Gun Law debate [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

Daniel

16th April 2007, 21:46

Because it's an inevitable discussion stemming from the tragedy at Virginia Tech, I've made a separate thread for the debate on gun laws, particularly in the United States.
Excellent idea for a thread.

Obviously it's too early to say for sure what weapon/s the gunman used but one person said "he went into one classroom full of people and no one but the gunman came out alive" so I think it's fairly safe to say he used some sort of assault rifle or sub machinegun type weapon which lets be honest has no place in the hands of someone who isn't in the army or who isn't involved in law enforcement.

Guns like this were purely made for killing people. Any gun can kill someone but I fail to see how this type of gun is an acceptable thing anywhere in the world where you don't have all out conflict.

I don't care if someone wants to own a .44 magnum or a Desert Eagle. Sure they can all kill people just as dead but for someone to own an M16 or an AK-47 or an AR-15 or whatever is just fricking insane and should be made highly illegal.

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

I think the US should follow Australia's lead and outlaw all weapons like this. I accept the fact that you will never disarm the US in the sense of taking all handguns away from them but you can make it a lot harder for people to do this sort of thing by at least taking most of these guns away from people. That's what needs to happen. It's sad that 31?+ people may have had to die today for this to happen but I sure as anything hope they don't die in vain and that this sort of thing never happens again.

Daniel

16th April 2007, 21:51

Personal gun, what for? They say it's for defense, but if none has one than you don't need one to defend yourself.
I think USA will join the list of countries that are least secure every year that goes by, because of their own citizens.
Lets not get into that argument. It's in the US constitution and it's a cornerstone of American society to be able to bear arms. I don't agree with it but lets not attack this thing that Americans hold so dear to their heart because it will just end up in an us vs them fight and I think that's counterproductive.

Whilst I think arming yourself just ends up in an arms race as Eki says I think it does a lot less harm than being able to own your own WMD in the form of an assault rifle.

schmenke

16th April 2007, 21:57

Tomi

16th April 2007, 22:31

This americans and guns is a strange thing, someone belives its somekind of fundamental right to own a gun :)

Personally I think it's ok, and every american should have one about the time they start the school, after all you never know some class mate might call you with bad names.

BeansBeansBeans

16th April 2007, 22:41

CarlMetro

16th April 2007, 22:49

Hawkmoon

16th April 2007, 23:08

We have a complete ban on all types of firearms in th UK, yet I doubt there is a single week goes by that there isn't a report of at least one person being killed in a firearm incident. Just because they are illegal doesn't suddenly make them disappear.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yeah but Carl, a lot less people get killed if the gunman has to use a knife than if he has an automatic assault rifle. This guy at Virginia Tech, not to mention the numerous other mass-shootings in the US, was able to kill many more people because he had access to a firearm. So yes, people kill people, but guns make it easier for them to do it.

Guns have legitimate uses both as a tool and a piece of sporting equipment. But as Daniel said, nobody outside of the military has any need for an automatic weapon.

As far as I know, the US Constitution does not state that every American has the right to bare arms. The intention was to preseve the right for local militia to be armed. Besides, the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and has been amended many times. Amend it again and get rid of the bit about guns.

The government won't do it because they're scared of the NRA. Any US government that tried to do something about guns would be painting a figurative target on it's forehead. And we all know what gun fanatics do when they see a target!

Daniel

16th April 2007, 23:16

I'm not sure I understand how gun legislation would prevent further incidents such as this one in Virginia Tech?
I would have thought that most gun-related crimes are carried out with weapons acquired illeagaly in the first place. With the multitude of firearms available through the U.S. black market I don't see how legislating gun ownership will realistically change anything :mark:
I agree that it will not solve the problem but it will go some way

The following massacres were perpetrated with either licenced/legitimately purchased firearms....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

Of course guns will continue to be available on the black market but at least that's better than just being able to walk into a shop, going through the "cooling off" of purchasing a gun and then walking in 5 days later (Correct me if I'm wrong) and then going crazy with your new toy.

Methinks if assault rifles/SMG's have been used as seems the case that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban will come back into force with more permanent effect and that can only be a good thing for the US.

Zico

16th April 2007, 23:28

In the extemely unlikely event that they were banned in the US.. what would happen? Most would likely dissapear into the blackmarket... they'd still be readily available, so is it really achievable?

Here in the UK we have far more shootings involving firearms than we did pre-Dunblane, doesnt that prove that bans dont work?

Sorry.. pretty much been covered already.. cept maybe the Dunblane point.

grassrootsracer

16th April 2007, 23:35

I agree with the first half of your statement, Hawkmoon, in that while guns don't kill people (people do), they do make it easier.

Additionally, there are many people who use guns in self defense (I can't help but wonder what the outcome would be if one of the students of Va Tech's military school had intervened with a firearm), target shooting/competition and in hunting (hopefully to use the animal as a resource and not merely for the sake of shooting something). None of these activities necessitates the use of an automatic firearm. And no one outside of the military/police may legally own an automatic firearm in the United States (other than those grandfathered in prior to 1986 - and those are mostly historic firearms owned by collectors).

However, that doesn't stop people from illegally obtaining automatic firearms for malicious use. And that is why a ban on all firearms would be useless. Criminals are buying, stealing, and converting automatic guns when they are already illegal. Why would they stop when all firearms are illegal? I'm reminded of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States during the 1920's to 1930's. People still found ways to drink, despite laws against it.

However, this doesn't stop people from using semi-automatic firearms for malicious purposes (as Daniel references). The only alternative (that I can see, I'm open to other solutions) to an all-out firearm ban is to make purchasing a firearm more difficult (background checks, waiting periods, etc) and stricter punishment for crimes committed with firearms.

There must be something other than allowing semi-automatic firearms that causes violent crime. As Zico mentions, the UK still has gun-related crime, despite an all out ban. This shows that it is not purely tied to the legality of firearms; that there is something more. Any ideas?

Daniel

16th April 2007, 23:46

Yeah but Carl, a lot less people get killed if the gunman has to use a knife than if he has an automatic assault rifle. This guy at Virginia Tech, not to mention the numerous other mass-shootings in the US, was able to kill many more people because he had access to a firearm. So yes, people kill people, but guns make it easier for them to do it.

Guns have legitimate uses both as a tool and a piece of sporting equipment. But as Daniel said, nobody outside of the military has any need for an automatic weapon.

As far as I know, the US Constitution does not state that every American has the right to bare arms. The intention was to preseve the right for local militia to be armed. Besides, the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and has been amended many times. Amend it again and get rid of the bit about guns.

The government won't do it because they're scared of the NRA. Any US government that tried to do something about guns would be painting a figurative target on it's forehead. And we all know what gun fanatics do when they see a target!

Very true :up:

You could argue that atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Doesn't mean you go around giving everyone the A-bomb and expecting them to play nicely :mark: I understand what Carl says and I agree it's not the gun's fault, but gun control plays a big part in reducing such massacres as this. You'll never eliminate gun crime at all but you can at least reduce it and lessen the effects.

In Australia when the Port Arthur Massacre happened they banned (except for farmers and licence cullers) semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump action shotguns and then in 2002 after a shooting at a University in Victoria they mandated that pistols should be of a certain length, have a calibre of no more than .38 and have magazines which held no more than 10 rounds. Fairly good laws I feel aimed at stopping people killing lots of people in a short amount of time as has sadly happened today :(

In the extemely unlikely event that they were banned in the US.. what would happen? Most would likely dissapear into the blackmarket... they'd still be readily available, so is it really achievable?

Here in the UK we have far more shootings involving firearms than we did pre-Dunblane, doesnt that prove that bans dont work?

Sorry.. pretty much been covered already.. cept maybe the Dunblane point.

So you're trying to say that more gun control = more deaths? :mark:

No one has ever said that gun crime will ever be totally eradicated. I know for a fact that gangs and drug dealers and the like will always carry guns and will always want to shoot each other. It's sad but true. But when 31 innocent people (or 35 people in the case of Port Arthur) get killed then something needs to be done. These are not people who got involved with something they shouldn't have. These are people who were trying to get an education and got gunned down.

I agree with grassrootsracer that banning guns is not really the answer (it is but it isn't). Perhaps it's a sort of propoganda that us not Americans are fed but it appears that Americans don't take guns seriously. To them it seems like owning a gun is no different to owning a pair of walking boots. It's just something you grow up with and you own one or more of them. Perhaps rather than just gun law reform there also needs to be a change in attitude?

P.S Carl, owning a firearm isn't exactly totally illegal here is it? I mean I saw a guy out at dusk the other day in camo gear with a rifle and scope presumably out hunting rabits.

CarlMetro

17th April 2007, 00:42

P.S Carl, owning a firearm isn't exactly totally illegal here is it? I mean I saw a guy out at dusk the other day in camo gear with a rifle and scope presumably out hunting rabits.

As far as I'm aware the only legal guns in this country, someone correct me if I'm wrong, are air powered. I know some of those can be quite powerful, one of my mates has one which could easily kill a rabbit from 100m, but they're not quite the same.

The sad thing about today's masacre is that the gunman is suspected of using an already banned weapon, yet he still managed to purchase it somehow, along with enough ammunition to kill 33 and injure another 15, along with however many air shots he made.

The same goes for the UK. All guns are banned in this country, with the exception of shotguns, which have to be licenced, and air powered weapons. That doesn't stop an ever-increasing number of people getting shot on the UK streets.

I'll grant Hawkmoon the fact that if this guy was armed with a knife that he wouldn't have taken so many lives, but the simple fact of the matter is that the gun used was already illegal, if it was an automatic rifle, but it didn't stop him getting it.

A change in the law won't make a blind bit of difference in the USA, it'll just mean that the sale of firearms will go underground like grassrootsracer said with Prohibition.

Zico

17th April 2007, 00:52

So you're trying to say that more gun control = more deaths? :mark: .

No.. I wouldnt go that far, its really hard to gauge when Drugs/gang firarms shootings have risen in number and drawing cross comparisons beween now and pre-handgun ban... just doesnt paint an accurate picture IMO.. I was looking for opinions TBH..

P.S Carl, owning a firearm isn't exactly totally illegal here is it? I mean I saw a guy out at dusk the other day in camo gear with a rifle and scope presumably out hunting rabits.

No, Firearms are not Illegal.. merely very strictly licensed. Handguns ARE .. except in exceptional circumstances (ie Humane killer) Anything fully automatic falls under section 5 of the Firearms act (5 years recomended prison sentence)
Air rifles can be FAC (Firearms cert) if over 12ft/lb limit, Rimfire, centrefire and shotguns are also FAC but legal if licensed.
Most likely an Air rifle you saw Daniel, modern PCP's (pre-charged) are fantastic hunting/pest control tools, zero recoil, incredibly accurate and whisper quiet, I own one. :)

BrentJackson

17th April 2007, 02:08

Gun control measures have dubious effectiveness, unfortunately, because the vast majority of major firearm crimes are committed with illegal weapons, here in Canada in many cases brought over the border from the States or stolen. Both scenarios happen often. Toronto had fits and it made headlines when 52 people died from shootings in one year. (The 52nd victim, Jane Creba, caused the biggest uproar because that was a gang shootout, in the middle of one of Toronto's biggest shopping streets, and she was an innocent bystander.) The number of deaths from guns is rising in Canada too - and gun laws now are tighter than ever, which just backs up Carl's point about bans not necessarily working as they should.

The best solution is just to get the illegal guns off the streets (which would solve 3/4 of gun crimes) and make sure people with potential mental instability get help before they lose it. (That woulda helped at Columbine, Dunblane and Dawson College here in Canada.)

harvick#1

17th April 2007, 02:35

I've got the good sayin'

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them

e2mtt

17th April 2007, 02:50

There isn't any way to make guns go away; The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. As has been the case in the UK, criminals, the criminally insane, and gangs seem to get their hands on guns pretty regularly despite strict laws. If laws are changed, civil liberties are badly comprimised so that random and home searches happened all the time, it is the law abider that suffers, and there will still be guns out in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

What bothers me the most is that 1 person, by all acccounts a rather ordinary sized person, could wander around from room to room for 5-10 minutes, reload multiple times, and not be tackled or overwhelmed by anyone. Apparently there wasn't anyone with enough courage to do anything other then cower on the floor. He was armed with 2 9mm pistols, which really aren't all that accurate, long range, or powerful.

Hawkmoon

17th April 2007, 04:25

Laws, whether they relate to guns or public nose picking, have little effect on criminals becuase a criminial is, by definition, someone who has broken the law. So it is true that gun laws have little or no effect on those who are of a criminal mind.

But that's not to say that we should just give up and make it easy for them. I firmly believe that guns have no place in suburban or city life outside of target shooting at a rifle range. And I mean all guns, not just those of a military persuasion. By having liberal gun laws you help to ingratiate the gun into "normal" life. It becomes an almost common household appliance that no one bats an eyelid at. This seems to be the state of affairs in the US.

Many raise the "self defense" angle when it comes to guns. The fact that people feel the need to protect themselves with a firearm says to me that there is a failure in the justice system to properly deal with criminals. People shouldn't need to protect themselves, that's what law enforcement and the judicial system are for.

So perhaps we need to look at the judicial system and punish offenders more severely so that breaking the law is something to be feared by all people and not just those who are inherently law-abiding anyway.

Rollo

17th April 2007, 05:24

Guns like this were purely made for killing people. Any gun can kill someone but I fail to see how this type of gun is an acceptable thing anywhere in the world where you don't have all out conflict.

Take this statement and couple it with this one:

As far as I know, the US Constitution does not state that every American has the right to bare arms. The intention was to preseve the right for local militia to be armed. Besides, the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and has been amended many times. Amend it again and get rid of the bit about guns.

Um, actually it does; that's why it's so fundamentally stupid and dangerous.

Then read the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What you arrive at is what happens in practice, like today. This gunman by virtue of his 2nd Amendment right actually had they right to carry something which gives him the ability to kill people. He was totally within his rights to carry that weapon, which leads me to only one conclusion.

REPEAL THE AMENDMENT or else this will happen again and again and again. The law is WRONG.

Schultz

17th April 2007, 06:06

How about the hidden costs of gun ownership? What about the 800 odd who are killed accidentally by guns in America? That's 26 Virginia tech's every year. Guns are most certainly a contributing factor to the homicide and unnatural death rate in America.

You might say that in some cities where there are stricter gun laws in the United States, the gun-related homicide rate is no lower. That could be true, but if someone can get easy access to guns in another state, then the whole idea of gun restriction is void because the access to guns is not reduced. The United States needs a federal approach to gun control. The effectiveness of gun control in Australia simply would not be seen without this unified approach. And to say that gun restriction is pointless because people will acquire guns from the black market is just admitting defeat. Guns are a major problem in America, and its time a government brave enough takes a stand. But realistically, this will not happen in the next fifty years.

