31 dead in Va. Tech shooting rampage and the gun law

[Josh Hubi]

A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at a college in Virginia on Monday, killing at least 33 people making this the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history. The gunman also was killed, and more than a dozen other people were injured.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18134671/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574&page=1

[Josh Hubi]

breaking update, the death toll just went up to 31 when one of the students died on the way to the hospital.

[Vincent]

I've just saw this on TV, I hope they won't blame Videogames...

[Josh Hubi]

It's just so sad to see so many students die. I can't bear to see it any longer. its like columbine all over again.

[Vincent]

Yes, there lots of these things happening, in Belgium they caped a helicopter yesterday...
The world is getting real violent.


*Check my edit by the way...*

[Josh Hubi]

We have a gun problem in this country, and it is time that we stop denying it.

[Vincent]

That will be very hard to solve though.
Especially when the Repuklikans apparently support having guns...

[Jabode]

There are to many guns and to many people who want them to ever make them illegal.

[Josh Hubi]

that is true. now they are reporting that all the exit doors have been chained up during the shooting to prevent students from exiting the building. Who in gods name would do this and act out his anger in such a way?

[Vincent]

There are to many guns and to many people who want them to ever make them illegal.
Exactly, it's sad.
:(

[Nick_Fury]

There are to many guns and to many people who want them to ever make them illegal.

That and because people use the second amendment as a defense so that there are not stricter gun control laws.

[Psyborg]

Forgetting about partisan gun laws for a moment, let's consider the tragedy itself. This is terrible. I'm so sick of seeing atrocities like this being committed all the time; and I'm even sicker that I'm getting used to them as part of life. Something needs to be done, but I don't know what.

[Dr.Aaron]

What is this world coming to?!?

[Josh Hubi]

breaking update, the death toll is now 33 as 2 more students died at the hospital. my prayers go out to them and their family. My god bless all the people who have been affected in this sad day.

quick edit:

More than 50 victims:

Federal law enforcement officials told NBC News that the gunman was dead after he shot more than 50 people at two locations on campus. Thirty-Three, including the gunman, were confirmed dead.

[rtanger]

Guns will never be illegal in any country I live inO_O

Avoiding that debate, it is indeed a tragedy. But don't blame the tool, blame the wielder of the tool. Something needs to be done about the people who commit such heinous tragedies, but passing more laws and restricting even more freedom is not the way to go about it. But, in all reality, if we're so bent out of shape about acts of terror on our country, why can't we even control our own citizens when they perform such acts? As far as I can tell, if we want to be "successful" at this campaign, we need to prove that we have the capability to respond to even minor threats immediately. The fact that the guy was able to wipe out so many with the appropriate response taking so long, that doesn't speak very highly of our country's apparent ability to protect its citizens, IMO.

*bites tongue on gun debate issue. seriously, I'm really trying to*

[Josh Hubi]

every day the world is rotting. why is there is so much hate and violent acts in the world today? A few students reported that they had to jump out of windows about 3 floors high. A few did not and got shoot and killed.

How much anger could have caused one student to hurt the lifes of so many others?

[rtanger]

One after another, every attack in our schools just proves further how vulnerable they really are.....this is turning into a trend this past year that puts the tragedies of 98-99 down a few pegs on the list.

[Atomic Waffle]

I've just saw this on TV, I hope they won't blame Videogames...

Too late.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/virginia-tech/breaking-idiot-blames-va-shooting-on-games-252702.php

Hi, I'm Jack Thompson. As has been reported, the authorities are searching the suspect's apartment, talking to his friends, looking on his computer, questioning his parents...but let's stop at "looking on his computer," and talk about it for a bit. Obviously, it was entirely pop culture's fault. I mean look at the past; two different shootings have been caused by the ultra-violent computer game Doom, and obviously it's violence in the mainstream media that's once again causing these psychotic people to do these terrible things. I mean, one guy even played Grand Theft Auto to calm himself before a shooting. Obviously he was desensitizing himself to violence by playing a videogame!

What a ****ing ****.

[rtanger]

Hmm. Logic continues to avoid this man like a disease.

[Atomic Waffle]

This man IS a disease.

[P-Thunder.]

I can see School: Source getting bad comments again.

[CatzEyes93]

I saw this in the news this morning. I live about 20 minutes from Columnbine and the whole state went into a preverbial intake of breath when the news starting spilling into the streets.

How horrible for these families.

I havent verified the information myself as far as what is touted here on this website (http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames), but I will summarize it for you. Games do not make kids violent.

On the other note, making guns illegal will only take away the guns from law abiding citizens... the bad guys will STILL find ways to get their hands on guns. Oh wait, you mean that is how they do it right now already? yeah... uh huh. feck dat chit, I am keeping my weapon!

[Dr.Aaron]

He blames it on videogames, even though he hasn't got any evidence... >_>

[Nessus]

I have a couple friends at VTech, and go to school a few hours away- none of us have been getting much work done while we wait to hear the news. Thankfully, nobody I know was injured.

[jackattack502]

This is possibly the saddest thing ive ever seen/heard/read.

P.s. More guns, less crime. The Riskier it is for criminals to commit their crimes, the less people die. Unfortunately, there are guaranteed to be no guns on a campus. Guns save lives people, get it right.

[El]

I think that that crazy Asian was a psycho, and I'm praying for the families of the affected. We need to notice these psychotics more often, not fix the availability of guns. If people are to kill, eliminating weapons won't stop, them, anything can be a weapon.


Maybe move this to the debate board?

[EclipseSix]

this is a post I just made on another site's forums about this same issue.

problem with allowing everybody (not literally, but generally) to have guns and conceal them is the faulty human emotion. Whats to say somebody, with no prior history of violence or even any criminal record, who happens to own a gun and carry one only for his own self-defense, doesn't snap one day when he gets beat up in a bar, or gets dumped by a girlfriend, finds her cheating. I think there would be many more crimes of passion, especially around college campuses where the liquor and emotions flow free-er than any other place..

