• 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

It is the opposing position that you insist on misrepresenting. I don't understand why, unless it is because you aren't interested in honest discussion.

People buy handguns in the USA for sport, self defense and recreation. Even if a person buys a handgun for self defense, it does not mean they intend to shoot someone with it. Defending yourself with a firearm does not require you to shoot someone. Some statistics (if they are to be believed) show that handguns are used in self defense are usually not fired. Do you agree or disagree?

Ranb
 
In any case, those links (and there's certainly some correlation/causation disentangling to be done there) refer to the influence of violent media on children. Why should adults have their leisure time affected by parents irresponsible enough to let little Jimmy play GTA?

Because we live in a society where little Jimmy grows up, goes joy-riding in a car and hits a pregnant women crossing the road?

(Obviously he is most pleased about doing this, because he's just got an extra 5000 bonus points.:))

If the car analogy was at all relevant to the gun control issue, it's screamingly obvious here; cars directly kill many times more than guns, video games or movies. If we are seeking to protect people from harm, why do we persist in allowing such high levels of car ownership and use? The high levels of tax are applied due to environmental and maintenance concerns, not because of their lethal consequences.

Removing handguns from society would have virtually zero impact on the day to day lives of people (apart from those who would otherwise have got shot, that is).

Removing a popular and highly practical means of transport would be a major inconvenience for most people, though the UK government is looking at ways to reduce congestion by road-pricing.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Because we live in a society where little Jimmy grows up, goes joy-riding in a car and hits a pregnant women crossing the road?

(Obviously he is most pleased about doing this, because he's just got an extra 5000 bonus points.)

Continually repeating a flawed statement does not make it any more correct.

I've already debunked the vast majority of the bullspit you've spewed. I see that you've wisely decided against responding to any of the actual points that have done so, though.

Ivor the Engineer said:
Removing handguns from society would have virtually zero impact on the day to day lives of people (apart from those who would otherwise have got shot, that is).
Except for those that use it in self defense, naturally, but who cares about them? Women deserve to get raped, after all. It's their fault for, on average, being smaller and less strong than men.
 
Removing handguns from society would have virtually zero impact on the day to day lives of people (apart from those who would otherwise have got shot, that is).

Not in America. They are desired and much-used in legitimate recreation and other contexts. In the UK, I agree, and so did virtually everyone else back in 1997.

Removing a popular and highly practical means of transport would be a major inconvenience for most people, though the UK government is looking at ways to reduce congestion by road-pricing.

True. But does mere inconvenience compare with loss of life? In terms of violent imagery, which many more people indulge in than they do firearm use, you would be inconveniencing them by taxing or banning that just as much as you would with the vehicle analogy (I would argue).
 
Hmmm, I think I see where the discrepancy comes from.

From here:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

This seems to demonstrate that crime levels have been going up... along with population size.

There were far more crimes in 1960 per 10,000 people than there are today, it seems.

Seems like that's a pretty big thing to miss, though. I kinda doubt that anyone would be that n00bish with stats to make a mistake that bad... unless they were trying to intentionally distort the facts to suit their own side, natch.

:confused:

From the link above:

Year: 1960
Population: 179,323,175
Violent Crime Total: 288,460

Year: 2005
Population: 296,410,404
Violent Crime Total: 1,390,695

1960 Violent Crime rate = 161 per 100,000 population
2005 Violent Crime rate = 469 per 100,000 population

The Violent Crime rate in the US has increased in 45 years from 1960 more than 2.9 times.
 
Hm, I gotta work on my math skillz, because that's not what my calculator told me. Oh well, I was rushed anyways.

So what about the differences between, say, 1987 and 2005?

And I thought your graph didn't show crime dropping between 1993 and today.

And what about my previous links from the Federal Bureau?


Going to ignore evidence that contradicts your claims?
 
<snip>

I've already debunked the vast majority of the bullspit you've spewed. I see that you've wisely decided against responding to any of the actual points that have done so, though.

I'm sorry, I must have missed where you "debunked" anything I've claimed or linked to. All I've seen you do is post highly selective quotes from web pages, such as your last attempt at misleading statistics. At least you're using all the right words for a sceptic, though.

Except for those that use it in self defense, naturally, but who cares about them? Women deserve to get raped, after all. It's their fault for, on average, being smaller and less strong than men.

Do you work in the PR department at the NRA? How many people do you think get a chance to use their gun when being attacked by surprise? How many people get shot with their own gun?

I think you've been watching way to many films.
 
