have constitutional texts to the same effect), but our treatment of it. We see freedom of speech as a goal to strive for, which can be subjected to limits, and not as an intangible absolute. As you say, too much of a good thing...

The reverent tone some people use on this forum to talk about the american...

Doing some research, I see that both the EU charter and the constitutions of various European countries guarantee freedom of speech, but then qualify that freedom with a long list of exceptions, unlike the first ammendment wich has no stated lapses in protection.

I also understand that the US has the broadest protections of expression in basically every country, and I think that our way is superior to teh European way since I was brought up with the very classical American view that the entire system or rights only works when it applies to everyone, even people you don't like or agree with. Therefore even the worst criminals get the benefits of the 5th 6th and 8th amendments and you have to allow even abhorrent speech. The First Amendment also helps keep stupidity such as blasphemy laws off the books in the US.

The solution to disagreeable speech is more speech to counter it, not a crackdown of censorship.

I don't know how much reverence there is from me specifically, since I understand that not only can the constitution be changed by amendment, but that the interpretation of the constitution changes over time depending on the makeup of the supreme court.

[Angstspawn]

If not all most of us were gutted by what happened to those children, we found it desperately unfair.
I've no doubt either that all people supporting gun laws here are responsible, that far from being a problem the weapon they carry had been a solution given they were in the vicinity of that drama.

But, because you are American and I'm not, because you have knowledge about guns and I have not, because you know the laws and I do not, maybe you can ask yourself: are the weapons we globally possess in our country (and not just me in my home) appropriate for the main reasons why we need them?

There'll be never any sense, any logic, for the death of those children or all those thousands of anonymous they were unfortunate enough to become the ambassadors of but, each of you who can understand why guns are deeded, gather and find some solutions.
You have no direct responsibility, no obligation to do so, but you know inside of you they deserve it.

[Icyshadow]

Also, I heard they've lumped people who want to protest into "zones", at least in the US.

Rioting outside said zones was said to have dire consequences (prison time) and such. Is that true?

Hell, here you can't even go on strike without permission from the police or you get arrested for illegal protesting.

[Kryzbyn]

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:
1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

[Smarnil le couard]

Saint Caleth wrote:

Doing some research, I see that both the EU charter and the constitutions of various European countries guarantee freedom of speech, but then qualify that freedom with a long list of exceptions, unlike the first ammendment wich has no stated lapses in protection.

I also understand that the US has the broadest protections of expression in basically every country, and I think that our way is superior to teh European way since I was brought up with the very classical American view that the entire system or rights only works when it applies to everyone, even people you don't like or agree with. Therefore even the worst criminals get the benefits of the 5th 6th and 8th amendments and you have to allow even abhorrent speech. The First Amendment also helps keep stupidity such as blasphemy laws off the books in the US.

The solution to disagreeable speech is more speech to counter it, not a crackdown of censorship.

I don't know how much reverence there is from me specifically, since I understand that not only can the constitution be changed by amendment, but that the interpretation of the constitution changes over time depending on the makeup of the supreme court.

Well, I think you are missing the point.

It's not about rights applying to everyone (it works that way in Europe too), it's about about the very notion of rights : are they absolute, or are they relative ? Also, what is more important : the letter of the law (the right as written down two centuries ago), or the spirit of the law (the true intent of its redactors) ?

Our difference here comes from historical roots. For us, nipping the next Hitler in the bud is more important than letting a bunch of extremists express racist opinions and spoil the democratic fun for everyone, just because a manmade document say so. You can call it political pragmatism, or an application of a bunch of old sayings : "don't let perfection get in the way of good", or "no liberty for liberty's ennemies", or even "too much of a good thing can be a bad thing". A perfect freedom of speech seems to us less important than a good one that guarantees the long term stability of our democracies. It's part of our social contract.

We already had the lunatics taking over the asylum, thanks. No one here is seriously arguing that letting them try again in the name of principles would be a good idea.

[Guy Humual]

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

[bugleyman]

Andrew R wrote:

But as long as she doesn't fight he might let her live. Like I said, the terror of guns leads these folks to prefer a girl raped to armed, they just lack the stones to admit it.

Binary world view? Check.

Posts with an undercurrent of hostility? Check.
Opinions lacking in internal consistency? Check.
You know what, Andrew? You're a pretty effective argument for putting tighter restrictions on the ownership of firearms. So...thank you.

[Icyshadow]

bugleyman wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

But as long as she doesn't fight he might let her live. Like I said, the terror of guns leads these folks to prefer a girl raped to armed, they just lack the stones to admit it.