[Black Op]

A pity that yet another psychotic chose to violently lash out at the world. As for the gun control issue, I doubt that getting rid of them will be able to actually do their job along with getting rid of the problematic members of society. If people can smuggle drugs into the US and pirate satellite TV, who's stopping them from selling guns on the black market? Remember how the prohibitation of alcohol failed almost a century ago? The only possible way to stop these crimes is through somehow detecting these individuals before it's too late, perhaps while these folks are still going through school. Some twits may claim it's yet another excess attack on civil liberties, but such detection or "survelliance" programs shouldn't aim to merely throw people into jail. At any rate, I don't think that the majority of society should be punished by the actions of the useless and destructive few.

[EclipseSix]

I say we just install turrets everywhere that detect guns. If you have a license you show it and you're good, if its a restricted area, you get shot. 0 gun crimes :-) Lots of dead criminals. or at least bruised if u load the turrets with non-lethal ammunition.

[zim]

When Columbine happened I knew something worse would happen eventually and here we are.

[Black Op]

That turret program will never work, seeing that basically equates to the death penalty without the democratic assurance of a trail to determine one's guilt (and even non-lethal ammo can cause serious injury). The only practical way I can see to limit guns is to make the process of obtaining one very difficult, with rigorous background checks and perhaps even some classes. Those people that do own guns should be required by law to wear visible ID at all times, even if they don't have a gun on them. Cry that personal freedoms may be lost, but in reality for law-abiding citizens who truely neeed firearms with no plans for shooting up schools, they got nothing to hide if they have to wear a gun owner's ID.

[El]

every day the world is rotting. why is there is so much hate and violent acts in the world today? A few students reported that they had to jump out of windows about 3 floors high. A few did not and got shoot and killed.

How much anger could have caused one student to hurt the lifes of so many others?
While you raise some excellent points, pessimism will get us nowhere. Our world is certainly not rotting, if not what we had expected of it. If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought nah forget it, yo homes to Bel-Air!

I pulled up to a house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cab "yo, homes smell you later"
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there
To settle my throne as the prince of Bel-Air

[Not_My_Style]

Here's the question I always ask myself after these shootings...Why don't these pricks just shoot themselves instead of taking it out on innocent students? Save 32 lives and just kill yourself you coward. I hope this ****er burns in hell.

Anyways, I don't like the fact that police officials/college officials are getting blamed because they didn't react fast enough. The incident in the dorm (that occurred two hours before the classroom one) was classified as a domestic incident, and nobody had any idea of what was next to come. The media always jumps the gun on things like this, which in actually makes the situation even harder for everybody. The same thing happened on 9/11.

[jackattack502]

That turret program will never work, seeing that basically equates to the death penalty without the democratic assurance of a trail to determine one's guilt (and even non-lethal ammo can cause serious injury). The only practical way I can see to limit guns is to make the process of obtaining one very difficult, with rigorous background checks and perhaps even some classes. Those people that do own guns should be required by law to wear visible ID at all times, even if they don't have a gun on them. Cry that personal freedoms may be lost, but in reality for law-abiding citizens who truely neeed firearms with no plans for shooting up schools, they got nothing to hide if they have to wear a gun owner's ID.

You have a good point Black Op, but you forget one very important thing. Guns are cheap, easy to manufacture, and serious criminals buy them off black markets. Most guns bought by normal people are for self defence, and making a rigorous entry process to obtaining a firearm would haggle the average citizen, but not the criminal at all. No one can predict whether a person will snap, and people with the best of backround can turn out to the the dost disturned serial killers. There was a man convicted and proved for umpteen murders and rapes, and he was a quiet, pious, kind husband and father. Even on the stand, he maintained that persona, even with indisputable evidence before him. If you ever have read the book Freakonomics (i personally recommend that book to you Black OP, its amazing) you will discover that gun control laws don't necessarily drop violent crime. In Switzerland, every man is issued an Assault Rifle (F/A) for militia duty,yet it one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Guns save lives.

[Not_My_Style]

Guns save lives.

That's a matter of opinion, and isn't technically true. Switzerland has a much more peaceful society than ours mainly due to the fact that their population is smaller and less dense than ours is. The gun debate isn't really the issue at hand here. The 2nd Amendment is most-likely here to stay, even though it should have been gone after the Revolutionary War. The question is how to reduce gun violence.

[hoboman725]

I've just saw this on TV, I hope they won't blame Videogames...
to late...

[EclipseSix]

Anyways, I don't like the fact that police officials/college officials are getting blamed because they didn't react fast enough. The incident in the dorm (that occurred two hours before the classroom one) was classified as a domestic incident, and nobody had any idea of what was next to come. The media always jumps the gun on things like this, which in actually makes the situation even harder for everybody. The same thing happened on 9/11.

100% agree. In one segment on cnn, the anchor says
an why didn't the campus lockdown after the first incident? More on that to come"

In the very next segment the guy goes "police and authorities are not even sure if the two incidents are related".

I posted about thisagain in another forum, heres mypost:

Not putting the campus on lockdown is not that unbelievable. After it had the look of a domestic incident and no one had any reason to think otherwise. When Someone kills their significant other, do they put the whole neighborhood in lockdown? Nevermind that a Campus is like a small town spread over a decent sized area.

exactly.

you'll see the news machine make this exact issue BLOW up into a huge ordeal, people at the school may even lose their jobs and have law suits put against them, for following SOP.

the school is ginormous, over 100 buildings they said!

They're not going to close it down when theres a domestic shooting in one dorm. the police responded to that dorm, everything was going exactly as it should, and nobody woulda made a big deal outta the campus not shutting down if the shooter hadn't gone on to massacre. who would ever expect something this bad to happen.

edit: as i hit the post button, cnn anchor goes "and why didn't the school lockdown after the first incident? well explore that later"

sigh, the victim count in this incident is going to skyrocket...

