It Has Happened Again...

[RandFan]

Take those numbers back to 1969 and you will see that the availability of firearms in 1969 is nothing like today.

Guns and their availability are a problem.

Every family had multiple guns. How many more would they need before it became a problem?

 

[RandFan]

A kit that's incredibly hard to find (if they exist at all). The idea of "easily converting" a semi-auto to a full-auto is a myth, along with "plastic handguns that defeat metal detectors".

Without getting into too much detail, there are two types of semi-autos: closed bolt and open bolt. Open bolts are very rare (I think a few types of Ingram M-11s were open bolt for a while before they were outlawed). It was these that were "easily converted" to full autos. The closed bolts, which encompass nearly all semi-automatic firearms, cannot be converted without the aid of a machine shop and the know-how to do it. If it was as easy as you say, how come we don't see crimes committed with converted full-auto weapons all the time?

I have to second Polaris on this and appologize for not making the point.

The myth of the easy machine gun

 

[slingblade]

The difference in numbers of guns isn't really all that relevant to the particular accessibility point I was making. I don't know of much gun control back in 1969. No background checks or waiting periods, were there? There was a 1968 federal gun control act, but it apparently wasn't much enforced.

I simply meant that kids had easy accessibility to guns back then, and yet they didn't shoot up their schools. I can't recall any such incidents, anyway.

What's different? Lots of things. There are many factors, combining. And they will combine in different ways in different kids. There will be no single "reason" for this. I've said guns are part of the problem, but they're only one part.

Yes, if we got rid of all the guns, the shooting would stop. The killing would not, because the reasons for the killing haven't been addressed.

Another analogy? Okay. You don't stop alcoholism by removing the alcohol. There are other things to drink (mouthwash, cough syrup), other drugs you can substitute, if you really want to. You have to treat the person.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

On the one hand, everything you say is true. On the other hand, making it harder for people to get ahold of something like a tommy gun seems to have prevented another valentine's day.

The evidence doesn't seem to paint a clear enough picture for us to be able to accurately predict that either "they actually WOULD have killed them anyway, just with other items" or "they would not have killed them, or at least not as many". At most we can say there are two possibilities here.

It sure would be nice to be able to completely prevent access to the physical force needed to end a life, or a bunch of lives, with metal through a brain. Clearly if someone is taught to be responsible and such, these things won't happen, and in terms of percentage these acts seem to be statistical anomalies, horrible tragic statistical anomalies. There's no real sense keeping things around that could end a life and not do anything else though, I suppose, except you want something to hunt with, or protect with, or perhaps overthrow a tyrranical government with. I'll note in the last case, I don't care what the 51st militia says, all their preperations are for naught because while a rebellion may have worked long ago, the current military has such a clearly superior state of firepower that just having guns is about as useless as just having swords. Fighting for the right to bear arms in terms of being able to defend against a tyrranical government is useless. If you want to do that, you'll need some tanks and some surface to air missiles, and maybe a few fighter jets, and perhaps a well crafted military force with a vast supply of infrastructure and resources to supply them. It's already too late for a physical rebellion, as sad as that may seem to those guys arguing such a point.

So hey, maybe keeping guns around isn't for the best after all. However, I wouldn't say people who own them are inherantly bad either.


Consider me a little "torn", though to be honest it sure doesn't seem fair to take something away from an innocent person who never did "notin' to nobody".

 

[slingblade]

Dark Jaguar, I can agree with what you've said, as well. It would likely help if guns weren't so readily available, but it would "help" the problem in a limited way, and it really doesn't seem very realistic. I don't even know if that's because Americans are so enamoured of guns, although that is also part of it. And part of it might be that gun ownership is seen, rightly or wrongly, as an essential liberty, and people (I think rightly) are loath to give those up, whatever they may be.

I'm as torn as anyone on that issue. My son had a friend as a child who was accidentally killed by her sister with their father's handgun. He was a police officer, but I don't remember now if it was his service revolver or not. I think it was. It really shook my son. My great-uncle killed himself with a gun. My brother accidentally shot himself in the leg with his own .357 Magnum. Yes, he still has his leg. The bullet missed the bone by a fraction and went right through.

