School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[shuttlt]

Getting those with criminal intent to comply seems to be the problem. If that can't be accomplished with the laws that we have now, how would adding more prohibitions and restrictions rectify the situation???

Some people will always do naughty things. Some people will insist on driving too fast, or drunk regardless of any law. Many other drivers though will take some degree of notice of the law and social acceptability. In the case of guns, if you make them less socially acceptable/illegal then fewer disgruntled teenagers will simply be able to go home, get their mums guns and go on a shooting spree. There obviously isn't going to be that level of gun control in the US any time soon and in any case perhaps boys being able to go on a shooting spree with their parents guns is an acceptable price to pay for mass gun ownership?

 

[zeggman]

There are many viable methods for a woman to murder her children in the privacy of her own home. There are not nearly as many realistic options available for someone who wants to publicly slaughter 20 first-graders and a half-dozen adults. I'm just saying.

Machete, butcher knife, axe, sword, baseball bat, golf club, crow bar, automobile, chain saw, fire...

Are you going to ban them all?

I understand the emotional reaction people have, but the problem is really the murderer, not the weapon.

 

[zeggman]

They have the right to express their opinions. Just like I have the right to express mine by throwing flaming bags of dog **** at them. I live in Connecticut, and I'm feeding my dog extra Kibble just in case. It's all about free expression, you know. Eat up girl!

I am not a lawyer, but I've watched one on TV. Holding up a sign is speech. Throwing bags of anything, flaming or not, is assault. I would advise against this form of expression.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I understand the emotional reaction people have, but the problem is really the murderer, not the weapon.

Sorry but this is just contrary to what actually happens in the real world. We seem to manage very well in many countries including the USA to decide that some forms of weapons are not suitable in the hands of everyday folk. (Many of us probably also think they shouldn't be in the hands of anyone but that's a different discussion.)

 

[shuttlt]

Machete, butcher knife, axe, sword, baseball bat, golf club, crow bar, automobile, chain saw, fire...

Are you going to ban them all?

I understand the emotional reaction people have, but the problem is really the murderer, not the weapon.

Just because you ban/restrict one thing doesn't mean you have to ban/restrict other things. If there is evidence that banning/restricting gun ownership will reduce the number/severity of spree killings and people want to reduce the number of spree killings more than they want to own guns, then guns should be banned/restricted. The same argument applies to machetes, axes etc... Banning one doesn't mean that you would necessarily have to ban the others though. Why would it?

One of the problem with this debate is people conflating different questions. Whether the easy availability of guns contributes to the muder rate/spree killing rate is different question to whether there should be any restriction on gun ownership.

I understand the emotional reaction people have, but the problem is really the murderer, not the weapon.

Gun's being blamed for things always seems to take on a moral dimension. "Guns don't kill, people kill". Either the easy availability of guns contributes to the murder rate, or it doesn't. Whether the the guns themselves are "to blame" or not and in what sense doesn't seem like a very useful/meaningful question.

 

[zeggman]

Sorry but this is just contrary to what actually happens in the real world. We seem to manage very well in many countries including the USA to decide that some forms of weapons are not suitable in the hands of everyday folk. (Many of us probably also think they shouldn't be in the hands of anyone but that's a different discussion.)

In Saudi Arabia, alcohol is banned and women are not allowed to drive. Automobile death rates in Saudi Arabia are the highest in the real world.

You are free to make different choices in your country. Many of the people who advocate restricting gun availability also favor restricting free speech -- I notice that's a choice you've made in your country too.

The United States has made a choice to err on the side of freedom. You may think we're according ourselves too much freedom, but it really isn't your choice to make. If tongue clucking is still allowed in your country, feel free to indulge.

 

[remirol]

Machete, butcher knife, axe, sword, baseball bat, golf club, crow bar, automobile, chain saw, fire...