[Black Op]

Guns are cheap, easy to manufacture, and serious criminals buy them off black markets.
Then perhaps the United States can nationalize the gun manufacturing industry. All firearm producers fall under the control of the government, which also sets limits on the legal amount of imports. While the people that commit crimes for a living will probably find various illegal loopholes, those that act out of their misguided emotions or insanity will be much more hardpressed to obtain guns. As for the black market for firearms, that can be supressed greatly provided the War on Drugs can be somewhat relaxed to free up necessary resources.

Most guns bought by normal people are for self defence, and making a rigorous entry process to obtaining a firearm would haggle the average citizen, but not the criminal at all.
"Average citizens" can sometimes turn out to be psychotics who shoot up schools on a whim, or preform other crimes of passion. Surely tougher gun laws will reduce the amount of people that die from some sort of dispute gone horribly wrong?

No one can predict whether a person will snap, and people with the best of backround can turn out to the the dost disturned serial killers.
Maybe we can stand a better chance of finding these people if psychologists develop ways to identify potential troublesome individuals. If that's possible, then I suggest psychological examinations should be required for all potential gun owners. At the very least, long waiting times for guns should be implimented in the hope that a person wishing to go on a spree has enough time to cool down before acting on their irrational impulses.

There was a man convicted and proved for umpteen murders and rapes, and he was a quiet, pious, kind husband and father. Even on the stand, he maintained that persona, even with indisputable evidence before him.
Just because someone appears sane on the outside clearly doesn't mean the same is true for their head. Hence the need for psychological examinations.

If you ever have read the book Freakonomics (i personally recommend that book to you Black OP, its amazing) you will discover that gun control laws don't necessarily drop violent crime.
I don't have the money to buy that book, please explain?

In Switzerland, every man is issued an Assault Rifle (F/A) for militia duty,yet it one of the most peaceful countries in the world. In Switzerland, every man is issued an Assault Rifle (F/A) for militia duty,yet it one of the most peaceful countries in the world.
Care to show me the ghettos, poverty, and other signs of rampant economic disparity within Switzerland? Why don't you look at Iraq, where much of the population probably owns Kalashnikovs by now. Surely Iraq is one of the safest countries in the world due to widespread distribution of weapons?

Guns save lives.
Good economical conditions and standards of living save lives, not guns. Clearly the Swiss are responsible and live well enough to avoid going on rampages with their ARs. Do you want to place bets to see if lives can be saved by handing everybody in gang neighborhoods a M16?

[Collision]

I can see School: Source getting bad comments again.

Dont we know it. :dry:

[Wasabi]

I saw this on the news last night. Bloody hell.
Trust Jack "I was born with a stick up my arse" Thompson to jump straight onto this. What a scumbag he is. If only I was insane, irrational, had access to firearms and an easy way to smuggle them across the Atlantic... Only in videogames I guess :dry:

[Raminator]

How this can come as a surprise to you given your almost complete lack of gun control, I'll never know.

[PsYchOsIs]

We had to research on this for one of our classes, and it's just absolutely terrible. I can't really contribute anything intelligent, but I just hope that the situation gets under control soon. D:

[Kester]

How this can come as a surprise to you given your almost complete lack of gun control, I'll never know.
I say that every time.

Oh and I just read Black Op's last post and it made me feel dirty agreeing with almost everything he said.

[Camouflage]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5 CNAT20020917a.html
some students want the gun ban to be lifted
a good article with good evidence and stuff

[jackattack502]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_3BWv3FYg0

[Vincent]

I wonder why the American government invaded Iraq while they can't even keep their own country safe :dry:

[7ty714]

This is very tragic, I mourn the loss of these students and I can't imagine how it must feel to be there or to lose a loved one like that.

[Vincent]

I agree...

[Black Op]

I wonder why the American government invaded Iraq while they can't even keep their own country safe
You're overblowing one particular incident. Unlike Iraq, America is not in a state of anarchy where people can kill at will without ever experiencing consequences dealt by the government. Since it's not our military's job to police our streets (that's what police departments are for), there's absolutely no reason to bring up Iraq here. :dry:

[Vincent]

They can at least spend some more money in national safety, I heard the budget for national safety actually went down :dry:

[Black Op]

Except you don't realize that it's our states that retain the right to exercise general policing powers, and not the federal government. How much money is spent on public safety varries from region to region. Plus all that money means nothing if there's no proper doctrines and legislation to go along with it. The issue of gun control here will not be magically solved by shoving dollars all over the place.

[rtanger]

Nor will it be solved by simply passing more restrictive laws.
All restrictive laws serve to do is further discourage honest people from obtaining something easily, and augments the black market.

The old adage "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," didn't form in a vacuum for no reason. There's very much a truth in that particular statement. If an outlaw gets to have a gun, I deserve the right to possess an equally effective means of defense. Only I should get to do so legally, the outlaw doesn't care what the law says-- fancy that.

Assault Rifles and automatics are patently illegal, but somehow they are the culprit in a large portion of excessively violent crimes. Restrictive laws do nothing to stop those who truly want to cause harm from doing so.

I agree w/ Black Op's statements about defense spending.

[TheTaxidermist]

They can at least spend some more money in national safety, I heard the budget for national safety actually went down :dry:


What's that going to do against a gunman walking into a dormitory and unloading his weapons on people? It would do very little. Guaranteed.

I'm just waiting for them to blame it on video games/hip hop/heavy metal music.

And as for gun control, there shouldn't be gun control. Just because the weapon is there does not make it responsible by itself. Hell he could have gone into the school with a bow and quiver of arrows and done just as much damage. It's not the tool used, it's how it's used. Just look at countries like Canada where there is a greater gun per capita rate than America. Not to mention, if there were stricter gun laws, it would end up taking guns away from responsible gun owners, and leaving irresponsible gun owners with their weapons. And plus, they could always just buy guns illegally. So, trust me, the gun laws are not responsible for the gun violence here.