Binary world view? Check.

Posts with an undercurrent of hostility? Check.
Opinions lacking in internal consistency? Check.

You know what, Andrew? You're a pretty effective argument for putting tighter restrictions on the ownership of firearms. So...thank you.

Next thing we know you'll say he's also an effective argument for constant civilian surveillance and other restrictions of freedom. Also, your assumption is bordering on the disgusting. That's like thinking every soft-spoken person ever is a nice guy. I wonder how surprised you are to see how polite and calm a psychopathic serial killer can be while he tells you about the people he killed one by one or when the constantly swearing guy who looks like a hobo is actually a nice guy and buys you a drink.

[Auxmaulous]

Scott Betts wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.

I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.

And, similarly, we have no way of knowing whether the gun was necessary to prevent the crime occurring. So let's stick to actual evidence, shall we? Like, perhaps, the evidence showing that decreased availability of firearms tends to result in a lower rate of homicide, and a plummeting of shooting spree events?

No, to discount the amount of crime a gun actually stops would be incredibly one-sided and unrealistic and inaccurate - I know you prefer it that way though to push an agenda - but it doesn't reflect reality.

Discounting the value of guns when it comes to stopping or deterring crime has to be included if you are going to do an assessment of the value of guns play in our society.

[Kryzbyn]

Guy Humual wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

I myself am more in a camp 2 than 1...but would not oppose 1 out of hand necessarily. It depends on what the proposed increases would be.

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current federal and state laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

EDIT: clarified thoughts a bit...

[bugleyman]

Icyshadow wrote:

Next thing we know you'll say he's also an effective argument for constant civilian surveillance and other restrictions of freedom.

Oh absolutely. I'm clearly about to do that, because that makes perfect sense.

Icyshadow wrote:

Also, your assumption is bordering on the disgusting. That's like thinking every soft-spoken person ever is a nice guy. I wonder how surprised you are to see how polite and calm a psychopathic serial killer can be while he tells you about the people he killed one by one or when the constantly swearing guy who looks like a hobo is actually a nice guy and buys you a drink.

Which "assumption" is that? The behaviors I listed are on display in this thread.

[Paul Watson]

Auxmalous,
Ok. How do you count crimes that didn't happen? By their very nature they didn't happen. That makes it impossible to count them.

[Kryzbyn]

Indeed. While it can be argued that private citizens with firearms can and do prevent crimes, all that there are to support that are anecdotes and arbitrary statistics. Crime rates are currently tracked and have solid numbers. Hard to refute the latter with the former.

[bugleyman]

I have a question for people adamantly opposed to even discussing stricter gun controls: How many children have to be shot to death before we're allowed to have a discussion? Presumably there is some threshold after which we could agree that even broaching the subject is warranted -- so, how many?

[thejeff]

Auxmaulous wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.

I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.

And, similarly, we have no way of knowing whether the gun was necessary to prevent the crime occurring. So let's stick to actual evidence, shall we? Like, perhaps, the evidence showing that decreased availability of firearms tends to result in a lower rate of homicide, and a plummeting of shooting spree events?

No, to discount the amount of crime a gun actually stops would be incredibly one-sided and unrealistic and inaccurate - I know you prefer it that way though to push an agenda - but it doesn't reflect reality.

Discounting the value of guns when it comes to stopping or deterring crime has to be included if you are going to do an assessment of the value of guns play in our society.

It does have to be included, but to be useful it can't be "from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times", not actually tabulated since many aren't reported and might just be figments of the gun owners imagination.

Besides the numbers on homicides will reflect that. As will numbers of other crimes. If the numbers of homicides drops with less guns, that necessarily takes into account any homicides that might have been prevented by a gun. Even with that, the numbers drop.
Similarly with other crimes. If other crimes rise with less guns available, we'll see that too and can weigh that against a drop in deaths.
These "crimes stopped by guns" may not show up in the statistics since the crimes don't actually occur, but in areas with less guns, the crimes that would have been stopped should show up, since they won't have been stopped.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

I don't think we can all agree on that. We really don't know what caused the shooter to act. It's certainly a possibility that he was driven by his problems, but it's not by any means proven.

[Xabulba]

thejeff wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

I don't think we can all agree on that. We really don't know what caused the shooter to act. It's certainly a possibility that he was driven by his problems, but it's not by any means proven.

What is know about the shooter is that if he didn't have access to guns he wouldn't have been able to kill 18 kids.

[Auxmaulous]

meatrace wrote:

Oh you've SEEN have you.
Links or shut up.