No, I'm not fond of guns, but I don't necessarily want your right (or mine) to own one to be taken away.

My sole point has been that saying taking the guns would solve the problem is naive and just false. It might change an aspect of the problem, but it will not solve it. That's all.

 

[qayak]

Yes, if we got rid of all the guns, the shooting would stop. The killing would not, because the reasons for the killing haven't been addressed.

Completely disagree. The shooter in Montreal would not have killed/injured all those people were he using a club instead of a gun. It is like saying that there is no use limiting nuclear weapons because if the US had of dropped a claymore on Hiroshima instead of an A-bomb, people would still have died.

The fact is, guns are designed to kill efficiently. Let's not pretend they aren't. Guns have killed for a long time, new guns just kill more people in a shorter period of time.

Another analogy? Okay. You don't stop alcoholism by removing the alcohol. There are other things to drink (mouthwash, cough syrup), other drugs you can substitute, if you really want to. You have to treat the person.

You would stop alcoholism by removing the alcohol. In fact, isn't that how they stop alcoholism, they convince people to stop drinking it?

The difference here is that alcoholism is something that affects an individual. If I decide to drink, I hurt only myself. However, if I decide to go on a shooting rampage, it is to inflict as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time, on other people. That's why I use a gun and not a club and the faster a gun shoots, the better it is for the purpose.

How many people would have died in those shootings if the perpetrator had used a flintlock pistol?

Now, don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of gun ownership but it must be responsible gun ownership. Children having access to guns is not responsible gun ownership. People who do not store their guns in a safe fashion are as responsible for the deaths caused by those guns as the person who pulled the trigger. Remember, the parents of all those kids who killed thought their child wasn't capable of it either.

And finally, here is an interesting quote about gun safety and specifically about accidental killings by young people:

"Never meddle with old unloaded firearms; they are the most deadly and unerring things that ever have been created by man. You don't have to have a rest; you don't have to have any sights on the gun; you don't have to take aim even. You just pick out a relative and bang away at him. A youth, who can't hit a cathedral at thirty yards with a cannon in three-quarters of an hour, can take up an old empty musket and bag his grandmother every time at a hundred"

This was written by Mark Twain so apparently there has been a problem for a long time.

 

[CFLarsen]

Without taking a side here, I must say that the last few posts are indicative of unnecessary talking-past-one-another.

Who on Earth doesn't understand that the contention here is that it's a lot easier to kill with a gun. Slingblade, don't you know that's what Claus means? Claus, why don't you just say it?

I have said it. Here, in just about all other gun threads.

I really can't imagine how anyone can possibly misunderstand what I am arguing.

I simply don't see a kid with this mind-set saying to himself "Gee, I don't have a gun. I guess I can't kill (whomever)."

I rather see him saying "Gee, I don't have a gun. Wonder how many pipe bombs will fit into my backpack?"

It is not the guns themselves that are dangerous. It is the people wielding them. If kids are determined enough to kill, it is easy enough to find a bomb or IED recipe on the web.

Sure. I would love to know how a 13-year-old got his hands on an AK-47, but the real question is why these (primarily) teens are taking guns to school and shooting people. You can take away the guns, but whatever is underlying this behavior will remain.

The problem with this argument is that we don't see school killings with pipe bombs. They find a gun - or more - and go on a rampage. They don't collect knives, or build pipe bombs.

I'm sorry, but the facts are against your contention. If there are school killings with a lot of dead, they are generally done with guns.

Having access to guns isn't a new phenomenon. Many people, myself included, grew up around guns and were taught to respect them and to use them proprerly in our early teens (probably earlier for some).

This doesn't hold water. It assumes that good people don't turn bad. But that's exactly what happens.

Guns don't kill people, it's those darn bullets.

Preventing kids from getting guns will prevent people from dying by those guns.

Kids may kill using other methods such as explosives, or maybe a knife. One way would result in more deaths, one way would result in less.

Can I see some data that kids will kill as easily, and in such great numbers, regardless of what weapons they have available?

Some kids decided at some point to kill other kids using guns.

These are the facts as I've seen them presented.