[Kester]

A lot of these school killings aren't done by big time criminals though. Almost all of them are people who have been pushed over the edge. When that happens in England someone might get stabbed, not a massacre.

Granted yes it means only outlaws will have guns, but that is the same in England, yes there is a huge amount of illegal guns on the street, but that doesn't mean I've ever needed to poses one, or will do.

If guns were illegal in the states, I'm willing to put a hell of a lot of money on that most of the massacres in the last 10 years wouldn't have happened. Most have occurred because they can get hold of guns easily and readily.

[Black Op]

Nor will it be solved by simply passing more restrictive laws.
Of course, the means to enforce restrictive gun laws will have increase too.

All restrictive laws serve to do is further discourage honest people from obtaining something easily, and augments the black market.
Our Bill of Rights states in the 2nd Amendment that the militia (implied to constitute average American citizens) has to be well-regulated. So what if a few honest people are inconvienced by harsh gun laws that in theory are constitutional? As long as enforcement is able to preform a decent job of supressing the black market for guns, gun restrictions have a good chance of cutting down on muders caused by people who are not criminals for a living.

The old adage "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," didn't form in a vacuum for no reason. There's very much a truth in that particular statement. If an outlaw gets to have a gun, I deserve the right to possess an equally effective means of defense. Only I should get to do so legally, the outlaw doesn't care what the law says-- fancy that.
For one thing, there'd be less outlaws if those who wish to murder on the spur of the moment can't legally purchase weapons. Not everyone can make the effort of the will to wander into ghetto districts where the black market thrives, especially those living far away from major cities (plus knives and et cetera can also serve as murder weapons). As for assuming a gun will aid you in the event your life is threatened, chances are is that the outlaw has got the drop on you, making you unable to access the bloody gun anyway. Do you even own a gun anyway?

Assault Rifles and automatics are patently illegal, but somehow they are the culprit in a large portion of excessively violent crimes. Restrictive laws do nothing to stop those who want to cause harm from doing so.
Well maybe that's because our nation has to impliment truely restrictive laws, nor do I find signs that we'll make the effort of the will to do so.

[Mercer]

Weather or not guns are outlawed or not. A determined pyscho will buy them illegally. And Testing gun owners is just rediculous... what happens if they are perfectly sane and snap 4 weeks later, should we test them everyday?
Ah, let's call the Gestapo in...

[Kester]

A determined psycho will yes, but 90% of these cases aren't psychos.

[Vincent]

Indeed, and if they don't have the guns they might beat someone up, or maybe stab, but it can't be that worse.

[rtanger]

Do you even own a gun anyway?


Of course I do! I live amid an avid hunting culture, and love to go shoot at a range any chance I get to go home- I don't keep a gun in my in my apartment, as I have no safe place to store them, but I have a Beretta, and a .22 rifle in my name, and am set to inheret a 30-06, a 32-20 rifle, .44 magnum longbarrel, Two longbarrel percussion-cap muzzleloaders, a flintlock smoothbore (prbly .38 cal, I think on the muzzleloaders), another .22 rifle, .357 magnum revolver, er..... .22 pistol....do I really need to keep going? There's a few other pieces throughout my family's house, and I really can't be bothered to remember the exact specifications of each off the top of my head...we have a lot of guns...plus one or two...other firearms whose names will go unmentioned here >_> Oh, and my family one or two cannons as well. (just for fun) Who else here has a freakin' cannon?!

What exactly did my owning a gun or not have to do with anything?

I will say one thing-- get out into the heartland of America and the tune of people's opinions on firearms changes quickly from that on the coasts. There's other things one needs to worry about in these (rural) parts aside from deranged individuals, and I tell you what, a glorified M80 does nothing to scare off a curious and hungry bear when compared with a pelt full of pellets....

I am almost certain I can say without doubt that CO has one of the highest gun-ownership rates per-capita in the USA, and I believe strongly that this, in conjunction with our infamous "Make my Day" laws, accounts strongly for our low home robbery and invasion rates, as well as extremely low rates of burglary and armed robbery.

How exactly do you make current AR and automatic legislation "more restrictive?" It's already a high-class felony offense, what else can you do short of random home searches, seizures, and harassment policies? Really, do tell.

[Mercer]

A determined psycho will yes, but 90% of these cases aren't psychos.

Ok, ANYONE determined to kill really...
Now I realize yes it would be harder to get a weapon if even stricter laws are past, but come on, it still won't stop huge conflagrations like this Virginia Tech thing.

Also, guns aren't the only way to kill a lot of people.

[Winged One]

This is a real tragedy, indeed. But gun control will not help it. Apparently, two hours passed since he offed the kids in the dorm (two), and when he arrived at the classrooms (The rest). The local police department is to blame here. Along with the shooter, of course. Anyway, if guns are restrcted, homicides will just be conducted through machetes.

I just realized...Jack Thompson graduated from V. Tech! Oh shi- He's gonna have a meltdown, even though this had nothing to do with games. (The shooter just went crazy after his girlfriend broke up with him.)

[Black Op]

I will say one thing-- get out into the heartland of America and the tune of people's opinions on firearms changes quickly from that on the coasts. There's other things one needs to worry about in these (rural) parts aside from deranged individuals, and I tell you what, a glorified M80 does nothing to scare off a curious and hungry bear when compared with a pelt full of pellets....
Of course, I wouldn't expect these rural heartland areas of America to understand the realities present in more urbanized areas like the coastal regions. What are these things that one needs to worry about over there other than bears (which can be dealt with by wildlife control anyway).

I am almost certain I can say without doubt that CO has one of the highest gun-ownership rates per-capita in the USA, and I believe strongly that this, in conjunction with our infamous "Make my Day" laws, accounts strongly for our low home robbery and invasion rates, as well as extremely low rates of burglary and armed robbery.
Or maybe CO merely lacks the usual economic pressures and overall larger population present elsewhere in the US, which contribute to crime in the first place.....? :|

[rtanger]

Of course, I wouldn't expect these rural heartland areas of America to understand the realities present in more urbanized areas like the coastal regions. What are these things that one needs to worry about over there other than bears (which can be dealt with by wildlife control anyway).

