• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Mall Shooting

I didn't know 'taxation' was a synonym for 'censorship'. Do you really think censorship does not occur already? It's currently implemented by profit motive.

Give the people what they want. When they want more of it, give them more and more and Die Hard 4... No-one (especially those elected representatives of the public) should ever say "no", because that would be impacting on their "freedom".

Are you against having age restrictions on films or violent computer games?

What about high taxation of cigarettes or alcohol? Smoking bans?

Possible carbon taxes?

What ideas do you have to reduce violent behaviour?
 
Shouldn't we be having this 'ban' discussion about alcohol also?

From the alcoholalert website:

In 2005, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor
vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.

In 2005, a total of 414 (21%) of the fatalities among children age 14 and younger
occurred in crashes involving alcohol. Of those 414 fatalities, more than half (224)
of those killed were passengers in vehicles with drivers with BAC levels of .01 or higher.

Another 48 children age 14 and younger who were killed in traffic crashes in 2005
were pedestrians or pedalcyclists who were struck by drivers with BAC .01 or higher.


More kids die every year from alcohol related motor vehicle accidents than from suicidal killing sprees.

Or is it that alcohol is more socially acceptable than guns? Care to guess how many TOTAL deaths there are yearly related to alcohol!
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
I didn't know 'taxation' was a synonym for 'censorship'.
So, let me get this straight. In your world, forcing people to go bankrupt in order to pay for getting their idea out in the open is not "censorship", even when induced by the government? Wow.

What's it like to be completely delusional? I'm really curious.

Ivor said:
Give the people what they want.
Let the people buy what they want. You have no right to tell me what I can't read, what I can't watch, and what I can't see. You have no right to tell me that I can play one game, but not another; or that I can watch a movie, but not another.

You have no right to tell me what fiction I can and cannot experience. I can read "Lolita" if I ****ing want to, thank you very much.

When they want more of it, give them more and more and Die Hard 4... No-one (especially those elected representatives of the public) should ever say "no", because that would be impacting on their "freedom".

Ah, yes, that evil Die Hard 4.

I'm sure when the end of the world occurs and the world is a festering fest pool of sin and horror, people will look back, point at Die Hard 4, and go, "THAT IS TO BLAME! EEEEEVIL!"

Once more representative that the Gun Control Freaks are living in their own fantasy land.

Ivor the Engineer said:
What ideas do you have to reduce violent behaviour?
So your claim is that violence on television causes violent behavior.

Evidence?

All of the evidence I've seen has pointed to the exact opposite. In fact, since those EEEEVIL video games that people like you like to rant on and on about actually were published, crime has been going down... you'd think that if violent media causes violence, it would have the opposite effect.

But I'm sure you'll just find another scapegoat. If it's not rock and roll, it's heavy metal, if it's not that, it's Jazz, if it's not that, it's violent movies. Natch. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You still seem confused about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firerarms.

sure - i'd be happy if you could explain a bit :)

what is the distinction in the law with regards to either, and what is the distinction in terms of usage?


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.

ok, we can look back through the various shootings...i'll do that later.

we are (or i am at least) interested in the reasons why there have been so many shootings primarily in schools but also in this recent case in a mall. Certainly we can separate specific target from spree killing if we want to narrow down the discussion - but both still deserve attention.

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?

the situations though would appear to generally be distinct again - insofar as specific killing or spree killing in a public place such as school/mall seems to be non-gang related and invariably to end with the perpatrator killing himself. I would imagine the murder you're referencing would not generally fit that MO. We can certainly discuss [one presumes] largely gang related murder outside the school gates with guns as well - it is no less important, but it would appear to be different enough to warrant division...
 
Shouldn't we be having this 'ban' discussion about alcohol also?

From the alcoholalert website:

In 2005, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor
vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.

In 2005, a total of 414 (21%) of the fatalities among children age 14 and younger
occurred in crashes involving alcohol. Of those 414 fatalities, more than half (224)
of those killed were passengers in vehicles with drivers with BAC levels of .01 or higher.

Another 48 children age 14 and younger who were killed in traffic crashes in 2005
were pedestrians or pedalcyclists who were struck by drivers with BAC .01 or higher.


More kids die every year from alcohol related motor vehicle accidents than from suicidal killing sprees.

Or is it that alcohol is more socially acceptable than guns? Care to guess how many TOTAL deaths there are yearly related to alcohol!

Sure - i can admit that as a direct result of alcohol related car accidents children die. Can you do the same and admit that as a direct result of easy access to guns children die? It's patently obvious - indeed facile, and yet the pro-gun lobby seems to dance around this as though even acknowledging such a fact would necessitate conceding the entire gun regulation debate to the "Gun Control Freaks." For alcohol society makes something of a utilitarian cost benefit decision - it's entirely acceptable to make the same utilitarian argument for the continued legality of guns if one wishes. So, do you admit that as a direct result of easy access to guns children die? Perhaps with a bit of honesty this debate can move forward - without it it's interminably stuck.
 