Machete: can run away
Knife: can run away
Axe: can run away
Sword: can run away
Bat: can run away
Golf club: can run away, plus not that effective (your target can grab the shaft safely)
Crowbar: can run away
Automobile: can be dodged, plus really hard to get inside buildings
Chainsaw: can run away, plus not that effective (seriously, stop watching zombie movies)
Fire: way, way harder than you think to kill people this way

Gun: cannot run away, faster than all of the above, easier than all of the above, more impersonal than all of the above except the automobile

Machete: designed to clear brush/jungle
Knife: designed to eat with
Axe: designed to chop trees
Sword: designed to kill people
Bat: designed to hit baseballs
Golf club: designed to hit golf balls (those poor golf)
Crowbar: designed to pry things open
Automobile: designed to transport people
Chainsaw: designed to cut trees
Fire: oh, come on

Handgun: Designed to kill people
Long gun: Designed to kill animals and people

I understand the emotional reaction people have, but the problem is really the murderer, not the weapon.

In reality, the problem is the weapon. I normally ignore these debates, because arguing with a bunch of selfish 2nd amendment nutters who ignore the evidence in front of their faces in favor of shouting false equivalencies and marketing slogans is pointless. They just don't want to have their toys taken away from them. Me, I'm scared of having mine or others' lives taken away because this is only going to become more common as the media glorifies each and every one of these idiots.

I just wonder how many more kids will have to die before the nutters wake up and admit that maybe this "more guns = safer" thing doesn't actually work. The rest of the world has quite adequately proven this, while we continue to watch our own people die and quibble over what is a solved subject elsewhere. Banning all civilian ownership of handguns would be an excellent start; I recognize that long guns have a valid purpose in hunting _and_ home defense (not to mention fulfilling the original intent of the 2nd amendment) so they only need to be properly regulated, not banned outright.

 

[zeggman]

Gun's being blamed for things always seems to take on a moral dimension. "Guns don't kill, people kill". Either the easy availability of guns contributes to the murder rate, or it doesn't. Whether the the guns themselves are "to blame" or not and in what sense doesn't seem like a very useful/meaningful question.

Of course it does, just as easy availability of automobiles contributes to the rate at which people are killed and injured by automobiles. Easy availability of guns also contributes to injuries and deaths due to accidental shootings.

We have made a choice, that the freedom to own a firearm is important enough to accept a few additional casualties. You may consider it "heartless" to express it so frankly, but these deaths really are part of the price of freedom.

 

[Autolite]

In the case of guns, if you make them less socially acceptable/illegal then fewer disgruntled teenagers will simply be able to go home, get their mums guns and go on a shooting spree.

I would think that the murder of young school children might be considered socially unacceptable. Evidently, in this case, this was not a deterrent so now we need to learn and understand what was going on inside this guy's mind...

 

[shuttlt]

Of course it does, just as easy availability of automobiles contributes to the rate at which people are killed and injured by automobiles. Easy availability of guns also contributes to injuries and deaths due to accidental shootings.

We have made a choice, that the freedom to own a firearm is important enough to accept a few additional casualties. You may consider it "heartless" to express it so frankly, but these deaths really are part of the price of freedom.

Not at all. Countries choose the ways their citizens are allowed to be free. The US has chosen to be free in terms of gun ownership. Why they value this kind of freedom is pretty mysterious to me, but fine. If people are open and honest about the price of that freedom including a few dead 6 year olds, then no problem. My impression is that mostly gun enthusiasts try to deny any connection between the choice to have guns easily available and the dead 6 year olds. It always reminds me of anti-vax people trying to claim that childhood diseases are in no way bad and in fact benificial. Not only do they no want to vaccinate, they want to deny there are any down sides to their decision. I commend you honesty and don't think you are necessarily heartless.

 

[remirol]

We have made a choice, that the freedom to own a firearm is important enough to accept a few additional casualties. You may consider it "heartless" to express it so frankly, but these deaths really are part of the price of freedom.

Sorry, I misstated. Guns _and sociopaths_ are the problem.

I'm going to make a suggestion before I put you on ignore: when you've reached the point in your own mind where you call the deaths of multiple children "a few additional casualties" and "part of the price of freedom", perhaps you may want to consider whether or not you're just a little bit off the deep end in the NRA's Kool-Aid pool.

Just sayin'. Because that's what you've done here.

(for easy quoting) Zeggman says: 18+ dead children are "a few additional casualties" and "part of the price of freedom".

 

[joesixpack]

this is interesting:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm
and my graphing of it.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450cdc9de2aa62.jpg[/qimg]

About 70% of US homicides are committed with a gun or handgun.

The US homicide rate is about 3.5 times the UK rate, so the non-gun homicide rate is roughly equivalent.

In other words, non-gun fatal violence is roughly equivalent, not far less than other countries.