I wouldn't rely on wildlife control for anything more than clearing a deer carcass from the road:dry:
Name a predator native to the US, and you can guarantee it's a problem. But this has not much to do with the discussion at hand.


Or maybe CO merely lacks the usual economic pressures and overall larger population present elsewhere in the US, which contribute to crime in the first place.....? :|

I wouldn't know, I don't live in a heavily-urbanized zone, though the front range is quickly developing in that direction...as for economic pressures, that's a logical disconnect to me. The counties with the highest gun-ownership rates also rank among the poorest, and while soft crime rates are correlative, violent crime rates are still well within, likely below the state's average- bloated by the increasing crime in Denver.

As with anything our gov. rushes to get off the streets, I believe the most prudent answer is education and responsibility. I feel that the more educated a populace is with firearms, the more responsible they are in their use and storage. I come to this conclusion through personal anecdote, but feel very strongly in it.

[Kester]

Ok, ANYONE determined to kill really...
Now I realize yes it would be harder to get a weapon if even stricter laws are past, but come on, it still won't stop huge conflagrations like this Virginia Tech thing.
It would though, how can you not see it? These are spur of the moment things, someone gets pushed over the edge, realises they have access to guns and goes out shooting people.

Also, guns aren't the only way to kill a lot of people.
I know, but they make it hell of a lot easier to kill on the larger scale.

Again, I'll relate to England, here guns are widely available on the black market, yet I can't remember one instance where a massacre anywhere near the scale of this has occurred. This is because for the vast majority guns are inaccessible.

Oh and organised/real criminals (the ones that get guns on the black market) don't go around randomly shooting people just because they have a gun.

[Not_My_Style]

Oh and organised/real criminals (the ones that get guns on the black market) don't go around randomly shooting people just because they have a gun.

Yep. We'd be much better off if the Mafia was still as strong as it was in the 20's and 30's. At least they "whacked" people that did something wrong, usually against their business.

The point is, it's better than having the streets gangs we have now. Where 4 guys drive by a street corner and start blasting away (with terrible aim) and hitting innocent by-standards.

[Black Op]

Name a predator native to the US, and you can guarantee it's a problem.
The vast majority of these so-called predators are actually quite shy towards humans. They have enough sense to not feed on us for dinner regularly, so they're not a huge problem at all. Moving on.....

I wouldn't know, I don't live in a heavily-urbanized zone, though the front range is quickly developing in that direction...as for economic pressures, that's a logical disconnect to me. The counties with the highest gun-ownership rates also rank among the poorest, and while soft crime rates are correlative, violent crime rates are still well within, likely below the state's average- bloated by the increasing crime in Denver.
Well I happen to live in a suburban area, and the only crime in my neighborhood that occurs here are extremely rare and non-violent break-ins when nobody's around. My family owns no gun, yet we can be rest assured that we're safe from bloodthirsty thugs. As for the poor people of Colorado, I suspect most of them (especially away from Denver) are slightly better off than their urban counterparts, but just enough for them to stay away from violent crimes.

As with anything our gov. rushes to get off the streets, I believe the most prudent answer is education and responsibility. I feel that the more educated a populace is with firearms, the more responsible they are in their use and storage. I come to this conclusion through personal anecdote, but feel very strongly in it.
Education won't have much of an impact on lowering murder rates; anyone who already is delusional enough to think murder will solve their problems will not heed some educational course on how to use firearms. It's clear that all legal gun owners should demostrate undeniable mental competence first before they can posess firearms.

[jambo]

30,000 people die a year from gunshot wounds, and people don't think the US have a huge problem with guns?!

[rtanger]

The vast majority of these so-called predators are actually quite shy towards humans. They have enough sense to not feed on us for dinner regularly, so they're not a huge problem at all. Moving on......

Who said anything about humans? You've obviously never kept livestock, nor lived in a wildife/human cohabitation area, so to so readily dismiss that point shows a lack of critical thought. Many people rely on livestock for their livelihood, and require an adequate defense against hungry beasts. What do you suggest as an alternate means? Blanket traps and poison coverage, repellents, etc. that affect every animal in the area, not just the problem one?

As I've said, I cannot comment on an urban area, as I have not lived in one. But get out into the real meat of America, and guns have far more uses than petty gang fights, we rely on them to live. Not only do we rely on them to live, but they are ingained into the very culture that is rural America. If you think the people would ever let the government take their guns away, you have another thing coming.

[Black Op]

Many people rely on livestock for their livelihood, and require an adequate defense against hungry beasts.
Fine then, perhaps farmers that raise lifestock in areas with predators are one of the few people that legitimately have to use guns for a living. That just leaves everyone else who doesn't face their products getting prematurely eaten by beasts, do they need guns as well?

But get out into the real meat of America, and guns have far more uses than petty gang fights, we rely on them to live. Not only do we rely on them to live, but they are ingained into the very culture that is rural America. If you think the people would ever let the government take their guns away, you have another thing coming.
Correction, only a few people need guns to make a living. Furthermore, these rural states are ingrained with other dated and backward values which deter the advancement of US society. Provided that people with very good cause to own guns can still obtain them, the US government is entitled to impose harsh gun laws. Nobody decided to cause rebellions when the feds destroyed the Jim Crow system in the South (yet another supposedly "cherished" tradition gone the way of the dodo), do you really think rebellion is justified here just to keep firearms that most people have no practical use for?

[Sersoft.corp]

there was a shooting here in montreal, even if only one person died it was still terrible, there were like 15 injured, and the guy was an emo! and a regular member of an emo forum. so I blame it all on emos like I always do, not on GTA, when I'm pissed and srsly wanna kill ppl, it easily calms me down.

[Not_My_Style]

GTA, when I'm pissed and srsly wanna kill ppl, it easily calms me down.