I've also seen a lot of hyperbole and supposition.

So here's my question. What do you intend to do with this information?

Remove the risk, by removing the guns.

Every family had multiple guns. How many more would they need before it became a problem?

You don't think that having more socks in the house increases your chance of finding one?

 

[RandFan]

You would stop alcoholism by removing the alcohol. In fact, isn't that how they stop alcoholism, they convince people to stop drinking it?

That's cool as long as you are not talking about prohibition. We know what a bad idea that was.

The difference here is that alcoholism is something that affects an individual. If I decide to drink, I hurt only myself.

? Really. It seems to me that many people who drink are the source of a lot of pain to those who depend on them. Alcoholics have a bad habit of losing jobs and a whole host of other problems they inflict on their families. Add to that the number of people killed by drunk drivers every year and I'm not so sure I can accept your premise.

 

[RandFan]

You don't think that having more socks in the house increases your chance of finding one?

Guns aren't really like socks hidden throughout the house. Every friend I had knew where the guns where. This wasn't some deep family secret. Most where hung on a wall or in a gun cabinet (glass doors).

I have to admit that this is all anecdotal but I don't at all buy that availability is the main problem. I'll concede that guns make it easier and more efficient to kill people.

But let's assume that availibility was the problem, what then?

 

[Zep]

I would just like to say, in reference to the "it was easier to get guns in the old days" argument, that this was absolutely true. You COULD get guns much easier in times past, even here in Australia.

The issue at hand seems to me to be the propensity these days for children (particularly) to take out their frustrations with life/parents/school/etc by means of such weapons. This is a newer phenomenon, AFAIK.

Alternatively, and this is the Larsen approach, what is the evidence that "the good old days" w.r.t. gun violence in the community were indeed as "good" as claimed? Is this perhaps looking back with rose-coloured glasses? I seem to recall that there have indeed been quite a number of mass shootings by armed civilians (hostage situations, tower-shooters, etc) dating back to the 50's and 60's that I know of. (E.g. Howard Unruh, 1949; Charles Witman, 1966)

 

[qayak]

That's cool as long as you are not talking about prohibition. We know what a bad idea that was.

? Really. It seems to me that many people who drink are the source of a lot of pain to those who depend on them. Alcoholics have a bad habit of losing jobs and a whole host of other problems they inflict on their families. Add to that the number of people killed by drunk drivers every year and I'm not so sure I can accept your premise.

Sorry, death by drunk drivers is not a result of alcoholism, it is a result of driving while intoxicated. It is a large leap from intoxication to alcoholism.

You also have to remember that for every drunk that loses their job, someone else gains a job. The employer gets a better employee and another family gets to make ends meet. The net damage from that is pretty much zero, there might even be a net gain.

The only way I will allow you to use your analogy of alcoholism in this discussion is if you can show me that a person can storm a school and force enough alcohol down the throats of students to kill and maim several before being captured or killed by police. I'm betting college students welcome this type of attack!

For those who do not know, Canadian campuses have bars on them. Students can go grab a few drinks between classes, for lunch and after classes. They open before noon, just like bars everywhere else. If your going to learn to drink, what better place to do it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Guns aren't really like socks hidden throughout the house. Every friend I had knew where the guns where. This wasn't some deep family secret. Most where hung on a wall or in a gun cabinet (glass doors).

I have to admit that this is all anecdotal but I don't at all buy that availability is the main problem. I'll concede that guns make it easier and more efficient to kill people.

But let's assume that availibility was the problem, what then?

Then, get rid of them.

What do you think?

 

[qayak]

Having access to guns isn't a new phenomenon. Many people, myself included, grew up around guns and were taught to respect them and to use them proprerly in our early teens (probably earlier for some). It is not the guns themselves that are dangerous. It is the people wielding them. If kids are determined enough to kill, it is easy enough to find a bomb or IED recipe on the web.

I grew up with guns too. I started shooting when I was about 6 years old. A couple of kids I knew were killed in hunting accidents and one accidentally by his brother before he was a teen.

I also grew up in a time when people believed that seatbelts were an infringement on their rights. However, the government made it mandatory that seatbelts be worn and the death and injury rate dropped dramatically.