Woodeye

17th April 2007, 06:22

No matter what the country might be or what might read in it's consititution, the point is that guns shouldn't be bought as a self defence. If you buy a gun for self-defence the idea behind that is you protect against people. So the ultimate reason behind buying is to shoot people.

Guns should be bought for hunting or sport purposes and that's it.

It is really hard for me to get it why americans refuse to understand that the wild west is long gone. People kill people but guns make it a lot easier.

tinchote

17th April 2007, 06:50

Many raise the "self defense" angle when it comes to guns. The fact that people feel the need to protect themselves with a firearm says to me that there is a failure in the justice system to properly deal with criminals. People shouldn't need to protect themselves, that's what law enforcement and the judicial system are for.

I cannot really speak for places in the US. But I do know the situation in Argentina: when you are chosen by criminals to be robbed, you have around 1 in 4 chances of being shot even if you don't resist, and your wife has about 1 in 2 of being raped. What does have to do with the justice system? By the time the criminal is caught, you are dead and your wife has been raped.

That being said, I don't have a gun, and I didn't back then in Argentina. But I can understand those who feel the need of feeling protected.

On another note, looking at murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita), the USA -- although not particulary well -- is not that bad compared to other places.

Hawkmoon

17th April 2007, 07:16

Take this statement and couple it with this one:

Um, actually it does; that's why it's so fundamentally stupid and dangerous.

Then read the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment:

What you arrive at is what happens in practice, like today. This gunman by virtue of his 2nd Amendment right actually had they right to carry something which gives him the ability to kill people. He was totally within his rights to carry that weapon, which leads me to only one conclusion.

I disagree with the assertion that the 2nd Amendment explicitly states that US citizens have the right bare arms. The amendment specificially states that in order for there to be a functioning militia, which is made up of civilians, the people need to be armed. Does it not stand to reason that the intenion of the law is to enable the formation of civilian militia in a prompt fashion in times of conflict or strife?

That's not what they have today. The amendment has been perverted or misinterpreted to mean that all people can carry guns. I fully believe that that was not the intention.

REPEAL THE AMENDMENT or else this will happen again and again and again. The law is WRONG.

Exactly. Laws can be changed. This one needs to change. It is a left over from a very different period in time.

I cannot really speak for places in the US. But I do know the situation in Argentina: when you are chosen by criminals to be robbed, you have around 1 in 4 chances of being shot even if you don't resist, and your wife has about 1 in 2 of being raped. What does have to do with the justice system? By the time the criminal is caught, you are dead and your wife has been raped.

That being said, I don't have a gun, and I didn't back then in Argentina. But I can understand those who feel the need of feeling protected.

On another note, looking at murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita), the USA -- although not particulary well -- is not that bad compared to other places.

tinchote, my point was that people feel the need to protect themselves with guns because the justice system has failed them. People who commit serious crimes are not dealt with harshly enough. The penalties imposed on serious criminals are not acting as the deterent that they were intended to be. We need to make the punishment worse than the crime so that the criminals will have something to think about before they commit a crime. Granted, it won't stop all crime but I think will have the desired effect.

I'm talking about the summary execution of people convicted of things like murder, rape and armed robbery. I'm pretty sure the next guy who goes waving a gun around in a 7-Eleven is going to have secong thoughts if he knows that he himself will be shot when convicted.

ioan

17th April 2007, 07:43

In case Americans believe that a 200 years old law is still OK today people who want to buy a gun should be required a strict psychological test (not that bullsh!t for getting a driving licence) before they have the right to own one, and every few years after that.

Also, and this should be done everywhere in the world, ban those fukcing violent video games, RTS or whatever they are called. The amount of young people playing them is incredible, and they do so for hours and hours every day. Can't be good for the psyche.

I mean there are so many things in the society that do kids more bad than good it's incredible.

Daniel

17th April 2007, 08:12

No.. I wouldnt go that far, its really hard to gauge when Drugs/gang firarms shootings have risen in number and drawing cross comparisons beween now and pre-handgun ban... just doesnt paint an accurate picture IMO.. I was looking for opinions TBH..

No, Firearms are not Illegal.. merely very strictly licensed. Handguns ARE .. except in exceptional circumstances (ie Humane killer) Anything fully automatic falls under section 5 of the Firearms act (5 years recomended prison sentence)
Air rifles can be FAC (Firearms cert) if over 12ft/lb limit, Rimfire, centrefire and shotguns are also FAC but legal if licensed.
Most likely an Air rifle you saw Daniel, modern PCP's (pre-charged) are fantastic hunting/pest control tools, zero recoil, incredibly accurate and whisper quiet, I own one. :)

Now that I've had a bit of a look in google I'm almost certain it was probably an air rifle.

When you say air rifle I think of this.

http://www.pyramydair.com/images/RWSR1.jpg

Not something like this

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~targetts/7.62%20Puma.JPG

Which looks similar to what the person had :) It was dusk though and I was driving past at about 30 and never really got the chance to look for a magazine or anything that would have lead me to believe it was a real gun.

raphael123

17th April 2007, 09:56

Obviously making guns illegal won't really solve the problem.

What do you guys think of the effect of music and video games etc?

Whoever posted that wikipedia account on 99 School massacre - thanks - a great read!

Hawkmoon

17th April 2007, 10:29

What do you guys think of the effect of music and video games etc?

I don't place much store in the theory. I've been playing "violent" video games since the days of the Commodore 64. I've never fired a gun in my life.

I think the people who commit these types of acts have pyschological problems that have little to do with outside influences such as violent entertainment.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unless a person has a disposition for violence, no amount of violent enterainment is going to turn them into a killer.

ioan

17th April 2007, 10:57

Obviously making guns illegal won't really solve the problem.

But it will attenuate it for sure. So it would be a step in the right direction, to start with.

What do you guys think of the effect of music and video games etc?

As I posted above I would have them banned, it's for sure not good for some peoples psychological development.

I don't place much store in the theory. I've been playing "violent" video games since the days of the Commodore 64. I've never fired a gun in my life.

I think the people who commit these types of acts have pyschological problems that have little to do with outside influences such as violent entertainment.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unless a person has a disposition for violence, no amount of violent enterainment is going to turn them into a killer.

Well you are right, we are not all alike, and given that psychologically testing each kid before giving him/her to play with violent games isn't a viable thing, better ban them all.

I even find stupid and retarded some ideas they have in games that are not even RTS type.

raphael123

17th April 2007, 11:02

Brown, Jon Brow

17th April 2007, 11:06

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

ioan

17th April 2007, 11:12

I agree with you Ioan in a sense, but also Hawkmoon. I don't think we can blame Marilyn Manson or 50 cent, or computer games for the acts these people commit...however...I do feel people who obviously have pyschological problems playing these games, and listening that to music, are increasing the risk of doing something stupid like this.

However, I'd say for 99.9% of the listeners, and players, it wouldn't encourage people commit such actions. I listen to that music (one of my many different music tastes), and when I was younger played on those games, and I never got tempted to go round shooting people, however for a mentally unstable person, I can see why that would give them the idea.

Truth is there is good music and movies which involve some violence ( even some with more violence than usual). And for sure art should be free for all to have access to it. But than we come to the point where there is need to protect some people of all this, and the ratings method used is working well in theaters, but what about tapes and DVDs?
But this is as far as art goes.

Very very few video and computer games can however be considered art and for sure not the RTS type.
Every time I walked into an internet cafe for a quick internet connection I was amazed by the number of people playing on line or LAN and they were all playing RTS games (no sign of someone playing Need for Speed for a change). They are for sure not all of them psychically labile persons, but some are, and these games increase very much the chance they become more aggressive.

Camelopard

17th April 2007, 11:53

After Collumbine (sp?) there were discussions about gun control just like this one, however no party in the US has the political will to challenge the national rifle association, too much power, too many votes to be lost. Events like today will continue to happen with no end in sight.
I remember reading an interview with Julian Knight who committed the Hoddle St massacre in Melbourne in 1987 where 7 people were shot and 19 were injured others by sniper fire.
He stated that he was having a 'bad day' and it was his access to weapons and his ability to use them (as a former military cadet at RMC, the Australian equivalent of Sandhurst or West Point) that ruined his life and the lives of those he shot and the severe psychological affect on their families.
He is reported to have said that he was in favour of gun control, because if he had not had easy access to these sort of weapons he would not have killed those that he did.

Daniel

17th April 2007, 12:45

I don't place much store in the theory. I've been playing "violent" video games since the days of the Commodore 64. I've never fired a gun in my life.

I think the people who commit these types of acts have pyschological problems that have little to do with outside influences such as violent entertainment.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unless a person has a disposition for violence, no amount of violent enterainment is going to turn them into a killer.
Agreed. It's absolute rubbish to blame computer games. I've been playing violent games since I was about 9 or 10 and I continue to play violent games on an almost daily basis. The difference is however that I don't play games that are gratuitously violent and whenever I handle a firearm I ALWAYS do it in a safe manner. I enjoy the skill involved with using a gun that much that for a while I took up paintballing on a weekly basis. The problem is not necessarily people who like violent games, or guns per se but people who get angry and have guns available to them or people who don’t see the line between playing a game and gunning people down in cold blood. I somehow doubt that anyone who is mentally unstable enough to pick up a gun against a fellow human being has been pushed over the edge by a violent computer game. To be honest I think if anything violent games can be an outlet for someone’s rage rather than a cause for the rage.

grassrootsracer

17th April 2007, 12:48

I do not see the connection between video games, film, music, and these massacres. Mass murders occurred before the advent of all three of these forms of media come to prominence. (I cannot deny that they have increased in frequency, though). Additionally, millions of people listen to this so called "violent" music, play these first-person shooter video games, and watch films with immense carnage. How many of them are motivated to go out and commit mass murder?

As far as banning these things altogether, that is retarded. In the United States, we have ratings systems for each of these forms of "entertainment", and, in the cases of children, it is up to the parents to do their job and deem whether the content is appropriate for their child.

I think Hawkmoon made a two good points:

1. Punishment for violent crimes should be immense, so much so that it really does deter crime. Obviously, we will never stop crime in any society, but we can hopefully do much to decrease it.

2. Psychological problems are where it's at. As I mentioned above, millions of people soak the aforementioned media into their brains and are not so affected that they go out and shoot people. It is the few who are a bit unstable that are the problem. How we remedy that is beyond me. I'm no psychologist, and worry that random "screenings" might invade privacy. However, for the purchase of firearms, I would have no problem submitting to a battery of psychological tests.

Hawkmoon

17th April 2007, 12:56

Truth is there is good music and movies which involve some violence ( even some with more violence than usual). And for sure art should be free for all to have access to it. But than we come to the point where there is need to protect some people of all this, and the ratings method used is working well in theaters, but what about tapes and DVDs?
But this is as far as art goes.

Very very few video and computer games can however be considered art and for sure not the RTS type.
Every time I walked into an internet cafe for a quick internet connection I was amazed by the number of people playing on line or LAN and they were all playing RTS games (no sign of someone playing Need for Speed for a change). They are for sure not all of them psychically labile persons, but some are, and these games increase very much the chance they become more aggressive.

ioan, I think you mean FPS, not RTS. RTS stands for Real Time Strategy. FPS stands for First Person Shooter and is the type of game that gets the media all hot under the collar.

Games aren't bad ioan. Certainly no worse than movies. If you want to ban games you're going to have ban movies, music, books and possibly some portions of the evening news.

People have to have an inherent problem for them to commit what happened at Virginia Tech. I firmly believe that a game or movie won't cause it to happen. Having access to guns won't cause it either but it will facilitate it happening.

raphael123

17th April 2007, 13:00

lol banning any kind of violent music, games, films etc your right would be retarded lol!!

I don't blame music, games films etc, at the end of the day it's the individual. As I've stated, 99.9999% of people who listen to this music, play the games etc don't get tempted.

However, I do think some kids think it's cool to carry guns, when they see their music idols doing the same thing. Same as the idea of going round the streets killing people etc like in Vice City, it gives them the idea - wow, imagine doing that. However, at the end of the day, it's down to the person mental state. The effects of these games, music etc has a minuscule effect on what is going on!

ioan

17th April 2007, 13:17

ioan, I think you mean FPS, not RTS. RTS stands for Real Time Strategy. FPS stands for First Person Shooter and is the type of game that gets the media all hot under the collar.

You're right, my bad. Not much into them!

Games aren't bad ioan. Certainly no worse than movies. If you want to ban games you're going to have ban movies, music, books and possibly some portions of the evening news.

I don't agree here. There is a difference between watching a violent movie, where sooner or later the bad guy is trapped by the good ones, and a game where the kid is the main subject and goes around with a fire gun and shoots every little moving thing. I do believe that it influences the kids, not all of them, not even to the same extent, but however it does.

People have to have an inherent problem for them to commit what happened at Virginia Tech. I firmly believe that a game or movie won't cause it to happen.

That's a very simple way to handle the problem, people do change, people are influenced by what they do in their life, not everyone is a born killer that will maybe manifest itself at a moment in life. And children (kids or adolescents) are the easiest to influence.

It's not conclusive but there is something: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20021202/violent-video-games-affect-teenage-brain
A more conclusive one: http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html
Another http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_effect.shtml

e2mtt

17th April 2007, 14:02

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

haha funny song.

What I hate about the gun-control debates: Guns are things. Thats all. People kill and are killed in cars, by ATVs, in boats, misusing appliances, you name it. Yes guns are made to shoot things and can kill, but they are still just things. Things that are harmless to people when not misused, and against many laws to misuse.

Laws that ban people from having guns are just as wrong as banning books, or fast & powerful cars, or knives and swords, or computers, or green lasers, or whatever some dictator or stupid government might outlaw.

ioan

17th April 2007, 14:12

Laws that ban people from having guns are just as wrong as banning books, or fast & powerful cars, or knives and swords, or computers, or green lasers, or whatever some dictator or stupid government might outlaw.

Was there a slaughter like this done with a book, or a computer, knife or car?

Brown, Jon Brow

17th April 2007, 14:16

What I hate about the gun-control debates: Guns are things. Thats all. People kill and are killed in cars, by ATVs, in boats, misusing appliances, you name it. Yes guns are made to shoot things and can kill, but they are still just things. Things that are harmless to people when not misused, and against many laws to misuse.

Laws that ban people from having guns are just as wrong as banning books, or fast & powerful cars, or knives and swords, or computers, or green lasers, or whatever some dictator or stupid government might outlaw.

A gun is designed to kill things, it has no other use, unlike the other things in the list. :confused:

e2mtt

17th April 2007, 15:09

ioan

17th April 2007, 16:42

Is it not illegal and wrong to kill people? We can't possibly outlaw everything that one human could use to harm and kill another.

Because guns are made for something else than doing harm or killing? Well you might use it as a weight or hammer maybe! :rolleyes:

BeansBeansBeans

17th April 2007, 18:11

There is no justification for any civilian to carry a gun.

grassrootsracer

17th April 2007, 20:04

Hunting and target shooting are perfectly justifiable. That's the same as saying no one should drive cars.