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.

Oh hells no. I went ahead and described a couple of gun nuts earlier, for reference.
 
Oh hells no. I went ahead and described a couple of gun nuts earlier, for reference.
Questions:
  • You "described a couple of gun nuts," but you did not tell us what a gun nut is. All we know at this point, from your postings, is that we should be careful of people who keep "guns stashed around the houses," or who "had a stockpile of weapons and weird survivalist magazines." That all seems very general. Please provide a definition of "gun nut," so that the rest of us may properly identify them.
  • Do you continue to believe those gun nuts should be "banned"?
  • What do you mean, "banned"?
  • Do you continue to believe the speech of gun nuts should also be "banned"?
  • If so, how do you reconcile that position with the first amendment to the Constitution?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
 
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.

You seem to be arguing from a position of ignorance. I see you joined the forum this year. I have seen a few other people on this forum tell me that handguns were not sporting or only useful for shooting people. It was like clubbing baby seals (no I have not) because they were so willfully ignorant it hurt to read their posts.

You really need to educate yourself on firearms. Take a look at handgun hunting. Thompson Center makes two handguns that are very well suited for hunting; the Contender (G2) and the Encore. The Remington XP-100, Ruger Super Blackhawk, Browning Buckmark, Savage Striker, Desert Eagle as well as others are all good choices for hunting. While it takes more skill to take an animal with a handgun than a rifle, it can be far easier to use a handgun instead of a bow; especially for me.

Ever heard of the Olympic Games? They do use real pistols there you know. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_m_Rapid_Fire_Pistol and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_m_Pistol . Tell us that the Walther SSP and the free pistols used in the Olympics are not sporting handguns. If shooting handguns was not a sport, it would not be an Olympic event.

People compete at machine gun shoots; they are not sporting? I recently competed at a service rifle and other competitions. I would have come in last if I chose a single shot rifle. The persons with semi-automatic rifles did the best.

You claim that ".....their main, if not exclusive use is to shoot people." Please tell us how many Americans own handguns, then tell us how many of them use those handguns to shoot people. When you find the percentage that use them to shoot people is very low, please tell us how your claim is different than a lie.

Hope you educate yourself before posting again. Thanks.

Ranb
 
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.

Nitpick - you're thinking of the A2, and in fact they returned to full-auto with the A3 and M4 (but retained it in the A4). In general though, semi will always be the preferred option for ammo conservation and accurate fire. And sadly, that includes those loony killers who want to inflict maximum carnage with one weapon.

I agree with your main point too, since although a 6-800rpm weapon at close range is much more capable at killing any one given armed person in a confined close-range situation (hence the invention of the subgun in WW1), a semi-auto is just as if not more capable of killing multiple people. Especially unarmed ones.
 
sure - i'd be happy if you could explain a bit :)

what is the distinction in the law with regards to either, and what is the distinction in terms of usage?
Semi-auto: One shot per trigger pull.

Automatic: Multiple shots per trigger pull.

Automatic firearms are extremely hard to acquire, where legal there are many hoops to jump through, such as written permission from the police chief.

"Automatic" pistols are a bit of a misnomer, they're not really automatic. The name simply differentiates them from revolvers.
 
Let's just end the nonsense argument over automatic vs semi-automatic and just boil it down to "do you have to load a new round in to the barrel yourself or not?" Seriously, bolt action vs ... well... EVERYTHING ELSE... if it has a clip, it's capable of rapid killing.

Personally, if I were to plan such an act, I'd prefer a semi-auto anyway... After the 2nd bullet comes out of a full-auto, you've lost most of your accuracy anyway. One round at a time, even 1/2 a second apart (only 120rpm, vs 600 or so?) allows me to adjust for recoil, etc... So really, let's all just face facts... the ban on automatic weapons is nothing more than a feel-good law designed to placate people and make them FEEL safer.

I'd rather have some nut with a full-auto burn through his 30 round mag in 2 seconds of wild spraying fire, rather than have someone squeezing off 30 distinct aimed rounds in 30 seconds. The wild-firing full-auto guy I could tackle while he was reloading after hitting nothing but air.

Hell, look at the DC sniper case... one shot, one kill... and the psychological impact of THAT was far greater... I mean he could strike at any time, at any place.
 
So, let me get this straight. In your world, forcing people to go bankrupt in order to pay for getting their idea out in the open is not "censorship", even when induced by the government? Wow.

Now you've made yourself look daft by equating taxation with making people bankrupt.

What's it like to be completely delusional? I'm really curious.