Okay emo. :lol:

[TheTaxidermist]

Here's my theory of why Cho Seung-hui snapped. He had just discovered his girlfriend was cheating on him. And of course, this led to him purchasing the guns. Then, he snapped, ran over to his girlfriend's dorm and shot her to death. When someone came to investigate he shot him as well. He then traveled back to his dorm, was still angry as hell, and decided to take it out on people that were just like his cheating girlfriend and people that are like the person she cheated on him with. Apparently, those go in line with rich kids and other deceitful people. He then reloaded, wrote out a disturbing note, and went on his way to the classrooms to seek out people (that he probably knew were the kind of people I talked about before). Then he just went ballistic shooting everyone he saw until he thought he had killed as many as he could, and then ended his (as he put it) "life of hell".

So in the end, he was definitely a psycho who was pushed over the edge by his cheating girlfriend. There is of course, no way to rationalize such psychotic behavior.

[Sersoft.corp]

screw emos then now Im blaming the girlfriend, that'll teach girls not to cheat next time

[PsYchOsIs]

there was a shooting here in montreal, even if only one person died it was still terrible, there were like 15 injured, and the guy was an emo! and a regular member of an emo forum. so I blame it all on emos like I always do, not on GTA, when I'm pissed and srsly wanna kill ppl, it easily calms me down.
If I'm ever angry, I try to focus it on FPSs and not my family. Emphasis on try. :(

[Vincent]

screw emos then now Im blaming the girlfriend, that'll teach girls not to cheat next time
You should blame the guy himself.

[TheTaxidermist]

You should blame the guy himself.

Well obviously he was a psycho and a number of things in his life led up to this event. What put him over the edge was his cheating girlfriend. Of course, this is never a reason to kill anybody. Sure you may get angry, but I can not think of a good reason ever to kill somebody period.

[Flarty]

some f'd up people around.
I cant see how people can blame media for such an atrocity. Thats likes wrapping the nation in cotton wool and protecting them from the real problem which is a number of factors.
The main problem i find is the lack of restrictions on gun purchase in the U.S im not saying make guns illegal, but make it alot harder to purchase one and lets take a few off the market, i've heard you can buy fully automatic weapons from a gun store there. What possible use could this posses to anyone? fair enough weapons that can be used for hunting i agree with, but isnt an M4 a little ott for hunting?

Another factor of course human nature, and how we bully the week, or segregate certain individuals, everyone is guilty of this at one time or another, and it isnt going to stop any time soon. But its behaviours like this that plant the seeds in weak minded people who commit these atrocious crimes.

All i can say is, i hope this never happens again, but the odds dont seem to be in my favour.

[rtanger]

i've heard you can buy fully automatic weapons from a gun store there.

You heard wrong.

[Flarty]

fair enough, i just remember watching on bowling for columbine that the shooters had legally purchased there, automatic/semi-automatic weapons.

[rtanger]

Sales of automatic weapons were banned in 1994, but any automatic weapons already legally purchased were grandfathered. So that's technically true, but very misleading. Also, the shooters could not have bought any weapons, at least legitimately. My understanding was that they obtained them from either a relative or a close friend. But I could be mistaken.

[Flarty]

ah i see, so really mr moore used his words very cleverly to produce a sort of propaganda for his anti-gun documentry. I'll watch it later tonight and see what he says.

[Black Op]

fair enough, i just remember watching on bowling for columbine that the shooters had legally purchased there, automatic/semi-automatic weapons.
The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons from a straw purchase (when a buyer uses an intermediary to obtain a weapon) and also from another friend. Both of these actions are felonies, and that "friend" was arrested for selling a handgun to a minor.

[Flarty]

ahhh then it was total bull**** what is said in bowling for columbine.

[bluseychris]

You heard wrong.

The kid who did the shooting did.

Guns save lives people, get it right.

Arming the police means more petty criminals carry firearms to defend them selfs. This leads to the populace getting paranoid and arming them selfs to protect against the waves of criminals now carrying firearms. This is probably part of the reason that there are so many US shootings. I'd rather let a criminal nick my stuff if he gets into my house being possibly armed than risk getting killed by him/her in a shoot out, sure there's lots of sentimental and expensive stuff but I'd rather be alive. If people start carrying guns on a regular basis there's a greater chance of people panicking and pulling fire arms in all sorts of situations. Imagine a car backfiring in a car park full of armed and slightly paranoid people, think how many people could draw weapons. Now stick that in VT. Shots are heard, people respond with their own weapons but who shot first? Who's the bad guy? Where are the shots coming from? Who's going to get caught in the crossfire?

Drive-by anyone?

Gun control would mean tighter security in the sale of firearms. It could involve a cool off period before you get hold of a gun whilst a full background check and referencing is done. Both these things could of helped toward preventing the VT massacre. Instead the seller did a brief check, most likely for criminal activity of which this guy had done none, and handed over an assault rifle and ammunition. I'm not surprised so many u.s. criminals have guns because lets face it, if this guy can get a gun this easily then think how easy it would be with readily available fake I.D. which criminals can probably get hold of anyway. The assault rifle ban could also of helped lessen the casualty rate.

I also think that the Police and University were criminally negligent. The moment those first two shots were heard the buildings should have been evacuated cordoned and Armed Response called. If authorities had acted quick enough we may be only looking at two deaths instead of thirty three. Before this incident I held the view that a lot of americans were gun toting nut jobs. This kid is an isolated case of "nut" but the u.s. responses to the shootings are helping cement my opinion of americans.

If you guys want to load up on guns and go mental when a balloon bursts go ahead. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

That turret program will never work, seeing that basically equates to the death penalty without the democratic assurance of a trail to determine one's guilt (and even non-lethal ammo can cause serious injury). The only practical way I can see to limit guns is to make the process of obtaining one very difficult, with rigorous background checks and perhaps even some classes. Those people that do own guns should be required by law to wear visible ID at all times, even if they don't have a gun on them. Cry that personal freedoms may be lost, but in reality for law-abiding citizens who truely neeed firearms with no plans for shooting up schools, they got nothing to hide if they have to wear a gun owner's ID.