Although the cars were not responsible for the deaths, bad driving was, making the car safer was the answer to the problem. So why don't we want to make guns safer by restricting who can use them simply by locking them away.

Check out these studies regarding kids, training and firearms. Your probably going to be shocked at how much kids DON'T listen to gun safety rules.

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/web_resources.asp

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Sorry, death by drunk drivers is not a result of alcoholism, it is a result of driving while intoxicated. It is a large leap from intoxication to alcoholism.

You're right, it is not the result of alcoholism, but it is the result of alcohol. The implication is the same: if we remove alcohol from the situation, the accident likely will not happen. The analogy is not alcoholism. The analogy is alcohol. It has no purpose other than to intoxicate. It causes deaths, both the people drinking it, and innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Removing alcohol from society would surely prevent a lot of drunk driving deaths, would it not?

 

[qayak]

You're right, it is not the result of alcoholism, but it is the result of alcohol. The implication is the same: if we remove alcohol from the situation, the accident likely will not happen. The analogy is not alcoholism. The analogy is alcohol. It has no purpose other than to intoxicate. It causes deaths, both the people drinking it, and innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Removing alcohol from society would surely prevent a lot of drunk driving deaths, would it not?

Yes, it would. So would restricting its use while driving.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Yes, it would. So would restricting its use while driving.

Yup. Similarly, restricting people from shooting other people with guns would cut down on the number of gun deaths.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're right, it is not the result of alcoholism, but it is the result of alcohol. The implication is the same: if we remove alcohol from the situation, the accident likely will not happen. The analogy is not alcoholism. The analogy is alcohol. It has no purpose other than to intoxicate. It causes deaths, both the people drinking it, and innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Removing alcohol from society would surely prevent a lot of drunk driving deaths, would it not?

It does, in the cases where use of alcohol is a danger. We can use alcohol safely, in moderation. When we remove it from the drivers, we see the number of traffic deaths plummet.

"Everything is dangerous, if overdone, so why ban guns?" That's the slippery slope fallacy.

The difference is that there is no safe use of a gun. There is no moderate use of a gun.

You can get a little drunk at parties, but you can't fire the gun just a little bit. You don't get a little shot, you get shot, period.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The difference is that there is no safe use of a gun. There is no moderate use of a gun.

You can get a little drunk at parties, but you can't fire the gun just a little bit. You don't get a little shot, you get shot, period.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. There are plenty of safe ways to use a gun. I use guns frequently. I have not once been shot. I have not once been shot at. I have not once shot someone else. Shooting a gun at a person is unsafe just as driving a car while drunk is unsafe. If I get drunk and crash into a tree, I may end up dead, or I may end up seriously injured, but alive. If I handle a gun improperly, I may end up dead, or I may end up shooting myself in the foot, but not killing myself. There is no "slippery slope" there. There are many ways to use a gun safely. Millions of people safely use guns every day.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. There are plenty of safe ways to use a gun. I use guns frequently. I have not once been shot. I have not once been shot at. I have not once shot someone else. Shooting a gun at a person is unsafe just as driving a car while drunk is unsafe. If I get drunk and crash into a tree, I may end up dead, or I may end up seriously injured, but alive. If I handle a gun improperly, I may end up dead, or I may end up shooting myself in the foot, but not killing myself. There is no "slippery slope" there. There are many ways to use a gun safely. Millions of people safely use guns every day.

By that logic, you also argue that you can drive while drunk.

Not all drunk drivers have an accident.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

By that logic, you also argue that you can drive while drunk.

Not all drunk drivers have an accident.

Uh, no. If I am handling a gun, I am in control of the gun. If I am driving while drunk, my judgement and coordination is impaired. I am not in control. I can use a gun 10,000 times and never injure myself or anyone else as long as I follow proper safety procedures. Driving drunk does not afford me that choice, because by definition, I am not in control.

By your logic, we should never drive cars, because hurling oneself at 100 kph down a street will get you killed if you hit a tree. We should never handle fire, because fire could burn your house down and kill people. Many things we use frequently are dangerous if used improperly or unsafely.