Hazell B

17th April 2007, 20:10

There is no justification for any civilian to carry a gun.

Rubbish. There is every justification in some cases.

I'm 100% against any gun being owned by somebody who isn't going to use it for a good reason, and then it should be licenced and locked away when not in use. However, I've had the misfortune to need people with guns twice in the past year to put down horses, so there is need for them at times. A captive bolt gun isn't clean enough, it has to be a 9mm handgun. They are also used to kill stags when Hunting, injured animals and so on. I'm no fan of shooting as a 'sport', but know it adds vast sums of money to the countryside, so am willing to say that should continue however much it gauls me.

However, taking guns from city streets is vital these days. Not an easy task, though. Perhaps our laws prevent some idiots like the latest one getting a gun to shoot dead anyone in his way and the US could think about that. Tighten the laws a good deal and maybe one or two total loons won't be able to find a gun to do their work.

The other way is to offer cash for guns in an amnesty. Not enough to encourage them to import a few to 'sell' to the authorities, but some form of payment. It's been considered here in some areas where knife crime is bad, according to somebody I know who comes up with ideas for government policy.

Zico

17th April 2007, 20:50

Totaly agree.. shooting is a sport. Baseball bats can also be lethal when used as a weapon.

I am totally pro-gun ownership but happy that handguns are banned and with the current UK laws on ownership. Going back to the banning guns discussion.. Criminals will always be able to source guns so lets put that argument to the side,
Licenced gun ownership is a long thorough process, Your mental health and history are scrutinised, a criminal record means you wont get an FAC and each applicant is subjected to a lengthy interview by an FEO. This ensures that 99.9% of gun owners are intelligent, capable and responsible people.... however that 0.01 percent of deranged individuals ie Thomas Hamilton that slip through the net raise the stakes so high that its hard to argue against. Banning guns would; without doubt, stop these undiagnosed psychos with licensed guns repeating what we have witnessed so many times recently.

Dunblane- Hamilton was a FAC holder... would have stopped him.

Cossie 16 Quote- "I remember reading an interview with Julian Knight who committed the Hoddle St massacre in Melbourne in 1987 where 7 people were shot and 19 were injured others by sniper fire.
He stated that he was having a 'bad day' and it was his access to weapons and his ability to use them (as a former military cadet at RMC, the Australian equivalent of Sandhurst or West Point) that ruined his life and the lives of those he shot and the severe psychological affect on their families"

From this I understand that his guns were legal and licensed?

To come to a definate conclusion on how many lives it could save to justify a ban Id like to know how many of the weapons used in the recent massacres were legally owned, . I havent had time to do the research but Im pretty sure a large proportion of them were..

If anyone can give any accurate data on the above .. feel free

Zico

17th April 2007, 20:52

Hunting and target shooting are perfectly justifiable. That's the same as saying no one should drive cars.

Totaly agree.. shooting is largely a sport. Baseball bats can also be lethal when used as a weapon.

I am totally pro-gun ownership but happy that handguns are banned and with the current UK laws on ownership. Going back to the banning guns discussion.. Criminals will always be able to source guns so lets put that argument to the side,
Licenced gun ownership is a long thorough process, Your mental health and history are scrutinised, a criminal record means you wont get an FAC and each applicant is subjected to a lengthy interview by an FEO. This ensures that 99.9% of gun owners are intelligent, capable and responsible people.... however that 0.01 percent of deranged individuals ie Thomas Hamilton that slip through the net raise the stakes so high that its hard to argue against. Banning guns would; without doubt, stop these undiagnosed psychos with licensed guns repeating what we have witnessed so many times recently.

Dunblane- Hamilton was a FAC holder... would have stopped him.

Cossie 16 Quote- "I remember reading an interview with Julian Knight who committed the Hoddle St massacre in Melbourne in 1987 where 7 people were shot and 19 were injured others by sniper fire.
He stated that he was having a 'bad day' and it was his access to weapons and his ability to use them (as a former military cadet at RMC, the Australian equivalent of Sandhurst or West Point) that ruined his life and the lives of those he shot and the severe psychological affect on their families"

From this I understand that his guns were legal and licensed?

To come to a definate conclusion on how many lives it could save to justify a ban Id like to know how many of the weapons used in the recent massacres were legally owned, . I havent had time to do the research but Im pretty sure a large proportion of them were..

If anyone can give any accurate data on the above .. feel free

Drew

17th April 2007, 23:24

If everybody had a gun, such an event might not have happened in the first place.

But whether that means everbody should have a gun, I don't know

Jaws

17th April 2007, 23:56

It is important to distinguish between responsible gun owners and lunatics.

I go shooting with a mate who needs to cull pests from his farm, I won't go into the details but he does.

He keeps his guns locked in a steel cabinet, ammo is stored in a seperate cabinet in a different location, also locked in steel. If you've had even one beer, don't even think about going near a rifle.

Having said that, I have no idea why responsible gun owners or recreational shooters need semis and autos. In my view, anything with a magazine is a military weapon and has no place on the streets.

ShiftingGears

18th April 2007, 01:37

Nothing terrible involving guns has happened in Sydney so I'm inclined to think that Australia's gun laws are quite good.

With the US gun laws, are they the same as Canadas? If not, how are they different?

Rollo

18th April 2007, 06:20

Is it not illegal and wrong to kill people? We can't possibly outlaw everything that one human could use to harm and kill another.
There are many things that someone somewhere would like to make illegal, for some reason or another, to try and protect others, or people from themselves. More laws are not the answer.

Bollocks, more laws and appropriate controls ARE the answer. Appropriate controls were placed on DDT, formaldehyde, asbestos, there are laws on workplace safety and road rules. The whole point of law is to regulate and protect society from its own stupidity. Stopping people from killing each other is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to legislate against.

The firearms buyback in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 resulted in about 700,000 guns being handed in at a cost of $500 million. The legislation which followed made owning automatic weapons very difficult and banned other certain kinds of firearms.

In 1996, 33 per cent of the 325 homicides committed involved firearms. Latest figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that in 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of 300 homicides involved firearms. In the US in 2005, firearms were used to commit 68 per cent of the 14,860 homicides.

Australia (21m people):
48/300 homicides with firearms

The US (301m people):
10104/14860 homicides with firearms

Or if you want to adjust Australia's figures so that the population figures match up:
Australia @ 301m people:
688/4299

So even if Australia had 301m people, it would still be safer. Statistically Australia a country in which owning a gun is not a right is 14 times safer per head of population. Sorry but I'm going to require convincing that the right to own a gun should exist. I'll continue to live in my own little "backward" country where appropriate laws and controls exist.

Schultz

18th April 2007, 06:45

I know that in Virginia, it is legal for anyone on the street to be carrying a concealed handgun. That scares me.

What worries me is that the gun culture in the United States is so entrenched that there is no turning back. The gun lobby is too strong, and US leaders too weak. Maybe gun control isn't the point anyway.

I went on Youtube last night to have a closer look at mass shootings in the USA and abroad. What scared me is the amount of sympathiser's there are for people like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who were responsible for the Columbine High massacre. One that really hit me was a video showing pictures of Dylan and Eric growing up with writing over the top saying 'they were laughed at and they were hated' before the slide changes to a family crying with text over the top saying "who's laughing now?".

I'm not talking one or two people either. There were ALOT of people who thought what these people have done is brave. That they, the weak, have finally stood up for themselves and shown how the little people can rise up against those who are their enemy. And to them, its okay that any one of us could be their enemy, because all they have left is hate.

It's therefore, no surprise that the South Korean responsible for this has been described as a "loner" repeatedly in the news. With so many people sympathetic to the actions of mass murderers, why are we surprised when this keeps happening again and again? Whats more, why don't we do more about the real problem. Why isn't American society adequately catering for people who have lost hope and are filled with hate? There ARE warning signs, and we know that from people responsible for the worst crimes eg Martin Bryant and the Columbine shooters.

This is not about people having a history of vandalism or theft. In Bryant's case (Port Arthur Massacre - 35 dead) he was mentally retarded and tortured animals - he was also bullied at school. He had no friends and was obsessed with violent movies . He also showed he had little ability to contemplate the difference between life and death. He was not sane and there was no system to support him.

I just think that as a society maybe we are just not open enough to the extreme possibility that the ones around us are capable of such crimes. And from what I've seen on Youtube, anyone who sympathizes or looks up in any way to the guy responsible for the Virginia killings, deserves to be looked at. Because for someone to support killing innocent people out of pure hatred for the world, they are a potential danger to the community.

A.F.F.

18th April 2007, 07:10

Happens in wild west...

Cowboy: Pick up the gun!

Farmer: Why sir, I have done nothing to you?

Cowboy: Pick up the gun, son.

Farmer: But I don't want sir.

Cowboy: Pick it up!

Farmer: I don't want to. You'll kill me.

Cowboy: PICK IT UP!

Farmer: *picks up the gun*

BANG !!!!!!

Cowboy: You all saw what happened. He had a gun.

For the sake of selfprotection it's important to carry a firearm :rolleyes:

gadjo_dilo

18th April 2007, 09:33

haha funny song.

What I hate about the gun-control debates: Guns are things. Thats all. People kill and are killed in cars, by ATVs, in boats, misusing appliances, you name it. Yes guns are made to shoot things and can kill, but they are still just things. Things that are harmless to people when not misused, and against many laws to misuse.

Laws that ban people from having guns are just as wrong as banning books, or fast & powerful cars, or knives and swords, or computers, or green lasers, or whatever some dictator or stupid government might outlaw.

Sorry, I tried to follow your reasoning but I draw another conclusion: Laws that ban people from having guns are just as right as starting the war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the end of the day the Virginia massacre and an Al Qaida terrorist attack in Iraq or elsewhere have the same effects: innocent people are killed at random , their only fault being that they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, both kind of events create a climate of terror, have an intense mediatization, make strong reactions of the international community. Don't know how many americans die every year because of gun shots and how many because of the war in the Middle East. But definitely they must also do something against the horrible events that take place in their own court.

I don't know, maybe in the past the idea that a large mass of citizens with guns may impose the law everywhere, including the Far West, was understandable. But these days the battle continues although things have changed. I wonder why americans have this cult for guns and why many guys who had serious problems with the law are quite popular ( Billy the Kid, John Dillinger, Bonny and Clyde, Al Capone, etc. ).

jim mcglinchey

18th April 2007, 13:04

Ive noticed that massacres like this and others give Chuck Heston and his NRA mates a propaganda coup because one of the survivors always says " If Id had a gun I could've shot the gunman and saved lives " Thereby turning the debate on its head and suggesting that every man woman and child in America should be armed because otherwise thay are defenceless, and that the country cannot have too many guns.

I disagree. These massacres are going to continue until all military and para-military weapons are done away with.

Robinho

18th April 2007, 13:40

i see people making the same assertation, that Guns fall into the hands of the criminal element anyway so why ban guns.

i say why make it easy for them. these guns come from somwhere, ifthey aren't on sale in every town to pretty much anyone with only minimal checks then they wouldn't be out there in the first place, and it would, over time, be a lot holder for anyone to get hold of a gun, even illegally.

fair enough some people need guns, for hunting, for sport (use an air rifle for gods sake!) but why do the public need concealed handguns, why can you buy fully automatic weapons?

there will always (unfortunately) be a criminal element, willing to commit murder, armed robbery, assualts etc. these people will still do that, with or wothout easy access to guns, but still, why make it easy for them.

if there are no guns on sale to the general public the number of guns on the street would be far lower (assuming the currently legal guns are taken back and destroyed). these wiould not then be sold, stolen, converted etc and there would be less deadly weapons available.

as for an argument that other influences are violent or things can be used to kill people, these are not items designed and built with the express intention of killing. therefore not for general public consumption. if you have to kill someone use something else and be creative, if iots not so easy maybe you will not bother!

maybe gangs will have to go back to having fist fights rather than drive bys?

the shocking thing about this type of incident at schools, offices, universities etc is that it often seemingly ordinary people who go off the rails (in this case a seemingly odd loner with thoughts of violence) who often get hold of legal guns owned by family or legally bought, and shoot dozens of ordinary people indiscrimately.

these are not people operating in a criminal underworld, runing with gangs, part of the mafia etc, they are people you see on the stree every day in places you would normally go feeling safe. if these people can't get hold of guns they won't shoot people.

maybe they still attack people, maybe they still kill, maybe they end up in an institution, maybe the urge passes and they grow up never harming anyone. if they can get a gun theirs and everyone they can reach lives change in an instant, and not for th better.

stop making it easy for people using feeble excuses that we/you need to own a handgun, automatic weapon to protect yourself, its your right etc.

if your not a farmer, vet, soldier (maybe they shouldn't have guns?!), hunter, sports shooter, then you don't need one and should not legaly be able to obtain one.

its a start, then maybe we can do something about getting the remaining illegal weapons out ft the hands of the criminals. until the start is made this will continue, people will go nuts and shoot as many people as they can, or take out everyone who they think has wronged them.

schmenke

18th April 2007, 15:43

...With the US gun laws, are they the same as Canadas? If not, how are they different?

Not even close. Canada has very strict gun laws, similar I think to Australia's.

schmenke

18th April 2007, 15:47

There is no justification for any civilian to carry a gun.

There is no justification for any civilian to carry a concealed Glock-9 :mark:

In fact, civilians carring concealed firearms is a bit of an oxymoron... Concealed weapons would not be required in a civilised society :mark:

grassrootsracer

18th April 2007, 16:46

schmenke

18th April 2007, 17:01

...Schmenke, I know what you're saying about concealed carry, but there is no such thing as a Glock 9. There are several 9mm models made by Glock, the G17, G19, G26, and G34. Sorry to nitpick.

Thanks for the clarification (I know squat about guns :mark: ). I thought I heard on the news that one of the pistols found at the VT site was a "Glock-9"... :mark:

Tomi

18th April 2007, 17:12

Thanks for the clarification (I know squat about guns :mark: ). I thought I heard on the news that one of the pistols found at the VT site was a "Glock-9"... :mark:
wrong post,sorry.

ioan

18th April 2007, 17:30

Schmenke, I know what you're saying about concealed carry, but there is no such thing as a Glock 9. There are several 9mm models made by Glock, the G17, G19, G26, and G34. Sorry to nitpick.

A bit useless this nitpicking, really. The problem isn't the name, it's the existence.

viper_man

18th April 2007, 17:59

So back to the actual debate then...

The law is wrong. It should be illegal for people in the US to have a firearm. And the police shouldnt carry them either.

When was the last time in the UK that someone with a firearm walked into a school and shot loads of innocent people? And how many times has it happened in the US recently?

The problem - gun laws.

schmenke

18th April 2007, 19:27

ioan

18th April 2007, 19:33

Careful VM...