THE VOICE OF SENSE! That's basically what we did. After Dunblaine
where a paranoid delusional got hold of a pistol and opened fire into a pre-school playground, the sale of all but a few types of hand gun was prohibited, the majority of hand guns were banned with an amnesty period for handing them into the police. Also a large chunk of other firearms that had not been previously banned were. The most recent was gas cartridge air weapons as they can be rebored easily to take 9mm and magnum cartridges. Nowadays if you have a gun it's usually either

a) A shotgun (single or double sports).
b) An air weapon.
c) A replica/disabled firearm.

The majority of gun crime here involves replica weapons that have been rebored or re-enabled weapons. I expect that replica's will be banned along with disabalised firearms (excluding the top two listed).

Anyways, I don't like the fact that police officials/college officials are getting blamed because they didn't react fast enough. The incident in the dorm (that occurred two hours before the classroom one) was classified as a domestic incident, and nobody had any idea of what was next to come.

Which is why authorities should of acted faster. Guns in a dorm? Who the **** needs that? That's what you have police and campus security for who had two hours to clear campus' and set up cordons to prevent anyone else getting hurt and to control the situation. I also expect they would carry guns considering how available guns are there. And what happens when the wrong person gets shot. Anyone remember the song '41 Shots'? Anyone remember the incident that inspired it?

You have a good point Black Op, but you forget one very important thing. Guns are cheap, easy to manufacture, and serious criminals buy them off black markets. Most guns bought by normal people are for self defence, and making a rigorous entry process to obtaining a firearm would haggle the average citizen, but not the criminal at all. No one can predict whether a person will snap, and people with the best of backround can turn out to the the dost disturned serial killers. There was a man convicted and proved for umpteen murders and rapes, and he was a quiet, pious, kind husband and father. Even on the stand, he maintained that persona, even with indisputable evidence before him. If you ever have read the book Freakonomics (i personally recommend that book to you Black OP, its amazing) you will discover that gun control laws don't necessarily drop violent crime. In Switzerland, every man is issued an Assault Rifle (F/A) for militia duty,yet it one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Guns save lives.

If people are determined they'll get hold of a gun, especially if they think they need one. With the u.s. state of mind it's no wonder so many people carry guns and the police are armed. There's a big difference between yanks and the swiss: the swiss aren't f***ing paranoid. Compare their level of gun crime to yours. Both Switzerland and Canada has more guns per person than the u.s. on average and their gun crime levels are drastically lower. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the same by average and/or combined totals.

[TheTaxidermist]

ah i see, so really mr moore used his words very cleverly to produce a sort of propaganda for his anti-gun documentry. I'll watch it later tonight and see what he says.

As he does with every single film he's every put out.

And as for gun control, I suggest not disarming people. You think criminals are going to stop using guns just because police wouldn't carry them? Think again, they'll just use it to their advantage.

What I do suggest, however, is full psychological test to anybody wanting to purchase a gun. I can almost guarantee that if they evaluated the man responsible for the shooting, he would most definitely have not been allowed to purchase weapons.

[Flarty]

but that brings the question, what is sane, and whats to stop them having a mental break in the future, and whats to stop them being dishonest in a mental evaluation?

The only way to bring down Gun crime is to get rid of guns.
And yes we know the argument that guns dont kill people, etc etc
but it would certainley hinder the individuals capability to injure someone if you take away their gun.

[TheTaxidermist]

and whats to stop them having a mental break in the future, and whats to stop them being dishonest in a mental evaluation?

The only way to bring down Gun crime is to get rid of guns.
And yes we know the argument that guns dont kill people, etc etc
but it would certainley hinder the individuals capability to injure someone if you take away their gun.

Nothing can stop them from having a mental breakdown in the future, but at least for the moment they cannot purchase a gun legally to murder someone. What's to stop them from being dishonest? Nothing, obviously. But psychiatrists are surprisingly good at picking up on when somebody is being dishonest, or not exactly correct in the head.

And if you take away people's guns, they'll just go around stabbing people if they don't have guns. What's to stop someone from going into a college with a katana and slicing 10 people into bits?

[Black Op]

What's to stop someone from going into a college with a katana and slicing 10 people into bits?
The fact that it's much harder work to stab 10 in one spree than it is to shoot that same number. Quite obvious I think.

[Flarty]

yes what black op said.

[bluseychris]

The fact that it's much harder work to stab 10 in one spree than it is to shoot that same number. Quite obvious I think.

You can out run a person with a sword. You can't out run a bullet.

[TheTaxidermist]

The fact that it's much harder work to stab 10 in one spree than it is to shoot that same number. Quite obvious I think.

True, but you get my point where if people want weapons, they will get weapons, regardless of laws. Sure it could hinder, but it would do little to stop it, especially cases like this where he could easily buy one illegally.

[bluseychris]

That's exactly the point though. It's way easier to defend against someone with a knife than someone with a gun. Given the option I'd rather be up against knifes than guns as I can out run a knife wielder. Someone with a gun can shoot me as I'm running. On top of that you can add Columbine as a good example. The lads were able to buy automatic weapons with no prior background checks. A full check and cool off period would of helped prevent or delay that massacre by a good month if their prior criminal records hadn't prevented them buying guns all together.

Half of the u.s. problem with illegal firearms is their availability. People will buy them at one price and sell them for more on the black market, same as anything else. By reducing the legal availability you can help reduce the illegal availability. A lot of illegally owned guns in the u.s. are probably sold on after being legally purchased or stolen.

[Black Op]

A full check and cool off period would of helped prevent or delay that massacre by a good month if their prior criminal records hadn't prevented them buying guns all together.
Read a post of mine a ways back in this thread. The Columbine shooters did not buy their firearms from gun shops themselves; they had others do it for them.

