Another Mall Shooting

[Big Les]

Oh, no doubt it wouldn't stop at guns if enough support were garnered for a US gun ban (yeah, right). Air weapons and swords are on their way toward being banned here, and replica guns (including realistic toys), are already illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, or import. If you can carve something gun-shaped out of wood and paint it black, you will technically be a criminal. Of course, most sensible coppers wouldn't dream of busting you for it unless you waved it about in the street, but in theory you'd be breaking the law in quite a serious way.

Hey, I am a gun nut. And a sword nut. I would own and shoot all sorts of things for fun if I could. And I will oppose all blanket bans that are based in emotion, fear, and political points-scoring. I just recognise that there may be something to serious restriction of the sorts of guns these loonies go for.

 

[Lonewulf]

How is taxing a film heavily because it features gun violence in a positive and/or unrealistic way restricting liberty, freedom of speech or freedom?

Did you actually ask that question?

Okay, tell you what. Anytime you say anything bad about the government, you should be taxed $100.

This doesn't restrict any freedoms whatsoever, right?

Then, if you suggest anything that I don't like, you should get fined another $20. Still not prohibiting any freedoms, right?

Think about it a while. Maybe it'll actually penetrate your skull if you do. Though I'm starting to doubt it.

Maybe someday you'll grow the wisdom to realize that you're asking the government to fine people for publishing fiction you don't like.

 

[WildCat]

How is taxing a film heavily because it features gun violence in a positive and/or unrealistic way restricting liberty, freedom of speech or freedom?

Wow!

 

[Lonewulf]

Wow!

Tell me about it. Talk about a total bit of cognitive dissonance.

"Why is taxing people heavily to get them to stop publishing what I want to not see anymore restricting freedom, liberty, or freedom of speech?"

Jesus. I think I just had an aneurysm wondering how someone could actually ask that with a straight face.

 

[andyandy]

BTW, Russia has very strict gun laws and has a murder rate 4 times that of the USA.

you know your argument's in trouble when you have to start looking at murder rates in countries like Russia.... Are you suggesting that Russia is more comparable to the US than the UK in terms of governance, crime and society? In any case, we are of course primarily looking at understanding school and mall massacres.

France has a lower homicide rate than Australia, England, and Wales despite the fact that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to own handguns for home defense.

Can someone explain this if this is a huge factor in murder rates? Shouldn't France be right up there with the US?

With regards to France, France has less than one third the levels of gun ownership, much stricter gun laws and a complete ban on automatics....In any case, we are talking about the mall/school shootings and so the contingent question is however why there have been twenty two shootings/massacres in US schools/malls since the sole such event in the UK. If easy access to guns is completely and utterly irrelevant (even though every event required that there was such access) then how do you explain the discepancy?
are americans more violent?
are americans more tolerant of wanton massacre?
are americans more likely to suffer mental illness?

I'd really like to know what factor can explain for the difference if guns have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[BPSCG]

Wow!

You forgot the jaw-drop and the stammering that says, "This statement was just so mind-bogglingly, barking mad that I am literally unable to find any sensible point in it to address."

Like this:

Wow.



Like... I mean... it's...

Wow.

 

[Big Les]

If banning guns is an acceptable sacrifice of liberties (arguable), banning fiction sure as hell isn't. I'd actually rather a certain amount of people died than everyone else be told what to watch and read.

Don't be too hard on Ivor, he seems to be somewhat of an idealist.

 

[BPSCG]

Jesus. I think I just had an aneurysm wondering how someone could actually ask that with a straight face.

Obviously someone who'd never heard of one of the earliest landmark decisions of the Supreme Court - McCulloch vs. Maryland, (1819) in which Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."

 

[Lonewulf]

You forgot the jaw-drop and the stammering that says, "This statement was just so mind-bogglingly, barking mad that I am literally unable to find any sensible point in it to address."

Wow.



Like... I mean... it's...

Wow.

I wonder who else Ivor wants to tax? I'm looking through my Shadowrun 4e manual. Plenty of violence in that... guns, drugs, and you actually play as criminals in the game. Should Wiz Kids be taxed?

In the meantime, I just read through the comic called Penny Arcade. I'm sure they're just "corporate shills", since after all, according to the wisdom of Ivor, the evil corporations control all of it. They should be taxed, too.

Imagine it! A world where all sources of media had no violence in them whatsoever!

What's that? Don't like the fight scenes in Lucky Starr and the Pirates of the Asteroids? Well, then, let's just tax Asimov...

...Oh wait, he's dead. Well, we can just tax anyone that sells it, right?

Not impeding any freedoms whatsoever, nosirree!

Don't be too hard on Ivor, he seems to be somewhat of an idealist.

So are communists. Don't mind me if I still laugh in their face.

Someone that's willfully stupid in the name of idealism is still willfully stupid.

 

[JoeEllison]

Wow, ad-hominem much?

Clearly, you're confused as to what it means. Carry on.

 

[WildCat]

you know your argument's in trouble when you have to start looking at murder rates in countries like Russia.... Are you suggesting that Russia is more comparable to the US than the UK in terms of governance, crime and society?

In terms of organized violent gangs, yes.

With regards to France, France has less than one third the levels of gun ownership, much stricter gun laws and a complete ban on automatics....

What does that term mean to you? The gun used in the mall shooting wasn't an automatic.

[If easy access to guns is completely and utterly irrelevant (even though every event required that there was such access) then how do you explain the discepancy?
are americans more violent?
are americans more tolerant of wanton massacre?
are americans more likely to suffer mental illness?

I'd really like to know what factor can explain for the difference if guns have absolutely nothing to do with it.

I gave you a possible explanation in a previous post. Discusss it or not, but don't keep asking the same question I already addressed.

