Gunman shoots 18 people.

[godofpie]

I don't think anything makes gun owners work towards a compromise from what I see. Their solution always seems to be more guns. They hear things that people aren't saying. They believe they overestimate the likelihood of a gun saving their life and underestimate it being used for tragedy.

I don't think there is a solution. I don't keep a gun because I am well aware that it is more likely to destroy my life in some way than to save it. It makes suicide of myself or a loved one too easy for one. But I have no means of protecting myself from people like the kid in the OP... the man who decides to kill himself and take out a bunch of random people in the process. It is not a comfort to me since the owners of the guns in all the recent tragedies could have argued exactly like you... made the same excuses... used the same rhetoric. No one ever imagines their gun will be used to destroy lives on a whim or accident or suicide or tragedy... no matter how often it happens...

I feel like people in other countries feel when they look at America... but I don't have a solution. The irrational people are the ones that are armed. I just hope that the ever increasing weaponry doesn't intersect with my life. It would be great if gun owners only destroyed the lives of other gun owners... if you could protect your life from being destroyed by guns by not owning one. But we cannot. And I think the gun enthusiasts show why it's so hard to implement something like they've done in Australia and other countries.

I really should avoid these conversations. It heartens me to feel other people who feel as I do, but there are some people who post who make me think about how many "irrational" unpredictable angry people out there who have guns... I don't have any solution and the mentality frightens me.

Don't the gun owners see that from my perspective, all the gun owners in this months' tragedies could give the same assurance... could have felt the same way... could have written the same thing-- right? Couldn't they have? You reassure yourselves that your guns make you safer, but you sure don't reassure the rest of us that such is the case.

Yes, you do have the right to own arms just like the kid in the OP. But you do so knowing that the increased availability of guns makes this kind of thing more frequent.... it makes gun tragedies and ruined lives more likely. That appears to be okay with you because in your mind your guns make you feel safer.

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/page...ale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...olumnistArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351273751

I can appreciate your point of view but I think like most people who take your point of view, you have never been the victim of violent crime. I have been through 4 armed robberies personally (my restaurant a total of 7). It was after the 3rd armed robbery that I got a gun. The gun as saved me on 2 of the robberies that I was present for. So to say that my gun ownership gives me a false sense of security is not true. It gives me a very real sense of security. I would not have the wherewithal to come to work on a daily basis without my gun. Am I in favor of gun control? Absolutely. But I'll be damned if I am going to just roll over and take it from these people that don't have jobs, have drug habits to feed and look on me as their personal ATM.

 

[godofpie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this only applies to guns bought in stores. I don't think that in most locales there is any restriction on gun sales between private parties.

In NC if you buy a gun from an individual there is no paperwork or permit involved. Only when buying from a dealer.

 

[articulett]

Different states have different regulations, but it seems to be pretty easy to get guns through ebay or at garage sales or through gun shows or personal ads. Regulation is inconsistent and fought very hard by very powerful gun lobbyists in America. Many gun owners feel that any attempts at legislation are an attempt to take away their rights...

Guns are everywhere in America and it looks like these kinds of tragedies will just increase. There doesn't seem to be a way to limit the increasing and ready availability of loaded weapons and the gun owners seem to greatly underestimate their risk of tragedy resulting from their gun while over estimating the probability of a gun saving a life. I'm sure the guy in the OP felt "safer" with his gun... but I fear people like him. He ruined many lives... His parents are destroyed as well... no matter what their belief about guns or whether they own one or not... their lives HAVE been destroyed by their sons gun just as the parents of the other victims have been.

The safety people feel from their guns is an illusion. And events like this make those who believe that guns make them safer... get more guns and keep them loaded and ready ensuring more weapons available for tragedies just like this. Guns rarely prevent or slow these sort of mass murders. They just ensure that a single person can destroy a whole bunch of lives very quickly with a machine designed to do just that.

 

[gumboot]

Machetes are the weapon of choice in the Hutu-Tutsi (if I remember correctly) conflict. How many dead there? Just because one guy lacks the wherewithal to get the job done with a big knife doesn't mean that there aren't a bunch who do.

Mass murder and atrocity are very different things. There's a whole lot of different dynamics going on in a group atrocity that are not occurring when a single person busts into a room, shoots up a bunch of people, and then kills themselves.