When you have nothing - attack (verbally or physically), insult or call someone crazy in an attempt to stifle discussion.

It must be both shameful and sad to live inside of that kind of worldview.

Here's one link.
I invite you to produce some cross comparison data - both crime data and deterrent data, otherwise you are painting an incomplete and inaccurate representation of the problem.

And yes, the data is difficult to track because of the way that crime data is collected - as I stated earlier. That doesn't discount the fact that deterrence does not occur every day. I would say that there is a greater agenda in the media to demonstrate the harm guns do in society without showing the flipside of the argument so there are not exhaustive studies on the issue.

But using OT logic, if the numbers don't exists it didn't happen. Which is wholly self-serving and an unrealistic presentation of the problem.

[Guy Humual]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

I myself am more in a camp 2 than 1...but would not oppose 1 out of hand necessarily. It depends on what the proposed increases would be.

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current federal and state laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

EDIT: clarified thoughts a bit...

Mental health is one of the big problems in this case without a doubt. I've heard reports that the mother confided in others that her son was becoming more and more difficult to control, but on the other hand, within six months of the shooting she took her son to the gun range, and so she was effectively training him how to use the weapons. Perhaps if the shooter had been assessed by a mental health advocate he might have gotten the treatment he desperately needed, perhaps if there had been stricter rules on who can or cannot have access to firearms the mother might have voluntarily removed them from her home. This is all possible. However there is also the possibility that the mother was fooling everyone including herself as to what her son was capable of, perhaps others could have seen this coming but the mother hid any violent outbursts from the public. It's possible that she wouldn't have sought help even if it had been readily available. This is why I'd also like to see more gun control. Perhaps nothing could have prevented the shooting, but from what I've heard the shooter had three handguns and a semi automatic rifle. All four weapons had a lot of bullets. Maybe if the shooter had to reload more often more of the kids would have been able to run to safety. Maybe teachers would have had more time securing their classrooms. Maybe the first responders would have had more time to get there.

I know that's a lot of perhapses and maybes but this is the sort of thing people need to be thinking about, rather then pretending nothing is wrong and going the other way, talking about arming teachers, posting armed guards. This is turning schools into military zones.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

There's also:

4) Some folks think current laws are far too restrictive and more firearms will allow such mass shootings to be stopped.

[Kryzbyn]

Is there a rational reason to kill your mother and a school full of children?
He still would have been able to kill them, if he was dedicated to the idea. Depends how spur of the moment his decision was.
But, yes, if he did not have those guns he could not have shot those children or his mother.

[Kryzbyn]

thejeff wrote:

QUOTE="Kryzbyn"] So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

There's also:

4) Some folks think current laws are far too restrictive and more firearms will allow such mass shootings to be stopped.

Yep. I forgot that one.

[Guy Humual]

Auxmaulous wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Oh you've SEEN have you.
Links or shut up.

When you have nothing - attack (verbally or physically), insult or call someone crazy in an attempt to stifle discussion.

It must be both shameful and sad to live inside of that kind of worldview.

Here's one link.
I invite you to produce some cross comparison data - both crime data and deterrent data, otherwise you are painting an incomplete and inaccurate representation of the problem.

And yes, the data is difficult to track because of the way that crime data is collected - as I stated earlier. That doesn't discount the fact that deterrence does not occur every day. I would say that there is a greater agenda in the media to demonstrate the harm guns do in society without showing the flipside of the argument so there are not exhaustive studies on the issue.

But using OT logic, if the numbers don't exists it didn't happen. Which is wholly self-serving and an unrealistic presentation of the problem.

From the Wikipedia page on Gary Klek:

"A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns. Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses.; however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias". In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.

Various studies have found that defensive gun uses occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that found by Kleck. In the article "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, Cook and Ludwig quote the National Crime Victim Survey as finding 108,000 DGUs per year. One section of the article compares the U.S. crime rate to the number of DGUs reported by Kleck and Kleck-like studies and concludes that their estimate of the DGUs is improbably high. An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics says, "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."

Kleck has responded to these criticisms, claiming that studies of methodological errors in surveys concerning other controversial behaviors consistently find that the errors produce, on net, underestimates of the frequency of the behavior"

[Smarnil le couard]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

I myself am more in a camp 2 than 1...but would not oppose 1 out of hand necessarily. It depends on what the proposed increases would be.

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current federal and state laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

EDIT: clarified thoughts a bit...

Hi Kryzbyn. Hope we are clear: from your past posts, you seem to be a level-headed guy, and antagonizing you is quite low on my to-do list.