Even with strict gun laws in Canada, an incident occured a few months ago when a lunatic walked into a college in Montreal and started shooting. One student dead, several injured.

My original point stands... Firearms legislation will not necessarily prevent this kind of incident.

But will diminish the chances for it to happen again.

grassrootsracer

18th April 2007, 19:58

viper_man, why do you think police should not carry guns?

Easy Drifter

18th April 2007, 20:35

The Cdn. firearms registry was to cost 2 million. Currently at 1 billion and rising. Does it do much good? Nope.
Handguns have been heavily restricted in Canada since the 30's but it doesn't slow down the criminals.
Massacres are not carried out by criminals but by deranged people.
I no darn well that outside of the cities a good percentage of the people have guns and most are not registered. These are rifles and shotguns.
I know the proponents of our gun registry tell us the police access the registry over 7000 times a day. Talk to any street cop and he will tell you every time he pulls a car over for say speeding his computer accesses the registry! Does he trust it? NO!! Thousands of errors.
I agree military style weapons should be heavily restricted. Hand guns are a good question. I understand when some States allowed concealed weapons the gun crime rate decreased. To pharaprase Croc. Dundee "You call that a gun. Now this 44 Mag. is a gun." Not the answer.
I grew up around guns and was shooting by age 10. I have a very healthy respect for guns and treat every gun I have handled as loaded until I checked it.
I do not know the answer.
By the way I do not care how good an air rifle you have it will not be much use against a bear or a moose.

Hazell B

18th April 2007, 21:21

Am I right in thinking the BBC news was wrong in saying in some US states anyone can buy a gun without ID or cooling off period?

Just want to make sure, not pointing fingers.

LotusElise

18th April 2007, 21:30

As a clay pigeon shooting referee, I'm around guns a fair bit. The UK's gun laws are very strict and for most people, the only gun they'll be allowed to own is a shotgun. I can happily say that I feel no fear at any shoot I work at and that all shooters there follow the ground's code of conduct. They are not violent people and are just enjoying their sport.

Guns on the street is a whole different matter. Personally, I think more effort should be made in rooting out those who deal in illegal firearms, be they gangsters or unscrupulous gunsmiths. If the supply of unlicensed weapons is decreased, this would surely help.
However, you cannot legislate against lunacy. I'm sure that at least one of the gun massacres that has happened in the UK in my lifetime was carried out with legally-owned firearms. I think it was the Hungerford/Michael Ryan incident in about 1986, but I may be wrong.
Britain's appalling mental health services do not help in the case of some unhinged individuals either.

Robinho

18th April 2007, 21:41

Robinho, per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, automatic weapons are not legal here (except for those grandfathered in). You should stop saying that any person off the street can purchase one in the United States. We can't. And we shouldn't be able to.

Schmenke, I know what you're saying about concealed carry, but there is no such thing as a Glock 9. There are several 9mm models made by Glock, the G17, G19, G26, and G34. Sorry to nitpick.

far enough, i was going on what i'd read about Automatic Weapons, not researched much myself, i apologise for that, however the point still stands with Hand Guns, Rifles etc.

yes you can't prevent someone who really wants to getting hold of a gun and killing people, but you can make it more difficult. stop them being legally available and its suddenly a lot more difficult.

The Canada thing is interesting, i would imagine it is not beyond the wit of man (or woman), even the most crazed ones, to nip over the border and buy a gun, legally or illegally, or for several people to nip over and "acquire" lots of guns and sell them on illegally. if the USA had more effective gun control would you see a reduction in illegal weapons making it into America? i don't know for sure but i imagine it would.

as for the police not carrying guns, if guns on general sale were illegal, and it were illegal to carry weapons then the Police would mostly not require guns. off course keep some specially trained armed response units, but your average policeman would only require say pepper spray and a tazer to deal with all but the most extreme situations.

but of course this would not happen overnight. even if guns were banned tomorrow there are still millions of them out there, and although a few people would hand them over if made illegal i bet a lot wouldn't and the illegal ones would still be there, it would take years to get the majority of these out of the public domain, the key would be getting the buy in of the public who own the guns, and it appears that this just isn't there as long they see it as their right to carry a gun, regardless of what the law says. this i see as the biggest problem, the givernment will never change the law as long as a proportion of the electorate want guns and the organisations like the NRA are so powerful. when the anti-gun lobbyists become more powerful then maybe they will listen.

Hazell B

18th April 2007, 21:51

As a clay pigeon shooting referee, I'm around guns a fair bit. The UK's gun laws are very strict and for most people, the only gun they'll be allowed to own is a shotgun. I can happily say that I feel no fear at any shoot I work at and that all shooters there follow the ground's code of conduct.

That's exactly what I would say in 99.9% of cases - they're good, sensible, safe minded people. However, a few years ago, we were at a clay competition and a Dutch ship's captain who lives here in the UK had some geese in the boot of his car for us to collect. He opened the boot, threw in the gun he'd used in the last round and got the geese out for us, then noticed he'd left the gun from a previous competition in the boot. It was simply laying there, uncovered, with cartridges, for seven days.

Mercs are hard to break into, but I still felt deeply uncomfortable with his lack of care. His vehicle is parked outside a shipping office, a pub (he doesn't drink!) and outside his house all week .....

viper_man

18th April 2007, 21:55

viper_man

18th April 2007, 22:01

viper_man, why do you think police should not carry guns?

Sorry, I meant in the long term.

Make firearms illegal and much harder to get hold of, the only legal firearms you should ever have are those in the military and armed police units, those used for animal things like Hazell said, and for sport.

If police used firearms less and less and it was made harder for criminals to get hold of guns then gun crime would go down.

Im not speaking from experience but Id imagine a 'professional criminal' in the U.S looks at the police carrying firearms and thinks "well were going to have to arm ourselves similarly". And so you get all sorts of criminals having guns and then guns becoming easily available and then nutters like the one recently can get hold of them.

LotusElise

18th April 2007, 22:20

That's exactly what I would say in 99.9% of cases - they're good, sensible, safe minded people. However, a few years ago, we were at a clay competition and a Dutch ship's captain who lives here in the UK had some geese in the boot of his car for us to collect. He opened the boot, threw in the gun he'd used in the last round and got the geese out for us, then noticed he'd left the gun from a previous competition in the boot. It was simply laying there, uncovered, with cartridges, for seven days.

Mercs are hard to break into, but I still felt deeply uncomfortable with his lack of care. His vehicle is parked outside a shipping office, a pub (he doesn't drink!) and outside his house all week .....

That's not good. Every bit of shooting literature says not to do this.
Coincidentally, I have a feeling that I might know this Dutch guy. Are his inititals RE?

Zico

18th April 2007, 22:43

Correct me if Im wrong but Id say its nowhere near as frequent as it is in the US

Just watched Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine.. For the US they quoted over eleven thousand Shootings per annum as opposed to Canadas three hundred and something iirc

Id urge you to watch the documantary again... very interesting insight.

Daniel

18th April 2007, 23:32

As I said previously I think the problems in the US are not just related to the fact that they have more guns. It's an attitude thing. That's why as people have said gun laws will not solve the problem. I agree but still think that it's a start.

Apparently this guy went into a gun shop and ticked a box saying "No" next to a question asking if he suffered from any mental illness at all. Talk about rubbish gun laws!!!! If he had to pass some sort of harder "test" then perhaps the red mist would have lifted and he wouldn't have felt the need to go out and gun all those people down....

grassrootsracer

18th April 2007, 23:36

Daniel

19th April 2007, 00:10

Michael Moore? I'm a liberal (aside from my stance on guns, partially) and I can't stand that guy. It's amazing what you can do with editing to skew anything in favor of your argument. However, he does raise an interesting point in the film: what is it in the United States that causes such violence.

Three things I came across, the first is a list of statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) from the US Department of Justice. The second is an article about firearm ownership in Switzerland (http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html). Finally, here's a web page (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm) (once again from the US DoJ) with links to national statistics. Anyone from Switzerland willing to offer some insight?
I very much agree.

I think a lot of things are to blame. The fact that arming the people only results in more gun related deaths be they people murdering their spouses, someone holding up a conveniance store or a gangland shootout.

If people didn't have such easy access to guns it would be harder for someone to just "get angry" and kill one or more people.

For instance if someone comes into our house right now with a gun. Chances are if I resist I'm going to get shot and quite possibly killed. On the other hand if someone comes in with a knife and I resist I have a much greater chance of having a scuffle and fending off the home invader. Now if I lived in a country where gun ownership was common no one's going to come in without a gun if they think there's a good chance I've got a gun whereas here in the UK home invasions generally don't involve guns and generally don't end up in someone dying. What's more important than someone's life? If someone wants to steal my car who gives a sheet? They can have it and I'll get a new one on insurance. I'll be alive and that's all that matters.

So there, just by "arming" the citizens you've increased the amount of gun crime. Then on top of that you've got the media preying on this. Instilling a sense of fear into the population and people feel even more of a need to arm themselves. Then again on top of this you've got the NRA who have already stated that if everyone was carrying a gun that someone would have taken their weapon out and averted this tragedy and now people are going in and getting another weapon just to be sure they're armed enough. Yeah whatever. If someone is angry enough they'll just find a better way to kill people. Perhaps instead of going in and shooting off he would have just made a bomb of some sort and could have killed hundreds of people. Plus on top of that wherever there are guns there are accidental deaths and shootings. Instead of escalating the problem and arming everyone why not try and disarm people and make them realise that the US isn't such a horrendous place to live and that being armed to the teeth doesn't make things safer. As someone already pointed out, the UK doesn't have such lax controls on guns and when was the last time a student went into a school and started gunning down people en masse? :mark: Perhaps that says something about what is being done right in the UK and what is being done wrong in the US.

grassrootsracer

19th April 2007, 01:40

Interesting chart (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42811000/gif/_42811311_firearms_deaths3_203gr.gif) comparing international deaths by firearms.

Dave B

19th April 2007, 13:25

What comes over in all this is that the killer was a disaffected teenager. So much like every other teenager in history, then.

Most teenagers manifest their angst by dressing as goths, locking themselves in their rooms listening to Nirvana, or by immersing themselves in computer games; and soon enough grow out of that phase.

What was it that led this man to take such extreme action? It was a HUGE campus, so where was his support network? Clearly the guy was a loner, but it's amazing that nobody was concerned about him.

With the benefit afforded by hindsight it's clear that he was unstable and a danger to himself and others. He should have been helped long before the thought of gunning down his peers entered his disturbed head.

Now if all of this sounds like the liberal bleatings of a Guardian reader then I make no apology. The guy was mentally ill, and to be mentally ill in a country which cares so little, and offers such easy access to firearms, is a recipe for disaster.

I simply cannot understand this attitude of "it's in the Constitution so you can't change it". Bo11ocks. Arse gravy of the highest order. Two hundred years ago there were all manner of laws and statutes which are utterly outdated in the 21st Centuty. Look at all the recent hoo-ha over the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery to see how far we've progressed as a race.

I've no problems with careful owners using a gun for the job, or for certain sports, with the obvious caveat that they should be properly licenced and subject to restrictions on their storage and use.

But the notion that you can carry a handgun about your person when you go shopping, or keep a rifle under the bed, would be laughable if it weren't so damn serious.

Sadly I can't see any senior US polititian having the courage to stand up to the gun lobby, and sadly I cannot see an end to these kinds of tragic incidents.

I hope the victims rest in peace, and I include the gunman in that as he is a victim of an uncaring society and gun-obsessed culture.

Hazell B

19th April 2007, 14:04

To be fair Dave, one of his councilors and a tutor tried as best they could to sort out help for the lad. As he had broken no laws, they couldn't force him into mental health care.

That's a system at fault, not individuals.

RaceFanStan

19th April 2007, 14:19

ioan

19th April 2007, 15:02

Well after reading all these posts I say we shall leave US citizens carry their guns in their pockets as long as they wish, don't even try to have a proper psy test before selling them and so on.
As long as they are OK with the chances they have to be the next one to get shot it seems there is no use to try to make them reason.
I, for one, am glad they don't ask for the right to carry their guns when abroad!

Easy Drifter

19th April 2007, 15:40

Roamy

19th April 2007, 15:51

There is no justification for any civilian to carry a gun.

There is no justification for you to decide.

There are many things we can do to keep within our constitution however the whole deal is now political. To fix the gun problem you need only to go to the user. Unfortunately our wonderful society needs to be weeded out. We don't seem to have the guts to do it. Someday we will get a leader that will take major steps to eliminate many of the problems we face. Guns will always be a part of our society because there are too many of them to remove. So with that option off the table - we must move ahead to go to the source of the problem. You Euros may not have guns but personal explosive devices and coming in masses.

Brown, Jon Brow

19th April 2007, 15:52

Interesting chart (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42811000/gif/_42811311_firearms_deaths3_203gr.gif) comparing international deaths by firearms.

It shows that South Africa has a huge crime problem, and I have seen news articles with South Africans claiming that immigrants from neighbouring countries are doing the killing. It is just as dangerous in South Africa as it is in Iraq. Like the US they have weal gun laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa

But what is also intersting in that chart is that the USA has far more firearm deaths per 10,000 people than any of the other MEDC's on the list, 30 times more than the UK :eek: (South Africa is more of a RIC than MEDC ;) ) Is this not proof that strict firearm laws reduce firearm deaths?

Dave Brockman
I simply cannot understand this attitude of "it's in the Constitution so you can't change it". Bo11ocks. Arse gravy of the highest order. Two hundred years ago there were all manner of laws and statutes which are utterly outdated in the 21st Centuty. Look at all the recent hoo-ha over the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery to see how far we've progressed as a race.

I agree :up: Wasn't it originally on the constitution that a black man has 3/4 the rights of a white man? :confused:

schmenke

19th April 2007, 15:53

The dude was insane, if he had not used a gun, he would have used a knife or a sword ...

I don't buy that for a minute. There is a world of a psychological difference in committing a crime using a gun and a knife (or sword).
Stabbing someone is a much more "personal" activity, i.e. you have to get close to the victim and physically use your own arm as the "weapon" to plunge the knife into him/her. This is a psychological barrier that many people, even deranged, will not cross.
Using a gun removes this barrier as it puts distance between you and your victim. Your victim is no longer a person, but a target.
A gun makes killing far easier.

Brown, Jon Brow

19th April 2007, 16:10

T
If a crazy person came after YOU with a gun to killl you, would you not shoot them if you had a handgun ?????
(it's called self-defense, any good lawyer could prove it too)
Surely no-one here would just let a crazy person kill them ... or would they ?????

Self defence isn't a good reason to own a gun. If you live in a society where this policy in place (eg UK) then the chances of a person coming after you with a gun are a lot smaller in the first place.

jim mcglinchey

19th April 2007, 17:19

[quote="RaceFanStan"]The dude was insane, if he had not used a gun, he would have used a knife or a sword ...

yeah, and he really would've killed 32 mostly fit young people with an edged weapon without getting his arse kicked up round his ears....