 

[articulett]

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/page...ale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...olumnistArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351273751

I can appreciate your point of view but I think like most people who take your point of view, you have never been the victim of violent crime. I have been through 4 armed robberies personally (my restaurant a total of 7). It was after the 3rd armed robbery that I got a gun. The gun as saved me on 2 of the robberies that I was present for. So to say that my gun ownership gives me a false sense of security is not true. It gives me a very real sense of security. I would not have the wherewithal to come to work on a daily basis without my gun. Am I in favor of gun control? Absolutely. But I'll be damned if I am going to just roll over and take it from these people that don't have jobs, have drug habits to feed and look on me as their personal ATM.

I see your point. But I also know people who carry guns because they have been victims of crimes... but their guns wouldn't have saved them from their victimhood. A rape victim isn't likely to have her gun ready and loaded should another attack occur... and carrying a loaded weapon is a great risk to others should a kid be looking through your purse or should your purse get stolen. The father in the other thread was a lawyer and had a gun to protect him. I'm sure he felt safer... but he was killed with his own gun and his son has ruined his own life by using that gun bought for protection. I'm sure your gun does make you safer. But it sounds like it would be as safe loaded as unloaded... because it's the appearance. On the other thread they illustrated a gun killing someone for stealing beer. I don't know if I could live with myself for that. Maybe it does protect store owners and save lives and property. I don't know of any such cases personally, but I know of multiple cases where guns bought for protection or sport were used in tragic ways-- homicide, suicide, accident... a misfiring at a "bad guy", etc. I always wonder if the gun owner ever imagined such a scenario... the kid in this OP did... but how long ago. Was there a time when he would have sworn that he could never be such a person?

I'm not against shop owners having guns. I'm not even sure I have an idea of what would work. I just feel afraid that I might suffer the consequences of these ever present guns or someone I love might get caught in the crossfire. All these guns and make me feel less safe. Your gun makes you feel safer, and it might even make you safer. But from my perspective it's just another gun that some crazy person might grab and shoot someone I love in a fit of rage, depression, accident, or poor aim at someone stealing beer. To me, it's another gun with more of a potential to destroy lives like those in the OP than save a life.

Most guns don't save lives nor destroy lives. But the latter is much more common. And it's not just the dead people whose lives are destroyed.

I understand that people own guns to protect them from other people who own guns. I don't think the risk is worth it for myself. I don't have any problem with your gun or your rights. But your guns make you feel safer, not me. All these guns and rights don't make the average American safer... just more prone to having their lives ruined by a gun. There is a difference between feeling safer and actually being safer. You are willing to risk your gun being involved in a tragedy... (killing the wrong person in a shoot out for example) because it makes you feel safer. And maybe you are... I don't know. I'm all for that. Except that I worry that someone I care about might be the wrong person caught in the cross fire. There is nothing to make me feel safer regarding that scenario. My not wanting a gun in my home doesn't save me from such fears. It doesn't save me from being the victim or loving a victim of someone who is sure that their gun makes them safer.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this only applies to guns bought in stores. I don't think that in most locales there is any restriction on gun sales between private parties.

You are correct, and I forgot that avenue of purchase.

In Indiana (I don't know about other states), the ruling is... errr... WAS, anyhow - I haven't checked recently because I don't want to sell any of mine... that a firearm is private property and may be disposed of as such. That means no federal or state forms and no requirement for storage of a record of the transaction.

Generally a bill of sale is used, as it would be for the sale and transfer of a farm animal or non-automotive heavy equipment.

Since there is nothing like an interim owner of a firearm, as there is, sometimes, with a used auto (that is, when the dealer takes ownership of a car in order to transfer that ownership to another party), and since all dealers have to do the FFL thing, anything that goes back to a dealer has to have the whole federal and state thing done to transfer it again.

Interstate transfer, though, requires the use of a receiving FFL holder, and possibly a sending FFL holder as well, I'm not sure. Once a firearm enters the dealer's possession, all the federal and state checks have to be done for ownership to be transferred again.

 

[Mobyseven]

In a few of my science classes we had the fertilizer bomb explained and the interesting properties of sodium demonstrated to us with the comment, "Ah, you're Honors students. It's ok. You won't do anything bad with this knowledge..."

What year of school was that in? We were being shown said properties in year eight...one of my mates had to go to hospital when the teacher used a bit too much sodium (a good example of why high school science teachers should have at least a basic knowledge of science).