The #3 choice seems to be quite rare. Some people argue that some sort of guns (semi-autos rifles and up, big capacity magazines) should be banned, but I can't remember anyone asking for the ban of ALL firearms.

The idea was to limit the consequences of a killing spree. I suppose than to have them occur less frequently, a good beginning would be better treatment for mental conditions leading to such atrocities.

For the record, even in Europe, firearms ARE allowed. They are just more closely regulated, and much rarer. I myself owned a semi-auto pistol (a .22) inherited from my father; I gave it away for destruction years ago, to avoid the annual police checks. I live in a very calm place, annd have been confronted face to face to (non violent) criminal activity only twice in my life.

The first time, I was loading my car in the street to go back home. As I came back with another luggage, I saw a couple of junkies (a guy and a gal, with sunken eyes) breaking open my car's door and taking my leather jacket. I guess I had a quite strange reaction : I ran to them and scolded them. Theirs was a tad strange too : they gave me excuses, handed back the jacket and helped me load the trunk with the luggage I had dropped.

The second time, I was half asleep in my student's flat when I heard mild knocking at the door, then a big crash when a burglar broke into the next apartment. I rose and went to the door in my pajamas (oh, scary!). He must have heard me, as I saw him fleeing down the stairs, crowbar in hand, with a handful of CDs.

Both times, ordinary robbers going for the goods and having no intent of getting into a fight with passerbys.

There is some sort of a virtuous circle at work here : less firearms, less violent crimes, less fear, less need for protection, less firearms... The reverse vicious circle would be more firearms, more violent crimes, more fear, more need for self protection, more firearms.

[Guy Humual]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Is there a rational reason to kill your mother and a school full of children?

He still would have been able to kill them, if he was dedicated to the idea. Depends how spur of the moment his decision was.
But, yes, if he did not have those guns he could not have shot those children or his mother.

Absolutely, perhaps the only way we could have prevented any murders in this case was with a time machine. What I think many of us are asking for is ways to make sure we stop these mass killings.

I don't want to take people's guns, perhaps in the future, when they feel they no longer need them, perhaps they might be collected in a buy back program. But for now I just want sales on new semi-auto weapons to be more tightly controlled. People should be allowed to buy guns for hunting, protection, or sport, but why can't we have bolt action rifles and shotguns for this purpose?

[Mark Sweetman]

From Kleck's own study

Table 4 - COMPARISON OF DEFENDERS WITH OTHER PEOPLE

Looking at the percentages, the survey suggests that gun owners are more likely to suffer crime than non-gun owners.

Ergo - non-gun owners are safer.

Note: I don't personally like Kleck's study. It is based on massive upscaling of qualitative information.

[Kryzbyn]

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

I myself am more in a camp 2 than 1...but would not oppose 1 out of hand necessarily. It depends on what the proposed increases would be.

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current federal and state laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

EDIT: clarified thoughts a bit...

Hi Kryzbyn. Hope we are clear: from your past posts, you seem to be a level-headed guy, and antagonizing you is quite low on my to-do list.

The #3 choice seems to be quite rare. Some people argue that some sort of guns (semi-autos rifles and up, big capacity magazines) should be banned, but I can't remember anyone asking for the ban of ALL firearms.

The idea was to limit the consequences of a killing spree. I suppose than to have them occur less frequently, a good beginning would be better treatment for mental conditions leading to such atrocities.

For the record, even in Europe, firearms ARE allowed. They are just more closely regulated, and much rarer. I myself owned a semi-auto...

I took no offense to your post.

#3 was a result of what I interpreted as people coming close but never quite saying that firearms should be banned. This was only a few posters, not a large sampling, but I thought the rhetoric was there.
There were comments that countered reasons why a private citizen should want to own a firearm. I took this to mean they felt there was no good reason to, ergo the amendment to the constitution, becasue without that, there can be no banning of private ownership of firearms.
I did not mean this as a slight to anyone's view point at all, and I'm sorry if it was an unfair representation of anyone's actual view.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Interesting article on the NRA whom, although I don't like gun control, I think are nuts.

Another interesting article from Counterpunch.

This sentence almost entirely describes how I feel reading this thread:

Given the quality of this debate, I’m not really interested in engaging either the smug liberal challenges of “well, are you people finally ready to come to your senses” or the right-wing hysteria of “The Kenyan Marxist Muslim is coming to take our guns away!” I’ll just say for the record I’m an anarchist, and I don’t care much for the idea of the same state responsible for warrantless wiretapping and the NDAA regulating the public’s access to weaponry for self-defense. And I don’t want a new War on Guns carried out by the same lawless paramilitary thugs in kevlar who’re already fighting the wars on drugs and terrorism. At the same time, I can’t say I’m too crazy about the loudest anti-gun control voices on the right.