I have no idea. What's it like to be so reactionary you can't comprehend what you are reading?

Let the people buy what they want. You have no right to tell me what I can't read, what I can't watch, and what I can't see. You have no right to tell me that I can play one game, but not another; or that I can watch a movie, but not another.

You have no right to tell me what fiction I can and cannot experience. I can read "Lolita" if I ****ing want to, thank you very much.

I don't want to. But perhaps if the two options for a Hollywood studio were to make a film with lots of unrealistic gun violence positively portrayed in it and one with violence negatively portrayed, less violence or none at all, the greater taxation of the former would reduce the number of those films being made.

Ah, yes, that evil Die Hard 4.

I'm sure when the end of the world occurs and the world is a festering fest pool of sin and horror, people will look back, point at Die Hard 4, and go, "THAT IS TO BLAME! EEEEEVIL!"

Once more representative that the Gun Control Freaks are living in their own fantasy land.

But at least when we loose it, we don't go off and shoot a load of people.:D

So your claim is that violence on television causes violent behavior.

No. I don't know if [gun] violence in films drives [gun] violence in society, or if it is the other way round. I suggest an experiment...

All of the evidence I've seen has pointed to the exact opposite. In fact, since those EEEEVIL video games that people like you like to rant on and on about actually were published, crime has been going down... you'd think that if violent media causes violence, it would have the opposite effect.

I would think there are many things which affect the rate of violent crime. For example, isn't there a link between domestic violence and NFL games? Legalised abortion may have something to do with the fall during the 90's in the US.

As for research, I've found this:

The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: a public-health approach.

There is continuing debate on the extent of the effects of media violence on children and young people, and how to investigate these effects. The aim of this review is to consider the research evidence from a public-health perspective. A search of published work revealed five meta-analytic reviews and one quasi-systematic review, all of which were from North America. There is consistent evidence that violent imagery in television, film and video, and computer games has substantial short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in younger children, especially in boys. The evidence becomes inconsistent when considering older children and teenagers, and long-term outcomes for all ages. The multifactorial nature of aggression is emphasised, together with the methodological difficulties of showing causation. Nevertheless, a small but significant association is shown in the research, with an effect size that has a substantial effect on public health. By contrast, only weak evidence from correlation studies links media violence directly to crime.

So that would seem to indicate we just don't know how adults watching violent behaviour in films influences violent behaviour in real-life. There is evidence it appears to affect children in a negative way, though.
 
Here's what I think. We need more citizens walking around ARMED and TRAINED so when something like this occurs the dumbass can be taken out before killing such a large number of people.

If a professor had had a gun at Virginia Tech, less people might have been killed.

The keywords though are *might have been* it's also possible more people would have been killed. Armed and Trained, - Trained how? Not everyone can handle the stress of police or military duty, this is why in an ideal world security people would go through training **and pass**

So the question becomes who do you want to be armed? who has that right? Airline stewards, or captains? specially trained marshals? or general civilians? If everyone had a gun in the Nebraska Mall (McDonalds) case, I'd say a safer bet would be no one would see the first shot, and you'd have a blood bath as everyone shot who they thought was firing the first shot.
 
There is consistent evidence that violent imagery in television, film and video, and computer games has substantial short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in younger children, especially in boys.
Funny, but when I was growing up in TV's dark ages, cartoons were almost uniformly violent. Popeye the Sailor would get beaten to a pulp by Bluto until he ate his spinach and gave Bluto back the beating, with interest. The Warner Brothers cartoons - Bugs Bunny and those guys - all had significant violence as part of the plot. Tom and Jerry. The Three Stooges.

And when we were done watching violence on TV, we'd go get our cap pistols and toy rifles and play cowboys 'n Indians or pretend we were WW II soldiers launching an invasion against a Jap island (that sandbox on the other side of the bushes served as an island), and when we got tired doing that, we'd go back inside and play with our little plastic soldiers. The best Christmas present I ever got as a boy was a gigantic box of Civil War soldiers, complete with an exploding bunker (spring-loaded) and cheval de frises for impaling men on. I remember one Reb soldier who'd been molded to be wounded - propping himself up with one arm, holding his other hand to his forehead. I found a bottle of red Testor's modelling paint and poured it all over him. It was so cool...

And of course, we had our plastic models. I built a model of the British battleship HMS King George V, as well as all manner of fighter jets and bombers, most of which eventually were lost in battles with firecrackers.

And of course, I built plastic models of legendary movie killers such as Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and The Creature From the Black Lagoon.

Violence on TV and in the movies? We grew up on Bonanza, the saga of rancher Ben Cartright and his three sons, where you could count on at least one of those three worthies shooting someone dead every week. Gunsmoke's opening sequence showed Marshal Matt Dillon gunning down a bad guy. We loved those shows. Violence in the movies? Can you say "John Wayne"?