Dave B

19th April 2007, 17:44

I was thinking the same. To kill more than a couple of people with a blade would be far less likely than with a gun.

grassrootsracer

19th April 2007, 18:23

An article (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200310020833.asp) by John Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott).

Eki

19th April 2007, 20:16

I was surprised to read today that Finland according to Amnesty International has the highest number of guns per capita in Europe and the third highest in the world after the US and Yemen. It also says that Finland has about three times as many homicides per capita than in Western-Europe in average. In fifth of those homicides a firearm is used:

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/oikea/id58297.html

Hazell B

19th April 2007, 22:37

That's not good. Every bit of shooting literature says not to do this.
Coincidentally, I have a feeling that I might know this Dutch guy. Are his inititals RE?

I only know him by a nickname, sorry. There's quite a few Dutch people living here who shoot, but this one travels a good deal competing. You probably will know him if he's still doing it.

One point here about UK guns and their uses. About five years ago I went to the bank in my home town's centre late one night (a friday, I think) and happened to park near a man in a 4 x 4 who was just sitting holding a shotgun in his car's front seat with the door open.

When I got home I rang the police pronto, giving his details and the vehicle's. The operator said, and I kid you not, "Are you sure he isn't just shooting pigeons? Are you sure you know what a gun looks like?"

They dispatched one lone bobby in a non-persuit car to check him out :mark:

No wonder criminals feel fine about using guns when they know nobody cares about catching them :(

Camelopard

20th April 2007, 03:55

While cooking supper last night I got to thinking, dangerous as that may be.
While the Virginia shooting was terrible it pales beside the daily suicide bombings is Iraq and Afganistan. The suicide bombers are as deranged and mentally ill in their own way as was Ho.
I am very afraid that sooner or later we in the West will have a similar situation in a school or shopping center or at a major sports event.
Again I do not have an answer.

The US already has, Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing which took 168 lives and left over 800 injured, the only difference being that it wasn't a suicide bombing.

War is good for big business, I'm glad I have shares in Halliburton and KBR (formally Kellog, Brown amd Root)

Rollo

20th April 2007, 07:48

The dude was insane, if he had not used a gun, he would have used a knife or a sword... the handgun wasn't the problem here, a gun is merely a tool & requires someone to pull the trigger ...
the problem is that a madman wasn't treated or locked away before he hurt someone ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/icons/tongue-anim.gif

If a crazy person came after YOU with a gun to killl you, would you not shoot them if you had a handgun ?????
(it's called self-defense, any good lawyer could prove it too)
Surely no-one here would just let a crazy person kill them ... or would they ?????

The problem was that the law not only allowed a madman to obtain a weapon but actually gave him the right to do so. It makes no sense that a chap who killed 33 people had a constitution right to carry an instrument to enable him to do so.

If your crazy person comes after YOU with a gun to kill you, as the law stands he has a 2nd Amendment right to do so. Murder is still a crime but every action up until that point is protected by law.

Guns will always be a part of our society because there are too many of them to remove. So with that option off the table - we must move ahead to go to the source of the problem.

What is the source of the problem then?

ioan

20th April 2007, 08:16

War is good for big business, I'm glad I have shares in Halliburton and KBR (formally Kellog, Brown amd Root)

There are other businesses even better and do not cost life of people involved, why support war?!

janneppi

20th April 2007, 08:17

What is the source of the problem then?

People , obviously
Turn US in to a parking lot with some nukes and no silly gun crime problems anymore.

Camelopard

20th April 2007, 12:15

There are other businesses even better and do not cost life of people involved, why support war?!

My apologies, it was meant to have a :rolleyes: symbol at the end to signify sarcasm.

I'm totally against the war in Iraq and do not have any shares in any nasty US multinationals. I am firmly convinced that the main reason the us went into Iraq was because of oil. It was also going to help deadeye dick cheney's old company in halliburton make a lot of money. Do a search on the net and see how many hundreds of millions halliburton and other us companies have made from this war.

ioan

20th April 2007, 12:26

My apologies, it was meant to have a :rolleyes: symbol at the end to signify sarcasm.

OK

Mark in Oshawa

20th April 2007, 16:12

This was a thread that was as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Those who hate the US feel they are nuts for their 2nd Amendment. Those who hate guns feel the same way, but some sympathy for the issue. Euro's almost to a man/woman feel the Yanks are nuts. Canadians sort of sit in the middle, and the Aussies talk about how they gave up all their guns and the sky didn't fall in.

In truth? The thing no one has brought up is that American society is different than any other nation. Why? Simple. In the US Constitution, all men/woman are FREE citizens and are granted unalienable rights by GOD or whomever. Everything comes down to any restrictions or laws as taking away these god given rights. Therefore the American mindset is that any time you take something from him as the government, you are taking away a right.

What does all this relate to here? Not what you think. First off, leave the guns aside, for at Virginia Tech, we had mentally disturbed young man who was a loner, felt bullied, felt lost, and he admired the Columbine killers. He had been singled out for stalking, and had been investigated by the cops and the shrinks. They KNEW who he was, and yet, because of his RIGHT to be free, they couldn't lock him up in a psychiatric institution against his will. You have the RIGHT to not get or take treatment for depression and the like. Therefore, even though he was "nuts", he was walking the streets.

Now should the Commonwealth of Virginia allow such a nut to buy a weapon? God no, I think they should have at least a screening procedure but there was nothing to stop this guy from getting one from the black market; regardless, the law abiding citizen can own weapons. It is a thing, and therefore they have the right to own it. The fact it can kill people means its existence is protected by the 2nd Amendment. That amendment has been tested in court a million times, yet it holds up and the gun laws are what they are. RIGHTS of the individual to protect himself/herself mean the right to bear arms.

Here is a thought. For every Virginia Tech story in the US, every now and then you hear instances in the US where someone with a gun stopped a crime or slaughter by shooting or stopping the criminal. These stories are not given the same coverage. Should they be? Yes, maybe they should. If Virginia Tech was not a "gun free" campus, maybe one of the profs would have shot the guy. I dont' like the idea of everyone walking around armed to the teeth, but lets face it, the US has allowed gun ownership on the personal level for their whole HISTORY. It wont change in our lifetimes, if at all.

Another thought. Guns don't kill people, they are used by people to kill people. They are more effective than say a knife or a car, but if this nut got behind the wheel of a car and drove down a crowded sidewalk on campus at 60mph, how many would he kill, maim or injure? No one has done it really effectively, but lets face it, it could be done. Would we then ban cars? Where does it stop?

European societies have way less guns, and less murders yes. Americans wont deny that, and wont try to hide it. What is more, suicide success rates are a lot higher in societies with guns. It is an efficient killing machine, whether used on someone else, or a depressed person who wants to end it all. That said, I know of people who hung themselves, so should we stop the sale of rope?

It all comes down to a society and its citizens taking responsbility for their actions, and respecting the rights of themselves and society. If you live in a rights based nation such as the US, you have that right to bear arms, and if a higher murder rate occurs (compared to a lot of places, the US is safe and I spend a better part of my week there and feel no less safe than when I am driving around in Canada), so be it. Americans also know that in their "right to carry" states, the crime rates have dropped, while in gun free zones, such as the District of Columbia, crime is out of control. IT isnt a cut and dried issue. The only thing that any sane person will note is that the US has had guns as part of their culture forever, so banning them is just not viable. IF you disarm the 98 percent of gun owners who follow the law, the criminals will be away to the races. By the time the cops show up, the criminal is long gone as it is.....No American will give up his/her right to protection if they know the cops cant help them.

Every society has a culture of rights and freedoms; and in some nations, they don't really exist. In the US, you are protected by them to the point where it seems crazy to those who don't see their system for what it is. The US constitution gives everyone the right to be an idiot, or make something of themselves. It guarntees them the right to own a gun as part of those rights, and to outsiders, it seems crazy. That said, countries like Switzerland and Israel have guns everywhere too as part of an armed citizenry, and they don't have the murder rates, so what does that say? IT says simply, guns are NOT The issue, it is the society that the guns exist in.

Gun ownership is something I have always respected and in Canada, we have a balance. Hand Guns are VERY strictly controlled yet hunting arms are available to those who don't have criminal records and have had training. It is the best balance philsophically, but the reality is many people in the US are armed, they feel it is their right, and it is THEIR right as protected by law. The law wont change because despite the incidents like Virginia Tech's killer, the reality is 300 million people live in a society where you have a greater chance of being killed in a car than you do by a gun, and Americans are actually pretty safe drivers!!!

People kill people, and a gun will make it easier for them, but it wont change the fact people are the problem. People have rights, and you cant stop them from abusing those rights until they do it. In this case, the nut had a gun, and killed 32 innocent people. I don't think all the gun laws you can name would have stopped him from hurting someone, so while he may not have killed 32 without the gun, whose to say someone armed in the room with him wouldn't have equally stopped him from killing anyone? It isn't cut and dried, nor pretty. It isn't the simple solution it was in Europe or in Australia. Americans are taught from the word go they have rights, and they live in a free society and most of them take that to mean they will live with the dangers that can arise from that to keep those freedoms.

Zico

20th April 2007, 19:19

First off, I dont hate Americans as a whole just certain individuals who decieve their own people to go to war for oil and massive extremely profitable contracts. I dont hate guns in any way either.. as you say they are just tools.

In a perfect world your argument would be sound but we dont live in that perfect world... There are psychos, deranged and insane people out there... unless there is a change in gun laws there is nothing to stop history repeating itself as we have seen, Its as simple as that.

Here in the UK we have one of the lowest firearm crimes figures around.. simply because the licensing is so strict and handguns are banned. If that changed and if anyone tried to mug me again... I know I would be facing more than a knife where at least I have a chance to get away from the situation. I doubt you will be able to understand my typical European point of view and I dont expect you to, but Im happy with the gun laws here, I feel safe, safe enough to never feel the need of locking my doors... Thats MY idea of freedom.

BDunnell

20th April 2007, 19:44

Mark in Oshawa

20th April 2007, 19:53

Zico, your crime figures have gone up since guns have been banned first off. Criminal use of guns in the UK is up, and it still exists. Gun bans don't change that one iota.

If you don't lock your doors there, I know most Britons likely DO lock their door. I don't lock my doors in here in Canada either, but I know that is because I live in a small town, not because Canada as a whole is safe.

AS for the Americans making money off this war, ummm I wouldn't go too far out on that limb, I don't really think Halliburton is making more money now than they were before the war, and as for armaments, well the US is always buying those, war or no war.

OK, your saying in a perfect world my argument would be sound. ON the contrary, my argument is that in the US, there are so many weapons, and such a great history of gun ownership, and responsible gun ownership, that you will NEVER outlaw them. It ISNT a perfect world and that is why the American's see gun ownership as they do. Your European point of view is there are no guns because they are outlawed, therefore that crook only has a knife to hurt me with. The reality is, he still could have a gun, and in the case of the US, he likely does. This is always counterbalanced however in the US that YOU can have a gun, and as I have stated, people who live in parts of the US where concealed weapons PERMITS are issued, crime has dropped since the law was changed to allow the concealed guns. Now in a perfect world, no one would have guns, but the US is imperfect, it is populated with a populace that never lost that frontier mentality. The only reason Canada isn't similar is because the British managed to create our society and government to reflect the needs of the individual must be balanced with the right of and consent to be governered. American rights are first and formost given to the individual to be responsible for his fate, and have the freedom to do what he has to do to.

IN the Commonwealth nations, it is often "Peace, Order and Good Government" (Canada's Preamble in the act of Confederation of 1867). IN the US it is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Basically you are a free man and conduct yourself accordingly. Americans will not allow a government to disarm them. It was part of their ethos from the word go, and you wont change it. My argument is it is their way of doing things, and contrary to what many people in the rest of the world believe, it works a damned sight better than people understand. I feel no less safe walking around in 95% of the US than I do in Canada. The 5% of areas that are not safe, well, hey, they are working on that....but I am sure there parts of London or Manchester you wouldn't walk about after dark either.

Crazy people will always get weapons Zico. They don't care about gun bans, and there is always a black market for this stuff, even in the UK. In the US, you would never eradicate all the guns, even if they allowed you to.....so arming private citizens is the least palatable option in your eyes, but it is maybe the only option in a society filled with weapons. Again, I ask you, if Virginia Tech was not a "gun free" zone, and a prof had a gun, are 32 victims the count? I suspect you know the answer...but you don't like it...

Mark in Oshawa

20th April 2007, 20:07

I find it rather sad that gun ownership is viewed as such an important inalienable right, a symbol of freedom and a nation that allows people to take responsibility for their own actions. I don't see the UK or other nations as being unduly restrictive by forbidding gun ownership on such a scale. Neither do I believe that we are any less safe as a nation as a result of doing so. I certainly don't go around quaking in my boots, as some people seem to.

However, and while I continue to deplore the Second Amendment because I do not believe that firearms should be as freely available as they are in the USA, it is true to say that no-one else is to blame for this except the perpetrator. I say this because there have been the usual, predictable demands for 'something to be done' about the violent films that the gunman apparently used to watch. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the fact that thousands, if not millions, of other people have watched those same films without then going out and committing an atrocity. Perhaps the most important debate that needs to come out of this situation is one about mental health provision in the USA, from what I am hearing.

You make a great point in your second paragraph Mr. Dunnell, and it is the point that should be made, not the right to bear arms by Americans.

As for your point you don't feel less safe because of the gun laws of the UK, you again are comparing the UK to the US. The reality is, the US is what it is, a society that has guns. A lot of guns. If guns were the evil people believe they are, the crime and death rate from them should be a lot higher in the US when you consider the numbers. The right to bear arms is part of their constitution because they felt it was necessary to have the citizenry armed incase THEIR Own government ever imposed tyranny on them. Silly and irrational right? Hitler's Germany disarmed its citizens as one of their first steps of consolidating power too. Americans see this stuff and see it differently than you and I. I live in a society that is basically gunless save for hunting arms, and very restricted possession of weapons for target and sport shooting. We have regulations coming out the wazoo for gun ownership in Canada and handguns are banned. Yet I see what the Americans are doing, and I understand their fears about being disarmed. Their society for better or worse has a gun culture. It comes about through their unique history, and their desire to give rights to the common man. It isn't for us in the Commonwealth nations or the rest of the world to understand. It would be like me questioning the sense of having cows running loose in India and not eating them when people are starving. IT is their culture and it is what they believe. I cant change it, and what is more, it is their nation to do with as they see fit.

The American culture is based around freedoms given to the individual, and in the late 1700's and 1800's, that owning weapons was a right that allowed their nation to be borne out from the thumbs of King George the Third. So blame him the Americans and their gun fetish, but just understand my argument in that if you are going to live in a society where the criminals are definately armed, having a gun around may actually be a good thing. I don't own a gun, don't have the desire to, but I understand also that if I lived in the US, I would think about it. That said, I spend half my week down in the US, and I have YET to see anyone with a gun, I feel no less safe, and cannot know who may or may not be carrying one from looking.