[Kryzbyn]

As always, the truth is probably somehwere in the middle.

[pres man]

Of course, it may be that people that are more likely to be victims of crimes (perhaps due to location or other factors)are more likely to purchase guns.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

thejeff wrote:

Look at Syria. The revolt there started with huge peaceful protests that were attacked by the regimes forces. They continued coming out despite the deaths and gradually the army began to desert until the deserters formed a military force of their own and opposed the regime directly.

If the initial protestors had been armed and responded violently, they still would have been overwhelmed, but they would have been easily portrayed as terrorists and rebels and they never would have had the moral force that has gotten the support of much of the country and so much of the former military.

Interesting sidenote.

11 December 2012
12 December 2012

[Guy Humual]

pres man wrote:

Of course, it may be that people that are more likely to be victims of crimes (perhaps due to location or other factors)are more likely to purchase guns.

That is not an unreasonable assumption.

[Mark Sweetman]

Guy Humual wrote:

pres man wrote:

Of course, it may be that people that are more likely to be victims of crimes (perhaps due to location or other factors)are more likely to purchase guns.

That is not an unreasonable assumption.

Or it could be because they put their left sock on first and followed with their right...

Just making an outrageous point that applying assumptions and affect to the data is pointless. It wasn't discriminated at the time of data gathering, so it can't be changed and viewed with rose colored glasses after the fact.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Is there a rational reason to kill your mother and a school full of children?

He still would have been able to kill them, if he was dedicated to the idea. Depends how spur of the moment his decision was.
But, yes, if he did not have those guns he could not have shot those children or his mother.

I am uncomfortable with defining it as an after the fact mental health issue.

"He killed his mother and a school full of children, obviously he's crazy", is very different and less useful than "His history of (specific mental illness) led to his actions." Even if the diagnosis is after the fact, like I believe Jared Loughner's was. Obviously difficult to diagnose afterwards if he is dead.

You must be crazy to kill a school full of kids is not a medical diagnosis.

[thejeff]

Guy Humual wrote:

pres man wrote:

Of course, it may be that people that are more likely to be victims of crimes (perhaps due to location or other factors)are more likely to purchase guns.

That is not an unreasonable assumption.

It is also a checkable assumption. Is legal gun ownership concentrated in high crime areas?

[pres man]

Mark Sweetman wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

pres man wrote:

Of course, it may be that people that are more likely to be victims of crimes (perhaps due to location or other factors)are more likely to purchase guns.

That is not an unreasonable assumption.

Or it could be because they put their left sock on first and followed with their right...

Just making an outrageous point that applying assumptions and affect to the data is pointless. It wasn't discriminated at the time of data gathering, so it can't be changed and viewed with rose colored glasses after the fact.

Just pointing out that some seemed to be in fact applying assumptions to a correlation. i.e. Owning guns MADE one more likely to be a victim of crime.

Also we'd probably have to look at legal ownership versus de facto ownership. As well as people with guns being the victims of crimes as well as the perpetrators (say a gang shoot out for example).

[Guy Humual]

pres man wrote:

Mark Sweetman wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

pres man wrote:

Of course, it may be that people that are more likely to be victims of crimes (perhaps due to location or other factors)are more likely to purchase guns.

That is not an unreasonable assumption.

Or it could be because they put their left sock on first and followed with their right...

Just making an outrageous point that applying assumptions and affect to the data is pointless. It wasn't discriminated at the time of data gathering, so it can't be changed and viewed with rose colored glasses after the fact.

Just pointing out that some seemed to be in fact applying assumptions to a correlation. i.e. Owning guns MADE one more likely to be a victim of crime.

Also we'd probably have to look at legal ownership versus de facto ownership. As well as people with guns being the victims of crimes as well as the perpetrators (say a gang shoot out for example).

Not that they are more likely to be victims of crimes but more likely to be victims of gun violence. You can't accidentally shoot yourself if you don't own a gun, you can commit suicide with a gun if you don't own a gun, you probably won't confront someone else with a gun if you don't have one yourself . . . etc.

[Mark Sweetman]

pres man wrote:

Just pointing out that some seemed to be in fact applying assumptions to a correlation. i.e. Owning guns MADE one more likely to be a victim of crime.

Nope - I was making an observation based on the data in the study - no assumptions involved.