Another Mall Shooting

[Ron_Tomkins]

Placing regulations on gun control might ease the problem.... for a while.

Eventually, insanity finds a way.

Did you know you can make a bomb with house appliances avialable at the grocery near you?

Did you know you can kill someone with a kitchen knife?

 

[fuelair]

I actually couldn't tell if this was meant as a sarcastic post or not, which, if it is serious, is rather sad.

That being said, your argument here seems to boil down to, "If only we got rid of everyone who disagrees with me, we could have a rational discussion."

In all fairness, I have noticed that about JoeE in a large number of his posts - not all, but a large number.

 

[lionking]

Placing regulations on gun control might ease the problem.... for a while.

Eventually, insanity finds a way.

Did you know you can make a bomb with house appliances avialable at the grocery near you?

Did you know you can kill someone with a kitchen knife?

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

 

[EagleEye]

I think we should ban gun nuts and all their nonsense rationalizations for gun ownership. They are small, sad people, those gun nuts. Their guns make them feel very slightly less small and scared and empty inside, I guess. They'll claim self-defense, or the idea that they'll overthrow the government if it gets too bad(which is often tinged with an anti-American flavor), but the reality is that the gun nuts are just nuts, and the guns are part of their mental defect. Their claim of the government conspiring to take their guns is all about their constant overriding fear of a whole spectrum of things.

If we could get rid of them, and their whole weird paranoid subculture, maybe we could have a more serious discussion of guns, gun violence, and the underlying issues.

Wow, ad-hominem much?

 

[lionking]

Wow, ad-hominem much?

Maybe, but I have never referred gun owners as "nuts". I can see the attraction of sporting shooting. My argument is about assault rifles being easily available resulting in many tragedies. I mean, what is the justification for legal semi-automatics or automatics? Deer shooting? Give me a break.

 

[EagleEye]

What I have yet to see a single anti-gun person address is the fact... the FACT!... that criminals by their very definition break laws. There are thousands of gun control laws on the books, and I'd wager that every single one of the mass shootings referenced by people in this thread involved the breaking at least a few of those laws. From acquisition, to carrying, to clip limits, age limits, waiting list violations, etc... At any number of steps along the way, there are laws in place to try to prevent the criminals (those who would do us harm with these firearms) from getting the guns...

AND YET, they keep getting them!

I believe that no matter what laws are on the books, and even with rigid enforcement of those laws (which is by no means a certainty), those who would do harm to others WILL GET THE WEAPONS THEY SEEK!

There are only a few things these laws truly accomplish:

1) They keep law-abiding citizens from arming themselves against those who don't CARE about the law.
2) They divert law enforcement from going after the criminals in more effective ways, which not only costs taxpayers money that is, for all intents and purposes wasted, it makes law enforcement in general less effective.

So the criminals have the weapons.
The good guys don't.

Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is a good thing?

 

[EagleEye]

Maybe, but I have never referred gun owners as "nuts". I can see the attraction of sporting shooting. My argument is about assault rifles being easily available resulting in many tragedies. I mean, what is the justification for legal semi-automatics or automatics? Deer shooting? Give me a break.

This is why as a pro-gun person, I don't fall in to the trap of saying I support guns for sport. They're NOT for sport, they're for protection... ideally, the framers of the constitution intended this right to be protected for protection against and oppressive government. Even that is a somewhat weak argument. I believe in the very simple (and cliche') premise that an armed society is a polite society.

You can't prevent the criminals from being armed... to disarm yourself given that fact is pure stupidity.

Edit: And lion... I was replying to Joe Ellison, not you... not sure if you thought I was accusing you of the ad-hom.

 

[shalomsteph]

I am a gun control moderate, I guess. I am not a member of the NRA, but at the same time, I think law-abiding, mentally stable people who have gone through firearms eduction should have the right to own guns. I also believe that pre-screened people should have the right to carry concealed weapons.

I love to shoot guns and am a damn good shot. However, I do not own a gun because I have teenagers. Due to mood swings common to teenagers, having a gun available in the house is a risk I am unwilling to take.

If I had had a concealed weapon in Omaha that day, I would have shot him. However, I probably wouldn't have had it with me in the mall. Because I am very cautious and law abiding. I also think that, even if I had killed the killer, it would have haunted me for life. Even doing the right thing can be traumatic, and shooting paper people or targets is not even close to the same thing as shooting a real person.

 

[lionking]

No I didn't think you were referring to me. But seriously "an armed society is a polite society"? Be nice to me or I shoot?

I am still waiting for an explanation for the lack of shooting rampages since fireram bans in Australia and the US.

 

[Plantfoam]

If by "regular rifle" you mean an SKS with a 30 round AK magazine (or possibly some semi-auto AK clone as mentioned above), then fair enough. That's relatively regular in the US, where the SKS is a popular hunting rifle. The size of the mag is a bit of a red herring, since without armed opposition, regular reloads ought not to be a problem. As long as one has, say, ten rounds to rattle through before swapping mags, I would think that satisfies the perverse urge to kill in spectacular and "godlike" fashion that these freaks seem to crave.

There's really no solution that I can think of beyond a UK-style ban and subsequent round up of every semi-auto weapon in the US, that would have prevented this. And as I've said before, such a ban would be not only hugely unpopular political suicide for whomever tried to introduce it State-side, it would also be completely unenforceable.

Counter-intuitive though it might seem to European and liberal minds, I actually think concealed carry might be the only viable option over there. A bit wild west maybe, and a potential trouble-creator in its own right, but on paper it seems to make a certain amount of sense. Or would it simply escalate the problem? More deaths through itchy trigger-fingers, misunderstandings, and disagreements? Perhaps very high-risk regional trials are in order.

Concealed carry was made more accessible in my state in 2002. There was some paranoia being tossed around as a result, like "I'm worried that the guy sitting across from me in the restaurant is armed!". Yes, as if someone would go through the trials of obtaining a concealed carry permit just to have ill intent.

Last year, there was one case of murder by a concealed carry licensee in the state, but the subject did not have a concealed weapon.

To obtain a license, one must meet the existing ownership requirements and pass a concealed carry course with range time and tests. Pistols are registered in Michigan, but the process is known officially as a "safety inspection".

I know several people who have the license, but most do not carry the majority of the time, with the exception of my friend who is a state police officer.

 

[Plantfoam]

No I didn't think you were referring to me. But seriously "an armed society is a polite society"? Be nice to me or I shoot?

I am still waiting for an explanation for the lack of shooting rampages since fireram bans in Australia and the US.

Once again, I think this approach is too narrow. Switzerland has about 700,000 automatic weapons in private hands, yet stabbing deaths were almost twice as prevalent as firearm homicides last year. They have roughly 3 times the number of registered automatic weapons as we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime

 

[Ranb]

No I didn't think you were referring to me. But seriously "an armed society is a polite society"? Be nice to me or I shoot?.....

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.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maybe, but I have never referred gun owners as "nuts". I can see the attraction of sporting shooting. My argument is about assault rifles being easily available resulting in many tragedies. I mean, what is the justification for legal semi-automatics or automatics? Deer shooting? Give me a break.

Sport and recreation shooters don't tend to be the ones who go on the rampages though. The problem is control of those weapons around mentally ill people, not their mere existance.

I am still waiting for an explanation for the lack of shooting rampages since fireram bans in Australia and the US.

Did you ever get that data on Australias mental health care system?

I believe in the very simple (and cliche') premise that an armed society is a polite society.

It's not only a cliche, it borders on insipid because while Canada has some very restrictive gun control policies it is considered one of the most polite societies on Earth.

 

[lionking]

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.

I didn't think you were interested in my opinion, but hand guns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons do not seem to have a sporting application, so I would say that their main, if not exclusive use is to shoot people. Shotguns and single shot rifles do have sporting and legitimate hunting applications. Unless you think it is fun shooting a deer with an automatic.