Your point as I said on mental health issues being taken care of is the true tragedy here, that this young man couldn't be helped because his rights as an individual wont allow others to impose treatment. We had an incident in Montreal with less tragic results last year that was very similar to Virginia Tech, and the outcome was only different because this guy was not half the shot Cho was, and only had one weapon. That said, people died, and he took his own life. It was sad, and the criminal thing that really has me mad after this latest incident, is that a culture of death and "martydom" seems to be attractive to these guys, and they emulate the Columbine HS killers in Colorado. They all want that attention they cant get in life, and those idiots on the networks in the US released the video this guy made. THAT is the real crime here...making a "hero" out of this guy, while trying to understand his issues. I don't need to understand them, HE needed to understand them....

Zico

20th April 2007, 21:14

Zico, your crime figures have gone up since guns have been banned first off. Criminal use of guns in the UK is up, and it still exists. Gun bans don't change that one iota.

What you say is true of course, due largely to Drugs gangs which seem to use them mostly for each other and for Bank jobs rather than Joe Bloggs on the street. A point I think you overlook is that most probably all the massacres that we've seen have been by legal firearms used by people who have become deranged/psychotic. If handguns were not legal I'd say the chances of these individuals obtaining them would be substancially reduced.

If you don't lock your doors there, I know most Britons likely DO lock their door. I don't lock my doors in here in Canada either, but I know that is because I live in a small town, not because Canada as a whole is safe.

Yep.. same here.

AS for the Americans making money off this war, ummm I wouldn't go too far out on that limb, I don't really think Halliburton is making more money now than they were before the war, and as for armaments, well the US is always buying those, war or no war.

Not sure I agree on that... I dont have the evidence but I'd imagine the opposite to be the case Re- Halliburton. As for Arnaments, there becomes a saturation point for arms/ammunition gotta get used to keep the economy going. You dont bite the hand that feeds you either... Bushes presidential campaign is widely believed to have been funded by those who would profit, nothing new there.

OK, your saying in a perfect world my argument would be sound. ON the contrary, my argument is that in the US, there are so many weapons, and such a great history of gun ownership, and responsible gun ownership, that you will NEVER outlaw them. .

Agreed...

It ISNT a perfect world and that is why the American's see gun ownership as they do. Your European point of view is there are no guns because they are outlawed, therefore that crook only has a knife to hurt me with. The reality is, he still could have a gun, and in the case of the US, he likely does. .

Muggers here dont need a firearm.. and the difference in custodial sentences between both weapons outweigh the advantages.. and so it is extremely rare.

This is always counterbalanced however in the US that YOU can have a gun, and as I have stated, people who live in parts of the US where concealed weapons PERMITS are issued, crime has dropped since the law was changed to allow the concealed guns. Now in a perfect world, no one would have guns, but the US is imperfect, it is populated with a populace that never lost that frontier mentality. The only reason Canada isn't similar is because the British managed to create our society and government to reflect the needs of the individual must be balanced with the right of and consent to be governered. American rights are first and formost given to the individual to be responsible for his fate, and have the freedom to do what he has to do to..

Yep, fair point. Let me ask you tho... Would you personaly prefer Canada to have the same rights even if it meant it made it a more dangerous place? Dont worry I think you've already answered that.

IN the Commonwealth nations, it is often "Peace, Order and Good Government" (Canada's Preamble in the act of Confederation of 1867). IN the US it is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Basically you are a free man and conduct yourself accordingly. Americans will not allow a government to disarm them. It was part of their ethos from the word go, and you wont change it. My argument is it is their way of doing things, and contrary to what many people in the rest of the world believe, it works a damned sight better than people understand. I feel no less safe walking around in 95% of the US than I do in Canada. The 5% of areas that are not safe, well, hey, they are working on that....but I am sure there parts of London or Manchester you wouldn't walk about after dark either. ..

I struggle to understand Mark.. but Im openminded enough to give it a try. The US gun Lobby is too powerful and it is too far engrained in the US Psyche so It IS too late. I just thank God that we Brits dont have the same problem.

Crazy people will always get weapons Zico. They don't care about gun bans, and there is always a black market for this stuff, even in the UK. In the US, you would never eradicate all the guns, even if they allowed you to.....so arming private citizens is the least palatable option in your eyes, but it is maybe the only option in a society filled with weapons. Again, I ask you, if Virginia Tech was not a "gun free" zone, and a prof had a gun, are 32 victims the count? I suspect you know the answer...but you don't like it...

I think I covered my response for the 1st part in my very 1st Paragraph... as for Virginia Tech being a gun free zone, Yes... he could have been stopped but then there is a chance that the event might not have happened atall if the Laws were the same as here in the UK. Its a moot point tho.. so I reluctantly have to agree with you as undesirable as it is, the neccesity of the Final frontier mindset requires it. All I can say is I dont envy the US for their gun laws.

Very interesting to hear your views tho Mark, I respect them and hope you respect mine also. Cheers.. :)

Roamy

21st April 2007, 08:02

It shows that South Africa has a huge crime problem, and I have seen news articles with South Africans claiming that immigrants from neighbouring countries are doing the killing. It is just as dangerous in South Africa as it is in Iraq. Like the US they have weal gun laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa

But what is also intersting in that chart is that the USA has far more firearm deaths per 10,000 people than any of the other MEDC's on the list, 30 times more than the UK :eek: (South Africa is more of a RIC than MEDC ;) ) Is this not proof that strict firearm laws reduce firearm deaths?

I agree :up: Wasn't it originally on the constitution that a black man has 3/4 the rights of a white man? :confused:

well no **** brown. We have more gun deaths because we have ****ing guns. So we shoot people instead of cutting their head off with a machetti.
How may machetti deaths do we have???

Eki

21st April 2007, 08:12

In the US Constitution, all men/woman are FREE citizens and are granted unalienable rights by GOD or whomever. Everything comes down to any restrictions or laws as taking away these god given rights.
So, they are religious fundamentalists? Getting imaginary messages from GOD or whomever and guns are always a dangerous combination. Iranians have also vowed that getting nuclear technology is their god given right. It's odd that the Americans don't understand the Iranians better.

Roamy

21st April 2007, 08:25

Eki

21st April 2007, 09:13

where did God say Iranians can have Nukes??
Right after he said Americans have the right to bear arms.

Camelopard

21st April 2007, 10:01

2 more deaths today, a NASA employee took two people hostage, let one go killed the other then shot himself....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903270.htm
In part

Officials did not know the motive behind the killing.
Apparently there was some type of dispute between" Phillips and Mr Beverly, Houston Police Chief Howard Hurtt told reporters.
Phillips lived alone, was not married and had no children, officials said.
"Up until recently he has been a good employee," Mr Coates said.

The second hostage, Fran Crenshaw, a NASA contract worker, was found duct-taped to a chair a few hours after the stand-off began. She was treated at a hospital and released. ........ When they rushed in the room they found the two men dead and the woman bound at her hands and ankles.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............
So Mr Phillips was probably having a bad day, had access to weapons, got a revolver in through security and killed someone, I guess he might have run down the victim with his car or perhaps stabbed him with a kitchen knife if those opportunities had presented themselves :rolleyes: .
I would hate to be a member of the victim's family, another total waste of a life.....

One begs to ask the question as to how he got his weapon through security, one would have thought that NASA premises were very secure.

Eki

21st April 2007, 10:42

One begs to ask the question as to how he got his weapon through security, one would have thought that NASA premises were very secure.
But then again, one would have also thought astronauts were mentally stable:

"NASA was rocked earlier this year when an astronaut was accused of driving hundreds for kilometres - wearing a diaper to avoid stopping during the trip from Houston to Florida - to kidnap a rival for the affection of a space shuttle pilot.

In March, Lisa Nowak, who flew on a shuttle mission last year and was fired last month, pleaded not guilty to an attempted kidnapping charge stemming from the incident. "

Mark in Oshawa

21st April 2007, 16:11

So, they are religious fundamentalists? Getting imaginary messages from GOD or whomever and guns are always a dangerous combination. Iranians have also vowed that getting nuclear technology is their god given right. It's odd that the Americans don't understand the Iranians better.

Well Eki, I don't know how to argue this one, but lets just say the right to bear arms pertains to personal weapons. Last time I looked, a nuclear weapon wasn't personal, it was public....

You still want to demean America in some form here, and I wont get drawn into that part of your psyche. You have to get it into your head that just because an American is religious or isn't religous, they all pretty much believe in the idea of people being free, and that is why I said "god or whomever". IT says God, but with the provision for religous freedom, I think the whomever is implied, although some in America would be horrified by the thought.

Iran wouldn't have a problem getting a nuke if they also ran their society based on the freedoms of the individual such as America does. Heck, the Americans didn't object to the UK and France getting nukes. They may not have liked China and the USSR getting them, but that is only because the US of A was the target. They knew that Israel would make nukes no matter what because they don't ask permission from anyone when they want to ensure their survival. IT is a thorny issue tho when a religious theorcratic regime that imprisons and punishes people for things like holding hands in public, or killing women for adultry while not punishing the man. They don't just kill people either, torture and death's by stoning are often part of the program. This same regime is not shy about wanting to use the weapon either. Oh they say they are of peace one minute, but there are numerous quotes of some of the Mullahs speculating about wiping out the Jewish stain on Islam too. Now, if you think they deserve the right to have nukes based on all of this, then I guess you truly are crazy. The Americans and the nations of Europe have been unified on this; they don't want Iran to have nukes. This isn't a George Bush wet dream, this is everyone's nightmare.

Nations really shouldn't have nukes but whether you like it or not, they exist. IT is not too much to ask that the nations that have them at least have some level of sanity in possessing this great power. I am not sure that the people running Iran view human rights and the rights of man in the same way most of the nations of the world do...and that is SCARY....

Mark in Oshawa

21st April 2007, 16:26

AS for all of you who see all these deaths by gun in the US as horrifying, remember what I said. The US Constitution is based on the idea that you have freedom and what you do with it is your business. Now modern life and laws have taken away a lot of the freedom that was granted, but nevertheless, guns is part of those freedoms. IT is a society that respects people having choices. Unlike many countries, where you are only given the rope the Government wants to give you and in some cases, is quite willing to pull back; in the US, pulling back any freedom is fought bitterly, because it all comes back to the consent of a people to be governed. The US is a weird nation compared to every other democracy and it hurts it in some measure in terms of deaths by gun and the like. That said, they are arguing, and maybe correctly that it is up to the individual to make something of his life and give him the freedom to do it. In America, the right to bear arms is a by-product of those freedoms.

For those of you in the UK or Europe, you see life and democracy different because the model in which you achieved those rights is different. What is more, it isn't as ridgidly spelt out and protected in some nations as it is in the US. You have a different mindset. Us Canadians grew up with a British system of gov't. but it is also influeneced by our American cousins to the south, so we more or less think we have American freedoms, but of course, we are very willing to accept some limits on our freedoms. Americans for the most part, left or right aside, have a limit to what they will put up with. For whatever reason, for better or worse have accepted gun ownership as a neccessary evil to guarntee the right to protect oneself. Is it rational? To you and I no, but if you live in the US, and you have some whack job killing people before a suicide to get the attention of the networks, then maybe guns are part of the tools of protecting your own right of preservation. It isn't really logical to those who grow up outside that system, but for many in the US, it is part of life.

I have said it before too, the US is 300 million people. When you consider the number of shootings per capita, and then break down the numbers and reasons why they happen, it becomes evident that contrary to media reports, the US is not a free fire zone for the most part. There are so many more responsible gun owners out there than idiots, that you have to also concede that maybe gun ownership in sane hands is no more insane than having every male in the nation with a submachine gun the closet (Switzerland).

Eki

21st April 2007, 16:54

Well Eki, I don't know how to argue this one, but lets just say the right to bear arms pertains to personal weapons. Last time I looked, a nuclear weapon wasn't personal, it was public....

...

Iran wouldn't have a problem getting a nuke if they also ran their society based on the freedoms of the individual such as America does.
Like you said, a nuclear weapon is not personal but public, so it's not for to take away freedoms of the individual, it's for to protect the public from an invasion by a foreign country.

Feeling that you need a handgun isn't freedom to me. It was curious to notice in Los Angeles how many houses had bars on their windows and a sign that said "Neighborhood watch. Armed response". Didn't look like freedom to me.

Mark in Oshawa

21st April 2007, 17:10

Umm Eki, I hate to break it to you, but if the US invades, the Iranians likely wont get the chance to use that nuke. You would have to be deranged in any case to think the Americans would invade Iran. Of course, after Iraq, you feel justified, but knowing the differences in attacking one vs the other would clarify a lot of this for you.

Iran is a lot bigger nation. It is run a little more effiently and their miltary is a lot more cohesive and professionaly run than Iraq's. What is more Iran is a much tougher nation to invade. Also factor in the world wide displeasure for the Iraq war, the fact that America cant get out of there without losing face, and only an idiot would think the Americans would invade Iran. What is more, Iran, despite their provcations and outright threat to Israeli security, and their supply of money and arms to Hezbollah, is more versed in realpolitik and negotiating their way through the geopoltics of the Middle East. Hussein was just an idiot playing bluffer's poker with no cards in his hand. THAT is why he got invaded. I think for anyone to justify Iran having the bomb as a reason to keep the Americans out isn't looking at the big picture. The US war in Iraq has pretty much soured them on the overall war on terror, and for that, yes I do blame Bushie. He screwed up an opportunity to maybe fix some open wounds in the Middle East. That said, Hussein is gone, Kuwait wont worry about being invaded, and despite what you may think of the war in Iraq, I think 20 years from now they will be better off for this horror show. The Kurd's are quite happy with the outcome of the last 4 years, for no one is trying to gas and maim them for sport. Only you Eki would see this as a negative....

Eki

21st April 2007, 17:32

That said, Hussein is gone, Kuwait wont worry about being invaded, and despite what you may think of the war in Iraq, I think 20 years from now they will be better off for this horror show. The Kurd's are quite happy with the outcome of the last 4 years, for no one is trying to gas and maim them for sport. Only you Eki would see this as a negative....
The Kurds were safe in their autonomous nation protected by the US and the UK already since 1991. The only big difference for them is that they now have a representation in the Iraqi administration and have terrorist attacks on their turf that was quite safe between 1991 and 2003.

Mark in Oshawa

21st April 2007, 18:16

Eki, they didn't like being anywhere near Hussein. Don't whitewash the truth, the Kurd's wanted no part of Iraq as it was, and their safety was damned teneous knowing that the only thing stopping Hussein was the US Navy, Air Force and RAF. There was lots of things that needed fixing on the ground and Hussein wasn't doing it. They may have some terrorist attacks on their turf now, I don't know, I would like to see evidence of THAT, but I do know this much. They are not asking for Hussein back, which is contrary to what you tried to portray. Your idea that Iraq was a happy little polyglot nation that just had a badly portrayed leader and he was no threat to anyone is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Now, this is the Gun Law thread Eki, you and I have had this Iraq debate before, but I guess you still think you have a hope in hell in convincing me that the US is the devil nation of the planet because of Iraq ( or something to that effect) but I think the gun debate is much more topical....

The Gun laws, or lack there of in the US stink to anyone who lives in a society with gun control, but it is an societal prism that gives you that view. The Americans view it for the most part from the other side, and it is also why any major change in society on big issues like gun control, abortion, the tax code and US foreign policy is so polarized in the US. Many believe that any small change will lead to a rolling snowball effect to effect the opposite, and for that reason alone, change comes slowly in the US. What is more, in a vigourous democracy, fine points should be debated and defended, for any changes that result will eventually be struck through a consensus of some form, while both sides can claim their ideological principles. On Gun Control, some states have had more success on debating gun control than others, but it is a polarizing debate with little consensus for the most part. In Virginia, I suspect even if guns were illegal to own, this guy would have found a way of killing someone. Maybe not 32 people but he would have found a way.

A sick twisted mind could create a bomb, drive a car into a crowded area, poison people with gas or through a water system. You take away all guns, and the problem still remains, although you make the task a little harder. I would rather try to help the mentally unstable and keep them away from society when they become a threat and try to help them rather than just blaming their weapon of choice.

I mean, did the world ban air travel after 9/11?

BDunnell

21st April 2007, 22:53

The Gun laws, or lack there of in the US stink to anyone who lives in a society with gun control, but it is an societal prism that gives you that view.

This is a really interesting point. You've made me think a lot about this in relation to gun laws, and while I continue to deplore the US gun regulations, I certainly don't disagree with your view.

However, I hope that you also accept the fact that the most appalling excesses of Islamic law, for example, can be categorised in the same way; likewise, there is much genuine support for what Robert Mugabe has been doing in Zimbabwe, because there is a section of that country's society that really does believe in his racism towards white people. In neither case are people right to think that way, of course, but I think the principle applies. US foreign policy (which I hate to bring into this again) might have been rather less interventionist over the years if US leaders had taken this view, and not viewed foreign affairs through their own 'societal prism', as you so eloquently describe it.

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 03:06

Well the Societal prism of gun ownership Dunnell in the US isn't a George Bush or Republican one, many good Democrats would also tell you that they hunt, shoot and own guns and no government should take them away. The societal prism that views gun ownership in the US is one of the right to have a)personal protection for the 99.9% of the time you don't see a cop beside you and b) that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is a possession, often with considerable value, and to declare them all illegal would be taking a lot of people's assets and rendering them valueless. Would the gun hating people would take the guns give the people market value for the arms? Not on your life.....

IN the US, the prism I am talking about isn't political, it is one of protection of one's rights. You still don't really get this when you bring Iraq into this. It has NOTHING to do with this, and if it wasn't for my respect for your opinion, I would ridicule you for putting in this thread. It isn't a case of backing one side or another like the clowns backing Mugabe or being for or against the war in Iraq, it has everything to with the rights of people in society. Gun ownership is the canary in the coal mine for many people in judging human rights in the US. WHY? Simple, if the government can take everyone's guns away, what is to stop them using "eminent domain" to take property? Take away the right of political speech? A woman's right to choose? All are hot topics in the American political sphere right now, and while the nuts are on the extremes of a lot of these arguments, nothing is as polarzing as gun ownership. The American political history and social history has involved gun ownership, and the rights to protect oneself. Is it an anacrohnism? Yes, I suppose to you and I it is, but you cant understand what you don't have. IT would be like you and I being wistful for losing a uterus in a hysterctomy in the way a woman would. We are men, we cant miss nor understand the sense of loss for something we don't have. IN the US, gun ownership is a right of citizenship. You don't have to own a gun in the US, and god knows life might be easier if a lot of people didn't have em, but it is THEIR right, and it will be fought for by people you would be surprised by.

My whole point is that like with a lot of issues on this board, the people who don't understand Americans or their culture don't understand how things filter through their "prism" for a lack of a better word. Sometimes they are dead wrong, but you cannot always chalk that up to stupidity or ignorance. They see the world differently because they always have. They also have been the most successful democratic nation in so many fields of the human condition that it is dangerous to assume they are always the idiots. Eki seems to, but most of you seem to be smarter than that, and at least I hope you all are. God knows I think they are nuts at times too, but I always try to understand the thoughts and arguments to why America does what it does....

Rollo

23rd April 2007, 03:22

IN the US, the prism I am talking about isn't political, it is one of protection of one's rights. You still don't really get this when you bring Iraq into this. It has NOTHING to do with this...

If in fact the right to bear arms is in fact in inalienable, would you for instance allow the people of Iraq the right to bear arms? If not, then please justify why the right is inalienable.

The difficulty here is that this so called "inalienable" right is supposed to be "self-evident" and as we look in we certainly do not see the self-evidence of that right.

e2mtt

23rd April 2007, 05:08

Mark in Oshawa... you are doing a great job here defending gun rights and explaining the American psyche here! Lets hear it for the Canadian!

Roamy

23rd April 2007, 05:29

hooray for Mark - he is damn good and writes exceptionally well. Lets give him a green card - we need guys like Mark

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 06:26

Rollo, first off, I get much joy out of all you guys who HATE the Iraq war bringing it up in EVERY stinking thread concerning something America does. I also notice in all the threads here, there isn't one that says "hooray for America" and while I wouldn't want to start one, I must admit for a nation that everyone loves to mock, kick and abuse, they have no problem getting immigrants or people visiting. So they must be doing something right, because I don't see long lines of immigrants moving to Iraq, Cuba, Iran or North Korea.

It is really simple. Americans wouldn't object to the Iraqi's having a constitution with a right to bear arms if it was a functioning democracy, with a strong governmental structure and rights of the individual. As usual, you miss the point. I expect that from people who refuse to take off their coat of assumed arrogance that seems to fit so many from the UK and Europe. What you continue to fail to acknowledge is the Americans really don't care how you run your nation if it is a functioning democratic nation. What is more, in modern times, they have never ONCE even threatened to invade or interdict in one. NOT ONCE. Now they have a lot to answer for, and I can point out to many instances in their history where they havne't been on the side of angels, I can also say in the last 50 years they have always tried to do things based on exporting democratic princples, even if they have really botched the execution of it.

Listen, I live next door to them. I work down there half of my working week when I go out on the road (In a couple of days likely), so I see what the nation is. Like many Canadians, I expected certain stereotypes as a younger man about what the nation is. The problem is, it isn't any of those stereotypes and yet can be all of them at various times. There are many diverse opinions in America, and not everyone is on side with any issue, the War in Iraq being just one of them. Gun Control is another.

You guys keep slamming America for having the right to bear arms. Yet no one has explained how arms are a problem. Switzerland mandates everyone keep a submachine gun handy as a member of the mandatory militia that has been part of their society for centuries. What is the murder rate in Switzerland? Damned low I can assure you. It is BECAUSE they don't see the weapons as the enemy here. They realize it is a tool, and that is it. In America, the issue is more complex. Of course, you guys cant see the forest for the trees, you think they are all nuts. They are NOT nuts, they are looking it as a matter of rights. Rights they would love to see in other nations that don't want anything to do with guns. They DON'T care what you think on this issue. It is their culture, and they see it as a right to personal protection, and when you consider Jag's argument that criminals don't care about registaring or the presence of guns, and the argument that drugs are outlawed in the US and yet are rampant, it becomes obvious that the US has a problem with too much freedom perhaps. Of course, it is a novel concept, being responsible for one's actions. Many in a lot of so called "democracies" should try it some time.....

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 06:39

PS, Fousto, thanks for the kind offer, but I am a Canadian, and will be until the day I die, no matter where I pitched my tent. AS much as I understand and admire America, I still think in some areas, my own mores and values dovetail in with Canada. (Such as a horrible lack of Tim Horton's franchises in the US, CFL football being better to watch and money with that is identifyable at a glance, unlike the universally greenback where I have to pull out and count carefully every time I look in the wallet when I have US dough, drives me NUTS)

On guns, well, I think there should be more room for comprimise between the idiots who think a "ban" would work, and the NRA who would hand kids guns in the schools I think. There has to be a middle ground, and it is the one thing that I think that gets lost in the debate. I think if a little more scrutiny was in the system in Virginia, our friend Cho might have had to work harder to get his weapons. That said, he would have gotten them somewhere, for if I could get a gun on the black market in Toronto that is similar (in a land where personal handguns are pretty much impossible to have legally), I am very sure Cho would have gotten them somewhere anyhow. As Jag Said in another thread on this topic, people bent on mayhem don't care about the rule of law....

Brown, Jon Brow

23rd April 2007, 11:32

well no **** brown. We have more gun deaths because we have ****ing guns. So we shoot people instead of cutting their head off with a machetti.
How may machetti deaths do we have???

I thought that you being an american were in favour of citizens having guns? By posting that link before you shot yourself in the foot. ;) :laugh:

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 18:38

He didn't shoot himself at all. He acknowledges they have a lot of gun deaths. Americans just don't see the solution to the problem by taking away guns from the vast majority who can possess guns and use them within the rules of society as an answer.

What you have to keep being reminded of here is personal protection is seen as a right that comes with that second amendment to a majority of Americans, and while us in the rest of the world think it is crazy, it makes sense in the American context because the society grew up with gunownership. You cannot use the British example or Australian example or anywhere else to compare because not one of those societies has ever had gunownership as part of the culture. Australia and Canada were both frontiers with a need for gunownership, but for whatever reason, were both able to have mainly just hunting and sport long guns as that gun culture. The US grew so fast that the law as unable to keep up to the growth and spread of people, and as a result, handguns and personal protection became part of the culture. I think for most nations, gun ownership to the extent it is in the US is just not thought of as a good idea, and in those cultures it isn't. They are NOT the US however, and Americans will fight to the end if you take away something they always had. Their rights of personal freedom override the power of government on this issue and it wont change. Doesn't matter if you think it is crazy or not, it makes sense in the American system because America isn't like any other nation. Never has been, and that is the problem why people do NOT understand Americans. IT is why the Americans don't always understand the rest of us either....I am just wise enough to point out that the Americans are often not wrong, and when they are wrong, there is often great debate within America to where they went wrong and what they should have done. The democratic process and the defense of liberty and free speech is part of their ethos, and if they get things wrong, there is no silencing the debate. Unlike some other nations, who hide as democracies or at least benign autocracies, who have flew under the radar for their errors and misdeeds. America's faults are exposed at every opportunity for all to see, often by Americans. It is why they are in many ways stronger....

BDunnell

23rd April 2007, 18:39

He didn't shoot himself at all. He acknowledges they have a lot of gun deaths. Americans just don't see the solution to the problem by taking away guns from the vast majority who can possess guns and use them within the rules of society as an answer.

What you have to keep being reminded of here is personal protection is seen as a right that comes with that second amendment to a majority of Americans, and while us in the rest of the world think it is crazy, it makes sense in the American context because the society grew up with gunownership. You cannot use the British example or Australian example or anywhere else to compare because not one of those societies has ever had gunownership as part of the culture. Australia and Canada were both frontiers with a need for gunownership, but for whatever reason, were both able to have mainly just hunting and sport long guns as that gun culture. The US grew so fast that the law as unable to keep up to the growth and spread of people, and as a result, handguns and personal protection became part of the culture. I think for most nations, gun ownership to the extent it is in the US is just not thought of as a good idea, and in those cultures it isn't. They are NOT the US however, and Americans will fight to the end if you take away something they always had. Their rights of personal freedom override the power of government on this issuel and it wont change. Doesn't matter if you think it is crazy or not, it makes sense in the American system because America isn't like any other nation. Never has been, and that is the problem why people do NOT understand Americans. IT is why the Americans don't always understand the rest of us either....I am just wise enough to point out that the Americans are often not wrong, and when they are, they are at least trying to achieve something that isn't purely motivated by a desire to just subjugate the planet....

I understand all of that, but it strikes me that there are many, many other things in many, many other countries that can be thought of in the same vein, but which you (or perhaps I) would object to.

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 19:39

Eki

23rd April 2007, 20:00

The reality is America cant win no matter what they do,
I think they can, if they were content with just being part of the show instead of always insisting running the show. A little humbleness instead of all out arrogance might do them some good.

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2007, 20:23

Eki, they get criticized when THEY Don't get involved in world affairs too....that is the thing.

As for you resenting them running the show, it is often because no one RUNS the show otherwise. In modern history, there are very few nations that made superpower status. The USSR and the USA, maybe China now and the UK at the turn of the last century. When one is a superpower, you don't subvert your national interests to someone elses just to make nice. You may do it on some issues, but if the US didn't throw their weight around, the people IN the US would just rip the President to pieces. Americans don't involve themselves in issues of national interest only to let someone else tell them what to do. It works for Finland, it may work for Canada. We may talk about how we want a consensus and to reach a groupthink, but in the US, it don't fly. You cannot get it that America is like this because it is unlikely they would be any other way considering the weight they carry as a nation state. No one criticizes Russia and China for being bullies, they expect it, but America is always held to a higher standard.....and sometimes unfairly. THey aint perfect, god knows I am sick of hearing how they saved the rest of us in WW2 ( never mind they were a little late showing up to the party ) and WW1 ( only 3 years late getting into that little fracas ), but in recent history, they have been very gracious in accepting help. They however pay 25% of the UN's budget, and host it. They don't have to at all...so to say they are uncaring or a bully in the world of public opinion or discourse is to ignore the salient fact that there wouldn't be a UN as we know it even without the US's tepid support of it....

Eki

23rd April 2007, 20:32

I think Bush has the same problem with the world as an ancient king of Sweden had with the peasants when he didn't listen to them:

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

Then Thorgny stood up; and when he arose all the bondes [yeomen] stood up who had before been sitting, and rushed together from all parts to listen to what Lagman Thorgny would say. At first there was a great din of people and weapons; but when the noise was settled into silent listening, Thorgny made his speech.