 

[JoeEllison]

Here's are some questions which need to be addressed.:

All of these young, depressed kids performing these mass killings had a good arsenal. Did any of these kids ever go out with their fathers to learn how to shoot? Did their dad or mom teach them gun safety. Were they taught to respect the dangers of guns?

My guess is that none of these kids had parents involved in their gun hobbies. Half their parents probably didn't even know the kids had the guns they had.

Funny thing about all the 'gun nuts', they aren't the ones out there performing these mass killigs. The 'gun nuts' are the one's who respect a guns power, and who have parents involved in their hobbies.

Maybe more familes need to go out and buy guns as a family so they can learn about gun safety, respect and what it's like to spend time together as a family. Perhaps if more families spent time together target shooting with guns, less of these killings would occur.

Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. The people who go out and kill other people are nuts by definition. The gun nuts don't respect a gun's power. Responsible, sane gun owners are not the problem. The gun nuts, and the culture that feeds into their nuttiness, is the problem.

 

[andyandy]

What does that term mean to you? The gun used in the mall shooting wasn't an automatic.

Viginnia Tech was a semi automatic - there is a rather obvious correlation between handgun/automatic and ability to kill numbers of people in a short period of time - since that is there design. France also has much tighter gun control laws and a much much lower rate of gun ownership.

I gave you a possible explanation in a previous post. Discusss it or not, but don't keep asking the same question I already addressed.

No - in your answer you said that it was due to [hispanic/black] minorities, i agreed that minorities may have higher rates of gun crime, but that this was not relevant to this discussion on school/mall shootings as the perpetrators are virtually all white [with a second generation korean]. To which you responded that there were even more shootings amongst minorities which didn't get reported and that schools in these areas would have police presence and metal detectors - thus implying that it is the lack of school security that is the reason. But as Britain has virtually no metal detectors or strong police presence at schools this does not help understand why there have been 22 school/mall shootings since Dumblane. That was as far as we got with the discussion - and you didn't address it any further.
So, what is the reason?

 

[Moochie]

How many mass killings did the UK and Australia suffer through prior to the ban? You guys did a knee-jerk reaction to a extremely rare phenomenon and then declared success based on the fact that the rare event hasn't happened again?

I prefer to think of the "knee-jerk" reaction as the considered, enlightened reaction to a perceived problem, enacted by a government whose Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, showed exceptional courage and leadership.

Although carnage of this sort could occur again, the chances are minimized by having very strict gun control laws.

As I mentioned earlier, these laws are perhaps easier to enforce here in Australia because we are an island with no international borders.

M.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The gun nuts, and the culture that feeds into their nuttiness, is the problem.

Guess you need to define what you mean by gun nut. I assumed you meant anyone owning a gun and using it for recreation and/or protection.

 

[WildCat]

Viginnia Tech was a semi automatic - there is a rather obvious correlation between handgun/automatic and ability to kill numbers of people in a short period of time - since that is there design. France also has much tighter gun control laws and a much much lower rate of gun ownership.

You still seem confused about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firerarms.

No - in your answer you said that it was due to [hispanic/black] minorities, i agreed that minorities may have higher rates of gun crime, but that this was not relevant to this discussion on school/mall shootings as the perpetrators are virtually all white [with a second generation korean].

Were thay? The Minnesota shooting was by an American Indian, I have no idea what the others were. And your examples make no distinction between spree killings (random victims) and cases where a specific person was targeted, so there's no way to even say whether they're comparable to the mall shooting in question.

To which you responded that there were even more shootings amongst minorities which didn't get reported and that schools in these areas would have police presence and metal detectors - thus implying that it is the lack of school security that is the reason. But as Britain has virtually no metal detectors or strong police presence at schools this does not help understand why there have been 22 school/mall shootings since Dumblane. That was as far as we got with the discussion - and you didn't address it any further.

What difference does it make whether the kids were killed in or out of school? Is the murder done after school less important than one done within the school?

 

[fuelair]

You can kill eight people in a mall with a knife?

Yes - if you are careful doing it - and I should add that knowing how doesn't mean you would.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You still seem confused about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firerarms.

Sorry to get even more pedantic on a pedantic point, but as someone who has fired both automatic and semi-automatic high capacity military firearms - the difference isn't as much as some believe. If anything, the rate of fire for a high-capacity semi-auto makes them more deadly in a "shooting fish in a barrell" situation than a full auto. There's a reason why the military adopted 3 round bursts for the A-3 and subsequent M-16s... and it wasn't the adoption of the SAW.

Andyandy can clarify if he meant full-auto* or semi-auto, but I think you don't have a point about killing potential when contrasting the two.

*Andyandy, in case you don't know, the U.S. has had severe rescrictions on owning full-auto firearms for decades (IIRC since the 30s?), the shootings that have occured since San Yasidro in the early 80s have all been with semi-automatic rifles or handguns.

(Still maintaining my position that the problem is our mental health care system and not the guns themselves.)

 

[fuelair]

We do not need hyperbole here. I'm not sure who coined this phrase, but I think it means a violent person would behave more civilized in the presence of a person that is armed. If you were the kind of person who wanted to hurt someone, would you pick a person who was likely to be armed?

The coward who murdered those people in the mall picked an environment that was unlikely to contain armed targets as the mall forbid licensed customers carrying firearms. He was not polite. How much more respect would he have given the patrons at a rifle range?

Ranb

Lionking, can you answer my questions to you in post #21? Thanks.

Robert A. Heinlein said it - and used it in one of his books (aaaagh, title escapes me right now). Skipping the point that I am on the opposite side politically of this character, he explains the defense points quite well:http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/armed.html

 

[BPSCG]

You can kill eight people in a mall with a knife?

Obviously you never saw Uma Thurman, in Kill Bill, demonstrate how you can kill dozens of armed assailants with nothing but a sword: