Another Mall Shooting

[WildCat]

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.

When were automatic weapons allowed in Australia? And if you really meant "semi-automatic" yes, many people do deer hunt with semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

 

[EagleEye]

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?

The same could be said for the VT shooter, Columbine, or just about any other mass murder in the US. The sites chosen were public places... all of which had restricted carry rules on firearms. Schools, malls, etc...

 

[andyandy]

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.

true - i don't think that the guns themselves are what motivates people to commit these acts - they are as you say a means of enacting a certain desire. Nonetheless they provide a way of carrying out that desired act - an act which for several reasons (as listed before) is far more difficult without a gun.

looking for underlying "causes" - there has always been teenagers disenfranchised enough to decide to commit suicide, and angry with the world [or fellow pupils/teachers] but now that is being coupled with a desire to "be someone," ie. a need for fame as a means to define oneself....add to that the irrational mindset of someone who plans to kill themselves, and access to guns and ammo, and i think that serves as a starter....

 

[Big Les]

Easy and legal access to them seems to be at least a factor, if not the main problem. Is the same also true of suicides? I have frightened myself at points in my past, and where as an inveterate coward I couldn't have done it with anything remotely slow-acting, easy access to a gun might just have done for me.

 

[EagleEye]

What many of you anti-gun people are actually advocating is a nanny state with what can only be called "preemptive punishment". This is something that I can't rightly condone.

I mean think about what the crux of your argument is.

"We don't think you're responsible enough to own a gun"
"We think that by owning a gun, you're more likely to go out and murder someone."

Yeah, well, until I show that I'm not responsible, don't take my gun away from me.
Until I actually commit a crime with that gun, don't take my gun away from me.

This isn't Minority Report (Tom Cruise movie reference here!)... "You have been arrested for the future crime of ... "

To be honest, I believe it's the act of restricting access to firearms for otherwise law-abiding citizens that makes one country more fascist than the next. It is those countries (yes, the UK included), who believe that their citizens are guilty until proven innocent by the mere existence of such anti-gun laws.

 

[BPSCG]

I think we should ban gun nuts

By "gun nuts," do you mean the millions of citizens who own guns, have never considered firing one in anger, and who have gone to the trouble of learning how to use them safely? Do you believe there are gun nuts on this forum? Could you please identify them for those of us who are not gun nuts, so we can be careful not to get on their wrong side? (For all I know, you think I'm a "gun nut.")

By "ban," do you mean "imprison," or do you mean "execute"?

If by "gun nut," you mean "people with a medical history of mental illness," are you aware that they aren't permitted to buy guns anyway?

and all their nonsense rationalizations for gun ownership.

So you favor the repeal of the first amendment.

They are small, sad people, those gun nuts. Their guns make them feel very slightly less small and scared and empty inside,

And you know this from your years of study of "gun nuts" as well as your degree in psychiatry, I take it?

I guess.

Oh. In other words, you're just speculating. But based on that speculation, you want to "ban" people (whatever the hell that means) and "ban" their speech - and we know all too well what that means.

...the reality is that the gun nuts are just nuts, and the guns are part of their mental defect.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Their claim of the government conspiring to take their guns is all about their constant overriding fear of a whole spectrum of things.

No, their claim of government conspiring to take their guns is all about people like you saying the government should take their guns.

If we could get rid of them, and their whole weird paranoid subculture,

Are you working up a "final solution" to the "gun nut" problem? You said earlier that revoking their right to speak would be an important step. What other measures do you believe should be taken? Make gun owners pay a heavy collective fine? Wear armbands with the letter "G" whenever they go out in public? Deportations? Internment camps?

maybe we could have a more serious discussion of guns, gun violence, and the underlying issues.

Well, once you've "banned" the gun nuts and "banned" their speech, we really don't need to have a discussion any more, do we?

Do you even read what you type before you post it?

 

[WildCat]

I guess I should have defined the meaning of "rampage". If the Monash Uni shooter had powerful, banned weapons he could easily have killed dozens rather than two, which was tragic enough.

No, his weaponry was quite capable of killing many more people, only the heroic actions of a guy who tackled him before he could switch guns prevented more victims.

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

 

[WildCat]

Buyback has no effect on murder rate:

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.
The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

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

Ah yes, but most of those murderers use heavy kitchen pans. Are you saying we should ban cast iron cookware too?

 

[WildCat]

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?

 

[Lonewulf]

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

Wow, Ivor, you're so smart.

The answer is so simple. Get the government to have as much control over media as they can get. Tax people into compliance and prohibit any movies that they don't want to get out.

Why didn't I think of that? Oh, wait. Because I actually like the words "Liberty", "Freedom of Speech", and "Freedom".

Now I can see why people put you on their ignore list.

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

Personally, I can't help but not care one way or the other.

"GUNS ARE EVIL! LET'S CONTROL THE MEDIA AND ARREST ANYONE WITH A GUN! YEAH!"

Uh, yeah. Okay. I really don't care, one way or the other. After a while, the nuts just start to become boring.

Personally, I like how I can go to Nevada and be able to rent a vehicle-mounted machinegun and shoot up stuff in the desert. Sounds pretty fun. And when's the last time you've ever heard of a .50 BMG machinegun used in a school shooting?

 

[bokonon]

Ha ha, Lionking, this isn't you, is it?

Melbourne Man Arrested Over Online Shooting Threat

 

[BPSCG]

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,...

Actually, quite a number of people own handguns and do shoot them for sport - target shooting.

... so I would say that their main, if not exclusive use is to shoot people.

I own a revolver, and I do not own it for sport. My primary purpose for owning it is, indeed, to shoot people, in the unlikely event that it becomes necessary to protect my home, my family, and myself. Our last civic association newsletter had a "crime report" section listing two break-ins where the perpetrator evidently used a crowbar. They were both within a block or two of my house. If someone breaks into my house with a crowbar, I will certainly do whatever it takes to make him one of the deadest men who ever lived.

Is there something wrong with that attitude? Does this make me one of JoeEllison's "gun nuts"?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

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.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

They were both within a block or two of my house. If someone breaks into my house with a crowbar, I will certainly do whatever it takes to make him one of the deadest men who ever lived.

Great quote!

However, should you really have the right to defend your own home with violence? Wouldn't a hug be more effective in the long run? After all, it's not the criminals fault they had to resort to breaking in to your home to get by. It's societies fault, and we owe em' something, right? Guns aren't the answer to home protection, hugs are.

 

[WildCat]

I'm surprised Australia didn't ban matches and lighters after the Childers Hostel fire.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

One ban at a time, wildcat. One ban at a time. (Don't want to make them suspicious!)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Wow, Ivor, you're so smart.

Why, thank you.

The answer is so simple. Get the government to have as much control over media as they can get. Tax people into compliance and prohibit any movies that they don't want to get out.

Yes, it is much better that a few big profit-driven corporations have control over the media, rather than elected governments. In fact, why bother with government at all? Just let the free (haha) market decide every issue.

Why didn't I think of that? Oh, wait. Because I actually like the words "Liberty", "Freedom of Speech", and "Freedom".

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? Generally, movies which glamorise gun violence are produced for one purpose only: TO MAKE MONEY.

Now I can see why people put you on their ignore list.

Please feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[BPSCG]

Great quote!

I've used it before, but have to confess it's from Mark Twain's Roughing It:

On one occasion a man who kept a little whisky-shelf at the station did something which angered Slade--and went and made his will. A day or two afterward Slade came in and called for some brandy. The man reached under the counter (ostensibly to get a bottle--possibly to get something else), but Slade smiled upon him that peculiarly bland and satisfied smile of his which the neighbors had long ago learned to recognize as a death-warrant in disguise, and told him to "none of that!--pass out the high-priced article." So the poor bar-keeper had to turn his back and get the high-priced brandy from the shelf; and when he faced around again he was looking into the muzzle of Slade's pistol. "And the next instant," added my informant, impressively, "he was one of the deadest men that ever lived."