The disposition of Swedish kings is different now from what it has been formerly. My grandfather Thorgny could well remember the Upsala king Eirik Eymundson, and used to say of him that when he was in his best years he went out every summer on expeditions to different countries, and conquered for himself Finland, Kirjalaland, Courland, Esthonia, and the eastern countries all around; and at the present day the earth-bulwarks, ramparts, and other great works which he made are to be seen. And, more over, he was not so proud that he would not listen to people who had anything to say to him. My father, again, was a long time with King Bjorn, and was well acquainted with his ways and manners. In Bjorn's lifetime his kingdom stood in great power, and no kind of want was felt, and he was gay and sociable with his friends. I also remember King Eirik the Victorious, and was with him on many a war-expedition. He enlarged the Swedish dominion, and defended it manfully; and it was also easy and agreeable to communicate our opinions to him. But the king we have now got allows no man to presume to talk with him, unless it be what he desires to hear. On this alone he applies all his power, while he allows his scat-lands [territories paying protection money to the Swedes] in other countries to go from him through laziness and weakness. He wants to have the Norway kingdom laid under him, which no Swedish king before him ever desired, and therewith brings war and distress on many a man. Now it is our will, we bondes, that thou King Olaf make peace with the Norway king, Olaf the Thick, and marry thy daughter Ingegerd to him. Wilt thou, however, reconquer the kingdoms in the east countries which thy relations and forefathers had there, we will all for that purpose follow thee to the war. But if thou wilt not do as we desire, we will now attack thee, and put thee to death; for we will no longer suffer law and peace to be disturbed. So our forefathers went to work when they drowned five kings in a morass at the Mula-thing, and they were filled with the same insupportable pride thou hast shown towards us. Now tell us, in all haste, what resolution thou wilt take.

Then the whole public approved, with clash of arms and shouts, the lagman's speech.

BDunnell

23rd April 2007, 22:55

Hey, I don't disagree with your but the point always comes back to in the case of the US, is we always find people are quite willing to accept how other nations have their own culture and way of governing, and pretty much accept it as it is what it is. Many of us may object to the more heinous nation states out there, but we for the most part agree every nation in theory should run their own show in the manner of which they see fit as long as they are not threatening their neighbours (that is where Iraq got into trouble). With America however, they are on the list of nations everyone thinks they should have say in running without of course, paying taxes there.

America is criticized for its gun culture, foreign policy, leadership choices, commecial interests, pop culture. IT is attacked for not going to Darfur, going to Iraq, NOT going to Zimbabwe, GOING to Kosovo, having too many guns, having a coarse culture, having a suspected Loon in the White House and just generally being part of the problem.

The reality is America cant win no matter what they do, but it does make me laugh that everyone has an opinion about what is wrong with America. The ironic part, most Americans really don't care what you think, they are too busy just trying to make their nation better and debating its future in the matter you do. On this topic, like a lot of others, much anger is spilled in frustration because "we" outside America don't understand their gun culture (put in whatever topic on American you want in place of gun culture, the feeling is the same) . It isn't for us to tell them how to deal with their internal politics on this one. It isn't our nation, and contrary to what the media is portraying, the US is a damned sight safer for us middle class know it alls than many would have you believe. Like a lot of things, the media and perception are not providing the reality in a form that will help the understanding of those outside the US.

No other nation takes as much mindless scrutiny......and ignores it better....

I, for one, do not criticise the USA for all of those things. The trouble is that a certain part of American public opinion, and now, it appears, state opinion, cannot cope with any criticism and seems to actively encourage the behaviour that perpetutates the worst stereotypes. Britain seems to have managed, for instance, to do away with the old image of it being full of City gents wearing bowler hats and carrying canes.

Since the reaction to '9/11', those of us who are genuine admirers of many things to do with the USA and felt as though we had much common ground with Americans can surely be forgiven for thinking what on earth has happened (by the way, I have thought the same about my 'own people' in the UK on one occasion). This is to the detriment of our ability to understand the US mindset on so many issues. I would contend that the gun laws are among these, though, as I said earlier, I do understand the view you put across in relation to these, and indeed don't disagree with it in its entirety.

BDunnell

23rd April 2007, 22:59

As for you resenting them running the show, it is often because no one RUNS the show otherwise.

I would still rather that a deeply flawed international body in the shape of the UN existed than did a situation in which the USA or one other superpower took unilateral action, in concert with politically willing allies, in every situation. This comes from someone who, through work, has experienced the uselessness of the UN first-hand and believes that urgent reforms are needed. The thing about the UN is that, in principle, reforms can be made. It is far harder for other nations to influence US policy when it decides to take what amounts to unilateral action.

Rollo

24th April 2007, 00:25

It is really simple. Americans wouldn't object to the Iraqi's having a constitution with a right to bear arms if it was a functioning democracy, with a strong governmental structure and rights of the individual. As usual, you miss the point.

Hang on, if a right is supposedly "inalienable" then why are conditions being imposed on it?
My question was a veiled counter at the right itself. What is the basis of an "inalienable right" in the first place? Why does owning a weapon consitute it?

What you continue to fail to acknowledge is the Americans really don't care how you run your nation if it is a functioning democratic nation. What is more, in modern times, they have never ONCE even threatened to invade or interdict in one. NOT ONCE.

Japan had its "inalienable rights" denied to it by a US imposed constitution that still stands. Now either it isn't a "right" or it isn't "inalienable". If it's not the former, then why should it still be there in the constitution?

What do you term as a "right" in the first place?

Mark in Oshawa

24th April 2007, 02:40

It is an inalienable right if you are an American in America. Japan had their constitution shoved down on them because they attacked America in the way they did. The fact remains, Japan can do what they want now, and that too was a fact in 1945 when MacArthur wrote their consititution basically for a rebuilding nation. You seem to want to nit pick this right to death. Listen, Americans would not care what your rights are in your country if you were happy with them. That is the point. This argument is how they see THEIR rights with THEIR government. However, if they are in a situation where they are writing a constitution for a nation that they have their soldiers keeping the peace, only an idiot would allow the natives to be armed to the teeth. Now, if Iraq ever reaches a point where the US soldiers are not there, and it appears that could happen sooner rather than later, if they choose their own constitution to allow gun ownership, I don't think the Americans would care nearly as much as all you Europeans out there who keep insisting America needs gun laws. They may do, but the Yanks will resent someone else telling them this. IT is their right to keep guns, and it is only Americans who will change it. I suspect they wont for the reasons I have stated.

Rollo

24th April 2007, 05:44

However, if they are in a situation where they are writing a constitution for a nation that they have their soldiers keeping the peace, only an idiot would allow the natives to be armed to the teeth.

Such a country exists; it's called America. Only idiots allow it to continue.

The Declaration of Independence starts with this pre-amble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is a most fair and excellent paragraph. Since someone who bears arms as a "consititutional right" violates all three, then the amendment is fundamentally wrong and is flawed by its own logic. Under no circumstances does anyone have the "right" to endanger someone else's Life, Liberty or Happiness.

Mark in Oshawa

24th April 2007, 16:20

Rollo, that is what laws are for. When you shoot someone with a gun, they put your sorry @ss in Jail. Owning a gun does NOT jeopardize anyone's safety. Owning a gun and carrying it with you does not endanger anyone either unless you decide to invade their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nice try, but if it was as you say it, the 2nd Amendment would have been never been passed and the gun laws in the US would have killed it years ago.

You don't get it do you? Guns by themselves are just objects, it is the person using the gun that can be the problem, or not the problem. IF the person respects the rule of law, then his owning a gun means he has protection if someone does not respect his life.

You think having a gun means you are endangering everyone. It isn't like people walk around with a pistol in their hands while picking up a loaf of bread. I am in the US all the time, I haven't seen evidence of anyone packing heat yet, but I know they are likely out there.....

Eki

24th April 2007, 17:25

Britain seems to have managed, for instance, to do away with the old image of it being full of City gents wearing bowler hats and carrying canes.

Then comes oily and brings the new image of Britain being full of City gents wearing raincoats and abusing cats.

Eki

24th April 2007, 17:29

Owning a gun does NOT jeopardize anyone's safety.
What about Dick Cheney and his hunting companions? Lots of people get hurt or killed in gun related accidents. But then again, in the army I used assault rifles, machine guns, submachine guns and canons and howitzers of various caliber and the only weapon I managed to hurt someone with was a switchblade knife. Cut my finger to the bone with it.

airshifter

25th April 2007, 16:03

I thought that you being an american were in favour of citizens having guns? By posting that link before you shot yourself in the foot. ;) :laugh:

I think you missed the point Fousto made.

If you banned all cars in the UK, you would probably have less car related deaths. If the same number of people per year were killed by motorcycle accidents you didn't accomplish anything.

Both the UK and Aussie violent crime and murder rates show trends of increase or decrease, but no major swings due to gun bans. The end result was no change, other than a person being beaten or stabbed to death rather than shot.

Daniel

25th April 2007, 17:53

Yes but when was the last time someone went on a murderous rampage with a knife or a baseball bat?

Zico

25th April 2007, 19:14

Yes but when was the last time someone went on a murderous rampage with a knife or a baseball bat?

Absolutely...

Too me its the whole point, after the recent massacre that this predictable thread started. , handguns are less personal than using a knife, and are simply more efficient killing tools, too efficient in the wrong hands... as we have witnessed.

How many shooting sprees have we heard off... Kneejerk reaction? I dont think so.

Eki

25th April 2007, 19:34

The end result was no change, other than a person being beaten or stabbed to death rather than shot.
I have never heard anybody stabbing or beating to death 32 people single-handedly in just few hours.

Zico

25th April 2007, 19:43

How different would the outcomes have been if they'd had access to a firearm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/scotland/4210903.stm

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=11995636&method=full&siteid=89488

You do the maths...

NinjaMaster

26th April 2007, 14:02

The firearms buyback in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 resulted in about 700,000 guns being handed in at a cost of $500 million. The legislation which followed made owning automatic weapons very difficult and banned other certain kinds of firearms.

And the buyback achieved absolutely nothing. It took registered firearms off law-abiding shooters who had registered their guns and people with illegal firearms who wanted to make a quick buck. Illegal firearms are rife like drugs. The $500 mil would have been far better spent on Police and border security for weeding out drug dealers and gun runners. Given that the Port Arthur massacre was carried out with firearms that were already illegal, the laws that were passed afterwards would not have prevented it. Had the Police done their job before the massacre and attended to Bryant when neighbours complained he was firing off his guns in his backyard, then the whole incident would have been averted.

In 1996, 33 per cent of the 325 homicides committed involved firearms. Latest figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that in 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of 300 homicides involved firearms. In the US in 2005, firearms were used to commit 68 per cent of the 14,860 homicides.

Australia (21m people):
48/300 homicides with firearms

The US (301m people):
10104/14860 homicides with firearms

Or if you want to adjust Australia's figures so that the population figures match up:
Australia @ 301m people:
688/4299

So even if Australia had 301m people, it would still be safer. Statistically Australia a country in which owning a gun is not a right is 14 times safer per head of population. Sorry but I'm going to require convincing that the right to own a gun should exist. I'll continue to live in my own little "backward" country where appropriate laws and controls exist.

Australian gun crime had been falling at a steady rate for 20 years before the buyback and law changes. The fact that crime involving firearms is declining when overall violent crime is on a sharp increase does not mean we now live in a safer society.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that laws are the only thing that make Australia safer than the U.S. The main reason for the discrepancy of crime figures is purely down to culture. We don't have the same culture of violent gangs (though it is sadly starting to come through), we don't believe in the right to bear(?) arms, it is a privilige the same as any licence and finally, we are generally just too lazy. :)

Mark in Oshawa

28th April 2007, 22:17

It is good to see I go away for a week, and things don't change.

Those who want guns banned never seem to get the "ban" wont work on people who don't care about the law. Furthermore, in a society such as America, a ban wont happen. Now you may not like America's gun fetish, but the fact remains the 99% of people who own guns legally shouldn't be punished for people who go goofy and misuse firearms. The problem's in America are partially cultural mixed with a large access to guns. If the founding fathers of the USA knew what was to happen 200 plus years on, they might have redefined what they meant by the 2nd amendment, but alas, they didn't.

All I know is owning a gun should be looked at as no different than owning a car, unless you have already have a criminal record. You can kill people easily in a car, and when you look at the societies out there with horrific numbers of people killed per mile driven, maybe car ownership should be banned? Oh right...cars are required. Well, guns may not be required to live in modern society, but owning them is a hobby for many, and in some areas, a feeling of security. Lets face it, none of us likely would walk into a bad neighbourhood in East Philadelphia or East St. Louis, or Compton at night, but if we did, a gun would be a lot better to keep you alive than hoping a cop is nearby.

You have the right to protect yourself in the US, and a gun is part of that. You may hate guns, and in many of the places you are from, guns are not part of your daily life, but it is imperative that the rights of gun ownership really represent the rights any of us have to do or say anything that may not be popular. Americans see guns as just a domino. Take away something they paid money for and represents the ultimate protection in an uncertain world, and you might take something else next. No other nation put gun ownership in the constitution, but it is there because the people in the early days of the US were sure they wanted the average man to have the right to be armed in case of a)invasion (the war of 1812 proved this to be handy, even if the Yank's started it), b)the uncertainties of a frontier society and c)to keep any prospective tyrants who might get into power to realize that the man on the street just might fight back. Now in the 21st Century, gun ownership doesn't factor into any of the modern realities of the world, but it remains. It remains because Americans want it that way. They don't give a rat's behind what people in Britain, Australia, Finland, Canada or anywhere else think about it either. The stats of crime going up after gun bans should say something. If in Australia and the UK, crime has gone up when the guns were taken away, imagine what happens if you take legal gun ownership out of the US? Carnage.....

America will always have guns. You don't like it, don't live there. They don't go around suggesting that you should be armed to the teeth in the UK or in Tampere Finland or anywhere else, but in America, if you want to own a gun so you feel safer in case some loogan decides he wants to invade your house and rape your wife for kicks, well, then the average American would stand up for that right. Americans are big on standing up for their rights, because they have seen what happens to society where the rights of the individual are watered down or ignored....and nothing good has come from it.

BDunnell

28th April 2007, 22:27

Given all of that — and, as I've said, I don't disagree with the basis of your view — I don't believe that there is much basis for shock at events such as that which occurred at Virginia Tech. I think there is far too much shock at events such as this anyway, but that's beside the point.

Mark in Oshawa

28th April 2007, 22:45

BDunnell

28th April 2007, 23:02

I am not shocked any more either Ben, it is sad things like the VT shootings can happen, but similar events have taken place in Australia, the UK and Canada, and I put it down to the culture of being "famous" and the popular way these idiots are publicized after they die...

Gun's are the tool, but they don't shoot by themselves.

With respect, I don't find your argument entirely consistent here. I do not believe that any factors are involved other than the individual concerned. I don't blame the violent films the murderer is supposed to have watched for what happened. Equally, I don't blame media coverage of events such as this for repeat offences. Just as thousands of people watch the same violent films and don't go out and commit large-scale murders, so thousands (millions) of people watch coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings and don't go out and commit similar crimes.

It is impossible to legislate for every eventuality when the unpredictability of humans is concerned. Governments can do their best, but it will never be enough in every case. I am also concerned about there being impacts on genuine investigative journalism, which is always affected whenever measures are taken to restrict the activities of the media.

Until we get a handle on depression, mental illness and the overages of popular culture, it seems a little too easy and wrong to punish gun owners for these massacares...

Again, I agree with you about depression and mental illness, but not about the other bit, for the reasons given above.