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Mass murder and atrocity are very different things. There's a whole lot of different dynamics going on in a group atrocity that are not occurring when a single person busts into a room, shoots up a bunch of people, and then kills themselves.

Yes - atrocity is when people perform several mass murders for political reasons.

The point was about one person not being able to kill some children with a machete. My counter point was that there are places where people seem to have no problem killing several people with machetes.

The principal point is that one occurrence isn't proof, wither way.

Oh - and - since you're reading: This is AMERICA.
If anyone's going to figure out how to kill more people with less effort, it's going to be an American.

 

[articulett]

Nothing makes killing a person as quick and easy and certain as a gun. It's what guns were invented for. Machetes have a lot of uses. Nothing makes killing on a whim (suicide, homicide, or accident) quite as quick and easy as a gun. Nothing else is as easy to obtain and as easy to kill with nor as specifically designed to kill.

I am interested in the development of electric bullets... they shoot from guns but they act like tasers... much less deadly but as incapacitating or more moreso. Someone shot with one is paralyzed and can't shoot you; whereas a person shot by a bullet can shoot back. But kevlar doesn't protect against them. I would consider owning a gun for protection is such a case. The appearance alone could ward off an attacker, and it's much less likely to be involved in a horrific tragedy or kill a curious or suicidal kid.

I wonder if gun owners will be willing to switch to those kinds of bullets should they become widely available. They would be as protected as they appear to feel now, without their guns being as much of a threat to those like me?

 

[gumboot]

Hi

Yes - atrocity is when people perform several mass murders for political reasons.

The point was about one person not being able to kill some children with a machete. My counter point was that there are places where people seem to have no problem killing several people with machetes.

I think you missed my point. In a group atrocity there are significant psychological dynamics occurring that are not present in a single person busting in to kill some children with a machete.

That is why I contend they are not comparable. (I also disagree that atrocity is necessarily political - atrocity can be perpetrated for a variety of reason, many of them non-political, including your own example of Rwanda (which was ethnic and economic in cause)).

 

[Autolite]

Many gun owners feel that any attempts at legislation are an attempt to take away their rights...

Actually, this is not completely unjustifiable. In Canada, there has been a firearms registry for handguns since 1934. Gun control advocates had been lobbying many years for a comprehensive, all inclusive registry to include long guns (rifles, shot guns and certain pellet guns).

The then federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Jean Chretien was adamant that the purpose of a gun registry was to enable law enforcement to effectively track and monitor gun ownership (in the interest of public safety) and that mass confiscation was in no way part of the agenda.

Well the all encompassing registry came into effect in the mid '90s and responsible gun owners lined up in droves to register their squirrel guns. And they were duped...

Immediately prior to the last Canadian federal election, the Liberal Federal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that upon re-election his government would press for the wholesale confiscation of all privately owned handguns in the nation (which would not have been possible had there been no national gun registry). Legitimate gun owners were shocked at this blatant disregard for personal property rights. They were lied to and they knew it.

As it turned out the entire affair was a tempest in a teapot. The federal Liberals were defeated in the election and the newly elected Progressive Conservative Party was now at the helm.

The new PC government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has taken a rather more pragmatic approach to the problem of violent crime by promising more resources funneled to the RCMP and repealing the long gun registry. The registry has since been shown to be a completely ineffective, useless program and a colossal waste of tax payers money.

Americans gun owners do indeed have a valid concern...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry

 

[332nd]

Nothing makes killing a person as quick and easy and certain as a gun.

Bombs.

It's what guns were invented for. Machetes have a lot of uses. Nothing makes killing on a whim (suicide, homicide, or accident) quite as quick and easy as a gun.

Machetes: Cutting through brush. Cutting through people or animals.
Guns: Shooting people or animals...
Well you did double it.

Nothing else is as easy to obtain and as easy to kill with nor as specifically designed to kill.

Bows and arrows.

I am interested in the development of electric bullets... they shoot from guns but they act like tasers... much less deadly but as incapacitating or more moreso. Someone shot with one is paralyzed and can't shoot you; whereas a person shot by a bullet can shoot back.

Depends on where you shoot them.

But kevlar doesn't protect against them. I would consider owning a gun for protection is such a case. The appearance alone could ward off an attacker, and it's much less likely to be involved in a horrific tragedy or kill a curious or suicidal kid.

Well the appearance alone of my gun could ward off an attacker. If a kid is curious how badly would a shot that could incapacitate a full grown man hurt a kid? Now if the kid is truly suicidal then how much harder is it to find another means of killing himself?