I'm sorry, I must have missed where you "debunked" anything I've claimed or linked to. All I've seen you do is post highly selective quotes from web pages, such as your last attempt at misleading statistics. At least you're using all the right words for a sceptic, though.

So what about the differences between, say, 1987 and 2005?

And I thought your graph didn't show crime dropping between 1993 and today.

And what about my previous links from the Federal Bureau?


Going to ignore evidence that contradicts your claims?

Looks like you're going to ignore evidence that contradicts your claims. Go figure.

I'm going to make a few more posts, and if you continue this pattern of behavior, you're going on my ignore list. I don't have the time to waste on your kind.

Do you work in the PR department at the NRA?
No.

How many people do you think get a chance to use their gun when being attacked by surprise? How many people get shot with their own gun?

Oh, I'm sure the numbers are high, eh?

Evidence, plz.

I think you've been watching way to many films.

Ah, okay. So guns are ineffective self-defense tools, right? That's your claim?

So a woman is confronted by a gang of men, she's more likely to get out completely unscathed while unarmed than instead with a firearm? Can you prove that claim, or is speculating all that you're good at?
 
Last edited:
This is interesting.

From Wikipedia:

The most common argument against video games is that they promote violence. A counter-argument commonly expressed in the video game community is that playing these games does not motivate players to actually commit acts of violence in reality; playing a "first person shooter" game does not cause most people to commit murder. A US Secret Service study found that only 12 percent of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24 percent read violent books and 27 percent were attracted to violent movies.[18]

One of the biggest claims is that games are more likely to cause violent rampages because they're more "interactive". Looks like that's not quite true. Hmm... oh well. There goes that theory.

If you ban movies, gotta ban violent books too. They're about the same incidence. If movies are making violent kids, then so are violent books. So what books are you willing to censor? War and Peace? 1984? Les Miserables was pretty nasty at points.

This is the source that was linked from Wikipedia: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

And here's another one.

An Australian study found that only children already predisposed to violence were affected by violent games.[19]

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/04/study_kids_unaf.html

The study, conducted by the Swinburne University of Technology, which examined 120 children aged 11 to 15 years old, had the kids play Quake II for twenty minutes. The neurotic kids were wound up and aggressive after playing, but the more even-keeled kids came out the same way they went in. Sounds shockingly like common sense to me, but, then, I don't have a PhD after my name, so what do I know? Interestingly, hyperactive children were more calm after playing. Professor Grant Devilly had this advice:

"You've got to basically read your own kid. If you have a quite hyper kid they will come down after playing a bit, but for the rest of kids, the vast majority, it makes no difference at all in their general aggression rate."

So it seems like there are studies that show a differing opinion than the one you tout about.
 
Last edited:
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.


That, to a "T"....is a perfect description of my own childhood(born 1951).

I actually did have the King George V battleship too (although the motorized Bismarck I recieved one Christmas was cooler), and I had all those Universal Studio monsters.

Also, most were in fact destroyed by firecrackers or bb gun fire.

Best present I ever got was the Daisy BB gun I recieved one Xmas---I thought my parents were just going to get me the cheapo one---but it turned out to be the Model 94 Winchester.

About all I ever got for Xmas was guns & WW2 model ships & planes. I loved them all.

Despite the exposure to all that-- I've managed to reach age 56 so damned sqeaky clean that the state of Mass (some of the toughest gun laws in the country) has seen fit to grant me one of the coveted class A licences to carry.

I think I always knew in my heart that when Moe hit Curly over the head with a claw hammer---if you did that in real life it'd probably kill the person.

I own two shotguns,one air rifle, and one handgun.

I wonder if that makes me a gun nut?
 
Last edited:
Another Mall shooting in the US. When are you guys going to ban hand guns, semi-automatics and other firearms designed to shoot people?
There are people in American politics who want to do just that. Guns are a large part of American history. The US is the most armed country in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States is about to confirm that the right to bear arms is an individual civil right (contrary to what the UN wants you to believe). An outright ban would cause a civil war in America. All sides of this debate know that as fact. After all, the largest American casualties were the result of the first American Civil War, and that war was arguably about a civil right that wasn’t blatantly declared in the US Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms is. Would the deaths from that war justify the means in your opinion? I would like to let it be known that around 50% of homicides as reported are suicides & around 50% of homicide rates you see have prior criminal convictions.

This homicide/suicide stuff is blown out of proportion exponentially, especially by foreigners. I mean no offense by that comment, just fact as I see it.