And all those things I listed above - all my friends did them, too. We were normal suburban kids. Given that upbringing, it seems remarkable that none of us grew up into homicidal killers.

I don't watch cartoons much any more (does South Park count?), but I get the impression that what's on today is a lot more sanitized, neutered, if you will, than what I used to see. I know kids don't play cowboys and Indians any more; very few of them even have cap pistols or toy guns of any kind. I doubt that kids build plastic models much any more. So one would think that the current generation would be much less violent than mine.

And yet if you look at the crime statistics today compared with fifty years ago, only a fool would say there's less crime today. So I dispute the claim that "violent imagery in television, film and video, and computer games has substantial short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in younger children, especially in boys." The only medium of exposure to violence that kids have today that I didn't is the computer. And, as explained above, I was exposed to violence in lots of other ways that today's kids aren't.
 
You seem to be arguing from a position of ignorance. I see you joined the forum this year. I have seen a few other people on this forum tell me that handguns were not sporting or only useful for shooting people. It was like clubbing baby seals (no I have not) because they were so willfully ignorant it hurt to read their posts.

You really need to educate yourself on firearms. Take a look at handgun hunting. Thompson Center makes two handguns that are very well suited for hunting; the Contender (G2) and the Encore. The Remington XP-100, Ruger Super Blackhawk, Browning Buckmark, Savage Striker, Desert Eagle as well as others are all good choices for hunting. While it takes more skill to take an animal with a handgun than a rifle, it can be far easier to use a handgun instead of a bow; especially for me.

Ever heard of the Olympic Games? They do use real pistols there you know. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_m_Rapid_Fire_Pistol and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_m_Pistol . Tell us that the Walther SSP and the free pistols used in the Olympics are not sporting handguns. If shooting handguns was not a sport, it would not be an Olympic event.

People compete at machine gun shoots; they are not sporting? I recently competed at a service rifle and other competitions. I would have come in last if I chose a single shot rifle. The persons with semi-automatic rifles did the best.

You claim that ".....their main, if not exclusive use is to shoot people." Please tell us how many Americans own handguns, then tell us how many of them use those handguns to shoot people. When you find the percentage that use them to shoot people is very low, please tell us how your claim is different than a lie.

Hope you educate yourself before posting again. Thanks.

Ranb
I said the main use for hand guns is to shoot people. Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of hand gun owners are sporting shooters? Pull the other one. And for "use" read "purpose" if you like. I am not implying that a large proportion use hand guns to shoot people, but it is their main "use".

And is there any relevance to your point that I have been here less than a year?
 
I said the main use for hand guns is to shoot people. Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of hand gun owners are sporting shooters? Pull the other one. And for "use" read "purpose" if you like. I am not implying that a large proportion use hand guns to shoot people, but it is their main "use".

That's exactly right. Unless we're talking about high-accuracy target pistols, which are often single-shot, the purpose of a handgun is to shoot other people. You can discuss reasons why ordinary people might need to shoot people, but I don't think you can discuss the issue honestly while pretending that handguns are generally made for anything besides shooting people.
 
I doubt most people who purchase handguns, and never shoot someone, would agree that they have not received the use for which they purchased their handgun.
 
Nitpick - you're thinking of the A2, and in fact they returned to full-auto with the A3 and M4 (but retained it in the A4). In general though, semi will always be the preferred option for ammo conservation and accurate fire. And sadly, that includes those loony killers who want to inflict maximum carnage with one weapon.

I agree with your main point too, since although a 6-800rpm weapon at close range is much more capable at killing any one given armed person in a confined close-range situation (hence the invention of the subgun in WW1), a semi-auto is just as if not more capable of killing multiple people. Especially unarmed ones.

You are correct sir. That's what I get for posting way after my bedtime. There's an adage I remember from long ago regarding full-auto - there's a lot more air than there is meat.
 
I said the main use for hand guns is to shoot people. Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of hand gun owners are sporting shooters? Pull the other one. And for "use" read "purpose" if you like. I am not implying that a large proportion use hand guns to shoot people, but it is their main "use".

And is there any relevance to your point that I have been here less than a year?

I am suggesting that the majority of of handgun owners have never or will never shoot another person. I also claim that the majority of those who actually shoot their handgun do so for competition, plinking, or hunting. Where is your evidence that handguns are exclusively used for shooting people. Remember, "use" means they have it in their hands and are doing something with it. If by purpose you mean goal, then you have an awfully dim view of humanity if you think most handgun owners intend to shoot another person.

When I noted that you had been here less than a year, it just meant I had argued with a few others that used the same line of reasoning you do. They did not sound any less silly than you do.

Ranb
 

Back
Top Bottom