I wonder if gun owners will be willing to switch to those kinds of bullets should they become widely available.

Will it take down a deer or boar? I mean I could just incapacitate it then slit it's throat but it'd be nice to know.

They would be as protected as they appear to feel now, without their guns being as much of a threat to those like me?

How much of a threat are my guns to you?

 

[gumboot]

Bombs.

Are you honestly contending that a bomb is as quick and easy to use as a firearm?

Bows and arrows.

Are you honestly claiming that a bow is as easy to kill with as a firearm?

Will it take down a deer or boar? I mean I could just incapacitate it then slit it's throat but it'd be nice to know.

Hunting boar with a gun? Pffft. Dogs and a knife - that's real hunting.

 

[articulett]

But Canada has much less gun violence and tragedies than America. There have been an increasing number of mass shootings in America. That is not so in Canada. Nor is it true in Australia where their gun laws have decreased these kinds of tragedies as well. I'd be willing to put up with the inconvenience or loss of rights if our gun tragedies could be on par with other such countries... I don't just count the dead people. I am talking about ruined lives. Lots of lives are devastated because of guns... accidents, homicides, suicides, and events like the OP. But I don't have that choice.

But maybe Americans will consider keeping their guns loaded guns loaded with non lethal bullets such as the electric kind that are in development now.

 

[articulett]

The columbine kids built bombs... their pipe bombs killed no one. The guns were responsible for their deaths. Bombs aren't exactly the kind of thing used very often in these "whim" killing events. Countries that limit their guns don't seem to have a plethora of bomb making youth blowing up universities.

 

[332nd]

Are you honestly contending that a bomb is as quick and easy to use as a firearm?

Well yes. A gun is point and shoot a bomb is get in general area and detonate.

Are you honestly claiming that a bow is as easy to kill with as a firearm?

Yep. It would take a bit longer... But then If I went totally bat guano I suppose I could rig up a pipe bomb of sorts on the arrow.

Hunting boar with a gun? Pffft. Dogs and a knife - that's real hunting.

I freely admit that I've seriously considered smithing my own spear with a boar bar but I have to acknowledge that my smithing skill are lacking. (And yes boar and fowl are the only things I hunt with a gun.)

 

[332nd]

The columbine kids built bombs... their pipe bombs killed no one. The guns were responsible for their deaths.

The London Bombers built bombs... They didn't have guns. The Bombs were responsible for their deaths.

Bombs aren't exactly the kind of thing used very often in these "whim" killing events. Countries that limit their guns don't seem to have a plethora of bomb making youth blowing up universities.

Ok... What did the Provos blow up?

 

[articulett]

I don't know... I can't make sense of anything you are saying... you seem to think that limiting guns means that the gun tragedies like those in the OP will be replaced by bomb tragedies. I think that sounds like the rhetoric of many irrational gun owners in America.

Yes, I'm concerned by the number of irrational people who own guns. I'm sure nobody thinks that the gun they own will end up destroying anyone's life. Please buy non lethal bullets and avoid bringing your weapons around people I care about. I hope you are just joking, but if you don't mind I think I'm going to put you on ignore because you sound like part of the problem.

Anhow, here's more on the OP http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/16/university.shooting/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i72zWlWRLvc1ejGI5WpefItEjKCAD8URPA2O0

 

[gumboot]

Well yes. A gun is point and shoot a bomb is get in general area and detonate.

And how does one detonate said bomb? Did one buy it? Or make it? How does one fire a gun? Does one buy it? Or make it?

Yep. It would take a bit longer... But then If I went totally bat guano I suppose I could rig up a pipe bomb of sorts on the arrow.

Using a bow effectively takes a pretty substantial amount of expertise. Not so of a gun.

I freely admit that I've seriously considered smithing my own spear with a boar bar but I have to acknowledge that my smithing skill are lacking. (And yes boar and fowl are the only things I hunt with a gun.)

When I was a boy I used to go boar hunting with my friend and his dad. We just took their dogs and some hunting knives. I didn't know any better.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I think you missed my point. In a group atrocity there are significant psychological dynamics occurring that are not present in a single person busting in to kill some children with a machete.

I would be interested in what psychological dynamics reduce one's ability to use a machete, once the decision has been made to kill a room full of kids.

I may have been premature: I assumed a decision to kill the room full of kids, because that was the original scenario.