If you can show me how giving up my negative/natural rights will decrease homicides, I might lend an ear to this discussion. How will giving up my firearms decrease homicide/suicide rates? BTW, I am not interested in saving peoples lives who kill themselves nor and I interested in saving peoples lives who are repeat offenders of the laws of this nation.

You can start here and here. P.S. skip to the conclusion/summary, that is the best part :D
 
P.S. Guns aren't designed to shoot people. They're designed to shoot, period.

I think they were first designed to shoot a high velocity bullet, which would then knock over a match, which would then strike some fireworks, which would light up and spell out "Peace on Earth to all!" in the air.

Get real.
 
Some people on this thread have spoken about how "law abiding" citizens carrying weapons could "take out" a maniac shooting people in a Mall. Funny that I don't recall reading about this. Examples please, and not from the mists of time.
From what I can tell this is an authentic perspective of a peaceful law-abiding "gun-nut" at the mall shooting in question.

There is also this hero to discuss.

And the idea of people forming a disciplined, well trained and commanded force to combat the army is just laughable.
Guerilla warfare actually works fairly well. 74.5 million militia members ((US population minus 2 million) divided by 4)) > 2 million active and reserve military members

I have a right to defend my life and the life of my loved ones. Self defense is a basic human right.
 
There are people in American politics who want to do just that. Guns are a large part of American history. The US is the most armed country in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States is about to confirm that the right to bear arms is an individual civil right (contrary to what the UN wants you to believe). An outright ban would cause a civil war in America. All sides of this debate know that as fact. After all, the largest American casualties were the result of the first American Civil War, and that war was arguably about a civil right that wasn’t blatantly declared in the US Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms is. Would the deaths from that war justify the means in your opinion? I would like to let it be known that around 50% of homicides as reported are suicides & around 50% of homicide rates you see have prior criminal convictions.

This homicide/suicide stuff is blown out of proportion exponentially, especially by foreigners. I mean no offense by that comment, just fact as I see it.

If you can show me how giving up my negative/natural rights will decrease homicides, I might lend an ear to this discussion. How will giving up my firearms decrease homicide/suicide rates? BTW, I am not interested in saving peoples lives who kill themselves nor and I interested in saving peoples lives who are repeat offenders of the laws of this nation.

You can start here and here. P.S. skip to the conclusion/summary, that is the best part :D
I understand US history, but a "natural right" to carry firearms?

I am not talking about a blanket ban on firearms, but on semi-automatics and hand guns. As you may have read in this thread, we used to have mass killings with firearms, but none since semi-automatics were banned (hand guns were always restricted to pistol club members as I recall). Homicides still occur here of course, but there have been real benefits in the restriction of powerful assault rifles, and in the UK.

But I am obviously not going to have any impact on gun owners who fall back on a document written over two hundred years ago to justify holding weapons not dreamed of by your founding fathers. Just don't paint yourselves as the epitome of a civilised society. And rack up four more shooting deaths today, not in ghettos but churches. If semi-automatics were not used here, I will apologise, but don't think I will have to.
 
Lionking said:
I am not talking about a blanket ban on firearms, but on semi-automatics and hand guns. As you may have read in this thread, we used to have mass killings with firearms, but none since semi-automatics were banned (hand guns were always restricted to pistol club members as I recall).
I don't mind restricting access of guns to those that hold a license or pass a criminal background check. Maybe even having to join a gun club, which would offer standard (mandatory) training with the firearm. While I feel that every person should have a right to own a firearm if they can be trusted to have the responsibility with it, I also feel that they should be also be required to demonstrate that responsibility before they do so.

But "blanket ban"? Not sure I agree with that.

Lionking said:
But I am obviously not going to have any impact on gun owners who fall back on a document written over two hundred years ago to justify holding weapons not dreamed of by your founding fathers.
Yeah, I mean, ideals like freedom of speech, freedom from wrongful imprisonment, right to a speedy trial, all of those are so outdated.

Oh, wait, no, it's just the guns you don't like. You can say what you want, but defend yourself and your family? Get the hell out of here.

Picking and choosing what concepts are actually worth keeping around is fun. Hey, I'm sure the founding fathers didn't think that we'd deal with the kind of terrorists we're dealing with today... so therefore, we can ignore all sorts of things in the constitution when dealing with them, right?

Just don't paint yourselves as the epitome of a civilised society.
And I suppose you paint yourself as the epitome? Sorry, but I don't think of "Australia" often when I think of lists of the best continents to be. No offense or anything.