 

[Lonewulf]

Unless you think it is fun shooting a deer with an automatic.

You mean you don't?

 

[lionking]

I don't think this is a serious post lonewulf, but it was amazing about the number of shooters who were outraged that they could not blow away deer with automatic weapons when they were banned.

 

[andyandy]

There's a good reason for that - most schools in violent areas already have metal detectors at the door and a strong police presence within the school. But outside of school, different story. I think ~30 (or very close to that) Chicago Public School pupils have been murdered this year alone, and I'd bet nearly every one was black or Hispanic. I doubt that makes the news in the UK.

whilst this might be true (and perhaps further evidence for the need for greater gun control, no?), it is not especially relevant to the specifics at hand - namely the frequency of high school/mall shootings. Very very few British schools have metal detectors, so the lack of shootings in the UK can't be put down to metal detectors and a strong police presence.


once again, as it's the crux of the issue, and has not been addressed, in the US, just from the 1990s

University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; November 1, 1991
Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
Lindhurst High School shooting - Marysville, Californa, United States; May 1, 1992
East Carter High School shooting - Grayson, Kentucky, United States; January 18, 1993
Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
Bethel High School shooting - Bethel, Alaska, United States; February 19, 1997
Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
Parker Middle School Shooting - Edinboro, Pennsylvania; April 24, 1998
Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
Columbine High School massacre - near Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
Santana High School shooting - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
Granite Hills High School shooting - El Cajon, California; March 22, 2001
Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings - Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States; April 24, 2003
Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
Campbell County High School shooting - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
Delaware State University shooting - Dover, Delaware, United States; September 21, 2007
SuccessTech Academy shooting - Cleveland, Ohio, United States; October 10, 2007
Now the mall shootings

In that same period in the UK, the only shooting has been

Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996

after which gun laws were significantly tightened and no further school shootings have occured.

Given the overwhelming data to the contrary it seems difficult to maintain a position that easy access to guns does not play a role in perpetuating school/mall shootings. What is the better explanation for why about 30 shootings/massacres have occured since the nineties in the US to 1 in the UK?

The question is for the pro gun lobby, if it isn't guns that is a factor, then what is?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If gun ownership was illegal and punishable with a long prison sentence throughout the whole of the US, wouldn't at least some criminals be put in prison before they killed someone with a gun?

I'd have though the control of new weapons would be easier as well, since there would be no way to justify importing and moving large volumes of different firearms around the country. I.e., if the police standardised on 1 or 2 types of gun, then anything different would clearly be illegal.

Perhaps Hollywood could be persuaded (read: taxed into compliance) to stop promoting gun violence?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Andyandy,

Try to go back futher and see how many mass killings there were with guns. You'll find only a few from the 80's, and even less in the 70's. This is a 90's phenomenon, so we have to ask ourselves what changes occured in the 90's.

There were plenty of guns in the 70's and 80's, but very few mass killings like we're seeing today, so what is the root of the problem? Guns or something deeper.

It takes MORE than a gun to cross the 'I'm gonna kill as many people as I can before I kill myself' moral line. Something else is enabling these kids to cross that line, to take a weapon and blow away innocent civilians as fast as they can pull the trigger.

The gun is a means, not a cause. Something much deeper is going on in American culture, and until that is addressed no solution will be found.

People are turning a blind eye to the real problems.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

If gun ownership was illegal and punishable with a long prison sentence throughout the whole of the US, wouldn't at least some criminals be put in prison before they killed someone with a gun?

And you think American prison systems are full now? Imagine the MILLIONS of legal gun owners NOT willing to give up their gun.

You're forgetting an important fact. Criminals don't give a crap about laws. You'd only be affecting law-abiding citizens. The criminal would still be out there with his/her gun, itching to pull the trigger on someone's unsuspecting grandmother over 5 dollars and a knock-off designer purse.