This article seems to show a very different picture. It shows a much higher overall rate of homicide in the US. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, though.

 

[zeggman]

Machete: can run away

Automobile: can be dodged, plus really hard to get inside buildings

If this murderer walked into a classroom and blocked the door, no one would have been able to run away any more effectively than they ran away from his gun.

People often gather in public outside buildings.

Banning all civilian ownership of handguns would be an excellent start; I recognize that long guns have a valid purpose in hunting _and_ home defense (not to mention fulfilling the original intent of the 2nd amendment) so they only need to be properly regulated, not banned outright.

Excellent start? Meaning, you expect more would follow?

 

[shuttlt]

In the case of guns, if you make them less socially acceptable/illegal then fewer disgruntled teenagers will simply be able to go home, get their mums guns and go on a shooting spree.

I would think that the murder of young school children might be considered socially unacceptable. Evidently, in this case, this was not a deterrent so now we need to learn and understand what was going on inside this guy's mind...

Are you being disingenuous? I said that if you made guns less socially acceptable/illegal that he wouldn't have been able to go home and get the gun. The reason for that would be that him mother wouldn't have had the gun in the first place because it would either not be socially acceptable, or illegal for her to have it. Whether it's worth making guns less socially acceptable/illegal in order to reduce the number of dead 6 year olds is a seperate question. Doubtless there are upsides to guns being freely available, it's all about balance.

 

[Ashles]

You are free to make different choices in your country. Many of the people who advocate restricting gun availability also favor restricting free speech -- I notice that's a choice you've made in your country too.

Please cease deluding yourself that you have unrestricted free speech - you don't. You have it to the extent your government decides it won't infringe on the rights/safety of others. Like we do. How many instances do you think you have more freedom of speech than we do in say the UK.

Ironically there's another thread going on where people are proposing protests, and in some cases, violence towards the Westboro people exercising their free speech. Personally I find the Westboro folk disgusting, but some people very pro protection of the second amendment seem more flexible about the first amendment if it is used by people they don't like.

 

[shuttlt]

If this murderer walked into a classroom and blocked the door, no one would have been able to run away any more effectively than they ran away from his gun.

People often gather in public outside buildings.

It's possible, but be reasonable.... Dangerous though a machete is, it's still harder to kill a large number of people with one and you are more easily overpowered than if you have guns. If you want to kill a whole bunch of people you'd almost certainly want a gun rather than a machete.

 

[zeggman]

I'm going to make a suggestion before I put you on ignore: when you've reached the point in your own mind where you call the deaths of multiple children "a few additional casualties" and "part of the price of freedom", perhaps you may want to consider whether or not you're just a little bit off the deep end in the NRA's Kool-Aid pool.

Among children ages 4 and under, there are approximately 300 residential swimming pool drownings each year. No one needs a residential swimming pool. Shouldn't we ban them?

(for easy quoting) Zeggman says: 18+ dead children are "a few additional casualties" and "part of the price of freedom".

300 is more than 18. Are you going to continue to maintain that people should be free to dig death pits behind their houses, or are you going to restrict their freedom to do so?

 

[shuttlt]

You are free to make different choices in your country. Many of the people who advocate restricting gun availability also favor restricting free speech -- I notice that's a choice you've made in your country too.

You'd have to work quite hard to fall foul of free speech in the UK unless you are practicing it in a stupid/agressive/libelous/inciting to violence way. There are limits on free speech in all sane societies.

 

[BStrong]

I was treated for depression. Which in California is enough to disqualify you.

It also kept me out of the Army.

Were you held on a 5150?

Seeking and receiving treatment, including meds, is not a disqualifer under fed. or California law.

Being held on a 5150 that doesn't involve a specific criminal act will disqualify one for 5 years.

 

[shuttlt]

Among children ages 4 and under, there are approximately 300 residential swimming pool drownings each year. No one needs a residential swimming pool. Shouldn't we ban them?

I suspect you could have more of a reasoned conversation about regulating swimming pools than regulating guns. People seem much more attached to guns than swimming pools. In the UK lots of public swimming pools were closed when polio was a big problem. Maybe that was the right thing to do, maybe not, but I don't think it would be sensible to claim that we had some kind of inaliable right to swimming pools that trumped all conversations about their societal cost/benifit.