I have a question. Let's say that you ban firearms. How do you keep illegal firearms from being sold on the black market? Let's say that you keep restricting access to handguns. How would this keep people like the shooters at Columbine, who got their hands on most of their weapons either illegally, or made them themselves (notably, they made the pipe bombs out of common supplies)?
 
Last edited:
Take a deep breath and take your time when you read posts. I did not advocate a "blanket ban".

Sorry, despite your spirited defence of the constitution (one of the all time great documents, seriously) it still seems a bit pathetic that one amendment written by a fledgling democracy under serious threat can be used today to justify possession of assault rifles. Doesn't mean the rest of the constitution is faulty.

And I am still waiting for an explanation for the lack of mass firearm killings here and in the UK since the ban on semi-automatics.
 
Heck, I'm a moderate! I'm a moderate who loves shooting, and taught marksmanship. :D I'm all about people being able to own a firearm, with some very basic regulations that I think most people believe in.

It just becomes hard to talk about things in a reasonable manner when you run into people who believe, for instance, that a waiting period for a handgun is somehow one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Agreed completely. As the Reactionaries like to point out, this is a Republic, not a Democracy (though actually we are both, but anyway) so if some state, say Massachusetts, passes a law requiring gun confiscation, there might be a backlash of counter legislation, like, say, when the gay marriage law passed in, say, Massachusetts.

The gun confiscation mantra resonates with the gun nuts, but not with average gun owners because it's a given that a change in the law is only an election cycle away.

I think we need to get some kind of clarification and common understanding here of the term "gun nut."

{snip}

US seems to think "gun nut" is pretty much anyone who passionately loves his guns, the same way some people passionately love their pickup trucks , without claiming these people are necessarily any more dangerous than non-gun owners, or ascribing any mental instability to them.

So can we attempt to get a common understanding of what a "gun nut" is? And if we can't, how about dropping the term entirely for purposes of this discussion, since if I say "apple" and you understand "sneakers"...

I didn't notice if Joe clarified for himself his precise definition, but I'd like to clarify your interpretation of mine as to who constitutes a "gun nut." As a non-gun owning enthusiast myself, I define a "gun nut" as someone who is obsessed with Wayne LaPierre's imaginary "jack-booted thugs" coming to take his guns away. I'd also include someone who loves guns and talks endlessly about the 2nd Amendment and ignores, say, the 1st and 4th. And as I mentioned above, folks like my co-worker who considered themselves Constitutional Scholars because they read some treatise they downloaded from NRA.com
 
Take a deep breath and take your time when you read posts. I did not advocate a "blanket ban".

You said, and I quote:

I am not talking about a blanket ban on firearms, but on semi-automatics and hand guns.

It sounds like you're saying that you're advocating a blanket ban on semi-automatics and handguns, but not other firearms. What you said was rather confusing in that way...

Sorry, despite your spirited defence of the constitution (one of the all time great documents, seriously) it still seems a bit pathetic that one amendment written by a fledgling democracy under serious threat can be used today to justify possession of assault rifles. Doesn't mean the rest of the constitution is faulty.
You do realize that assault rifles aren't what I think of when I hear "semi-automatics" and "handguns", right?

Semi-automatics cannot be assault rifles or battle rifles, since they're not quite designed to shoot the same. Semi-automatics would be, say, hunting rifles that aren't bolt-action.

And I am still waiting for an explanation for the lack of mass firearm killings here and in the UK since the ban on semi-automatics.

I have a question here. Doesn't it make sense that places like the UK and Australia would have lower levels of violence in general? I mean, the mid-2006 estimate of the population of the UK puts their population at 60,587,300, which is 1/4 of the United States. It makes sense to me that if you have a much higher population, you'd naturally have a much higher level of shooting sprees.

Australia has hardly any. 21,152,000 according to the 2007 estimate. (So few? I was surprised when looking that up. o.O)

Also, doesn't Germany have regulations against handguns? Because they recently had a killing spree...

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

The Erfurt massacre was a school shooting that occurred on April 26, 2002 at the Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Germany. Sixteen people were killed before the perpetrator committed suicide.
 
Last edited:
Okay, maybe not all semi-automatics can be described as assault rifles in your nomenclature, but I would have thought that weapons which can fire off multiple bullets in seconds can "assault" people very effectively.

And I didn't need to google the relative size of the US, the UK and Australia. I know that there is quantitively more violence in the US due to it's size. There is probably no more violence per capita in the US than Australia. It's just that people who snap simply do not have access to high-powered semi-automatics any more. Four more gun deaths today. How many more?
 

Back
Top Bottom