[John Clabo]

My opinion: Gun control will not keep guns out of the hands of the people willing to use them the wrong way. People who want to obtain weapons to kill innocent people will get those weapons, regardless of the laws put in place.

[Kester]

So explain why it doesn't happen, to the scale it does in America, in England, or other countries where guns are outlawed.

[bluseychris]

Got a lot to do with attitude. When we had Dunblain the reaction ended in a banning of the majority of handguns. When we had the Hungerford massacre it eneded in the banning of semi automatic weapons, the general idea being prevention being better than cure.

The US reaction is more guns not control. Yet gun control would have helped stop the massacre as the shooter had a recorded history of mental illness which would (or should) go against him being able to own a gun. The VT shooter was treated for mental illness in 2005.

While people determined to get hold of guns will do so, gun control can significantly reduce the availability of guns. Although gun crime in the UK is on the rise, the majority of it involves converted/re-enabled weapons.

[TheTaxidermist]

So explain why it doesn't happen, to the scale it does in America, in England, or other countries where guns are outlawed.

It's a different mindset of the people. In Switzerland, every able-bodied man is required to have a gun in his home. How's the crime rate lookin there? Or what about Canada where there are actually more guns than people. How's the crime rate lookin there? I'm telling you, it's not the guns, it's the mindset of the people. It's like a completely different world walking down the streets of New York, than walking down the streets of London.

Edit a semi-incorrect statement: Every able-bodied man in Switzerland is required for military service, and those in military service can be called on at any time to serve, so they need to have a gun in their home.

[Kester]

You'd be suprised how similar the cities in the states and the UK are. It's the guns that do the damage on the large scale, when the mindset is like it is.

It's stupid saying "forget about the guns, as they don't cause it, and it's the mindset". How about taking the guns out of the equation, surely you can see that's going to stop a lot of it?

[Flarty]

i cnt believe people will defend guns so religiously, especially when its a tool designed to only achieving one thing,

[7ty714]

I agree, it's stupid to say guns save lives and make for less crime (http://forums.gamernode.com/showpost.php?p=176418&postcount=25) and stuff because they're designed to kill people with!

[El]

You should blame the guy himself.Nah, that makes too much sense.

[John Clabo]

So explain why it doesn't happen, to the scale it does in America, in England, or other countries where guns are outlawed.

America is a larger scale, so to compare the numbers like that is kinda odd...its a larger country so the numbers are going to be a bit larger.

[bluseychris]

What about Canada where there are actually more guns than people. How's the crime rate lookin there? I'm telling you, it's not the guns, it's the mindset of the people. It's like a completely different world walking down the streets of New York, than walking down the streets of London.

Are you saying that Yanks aren't mature enough to own weapons? :haha:

If the population can't be trusted do what you do with children and take their toys away. Then again there's so many weapons out there that'd you'd have to do a round up involving the army to handle it.

[MarineXGEN]

I can't believe it...

Such a tragedy no matter what.

[Black Op]

America is a larger scale, so to compare the numbers like that is kinda odd...its a larger country so the numbers are going to be a bit larger.
Size matters not; Iraq is not as large as the US, and yet that country obviously has a much worse problem dealing with gun (and bomb) violence. It all depends on how well gun laws can be enforced; not on the mere size of a territory.

[geostigma]

So explain why it doesn't happen, to the scale it does in America, in England, or other countries where guns are outlawed.

Canada, we have guns. Way less issues with shootings.

[Panther]

Too many stupid people have said stupid things in this thread.

[Not_My_Style]

Too many stupid people have said stupid things in this thread.

I won't believe you without examples. :)

[EclipseSix]

Canada, we have guns. Way less issues with shootings.

IIRC, canada has stricter gun laws then we do.

[Not_My_Style]

IIRC, canada has stricter gun laws then we do.

Yep, I second that. That's why you have less gun violence.

[Jabode]

An interesting documentary on this is Bowling for Columbine. Don't ignore some of the messages it gives just because its Micheal Moore. There is some very well done research and well though out points. It explains, or at least tries to, the violence in America and why it is so much higher then other countries.

[TheTaxidermist]

If people who want to shoot up 32 people at a college want to shoot up 32 people at a college, they WILL find a way to get a gun, legal or not. The only way you could stop that is to completely remove every single gun from America. And last time I checked, we have this thing called the Constitution where somewhere in there it says somethin about the right to bare arms.

[NavMan]

Wrong. He only shot up 32 people because that was how much firepower he had available to him.

Seriously guys come to Australia. We had an even worse massacre, Port Arthur, 35 dead 18 wounded. As soon as this happened, federal and state governments rushed to restrict firearms availability. And now we haven't had a massacre this large since then.

[TheTaxidermist]

Considering this is the largest armed civilian massacre in the States in its entire history, it's not like this kind of thing happens very often.

[Black Op]

And last time I checked, we have this thing called the Constitution where somewhere in there it says somethin about the right to bare arms.
The Constitution is not supposed to be America's Holy Bible which can't be changed under any circumstance due to its utter holiness. If the 18th Amendment can be repealed, so can any other one.

[Vincent]

Out of general interest: what is the 18th amendement?

[Black Op]

It placed a prohibition on alcohol, but was widely disobeyed. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

[rtanger]

The Constitution is not supposed to be America's Holy Bible which can't be changed under any circumstance due to its utter holiness. If the 18th Amendment can be repealed, so can any other one.

I don't think it's that simple. Firstly, the 2nd amendment falls under those first 10 amendments that we all refer to collectively as the Bill of Rights, and contained within those Rights are the very liberties that define the very structure of our country. Our freedom of speech and press, our right to exercise religion freely, our right to fair trial, as well as the other Rights contained therein.

This puts the 2nd amendment in an interesting position, as the way I see it, you cannot so easily dismiss one of these Rights without establishing a precedent that puts our other Rights into jeopardy. These basic Rights might be open to interpretation (spin), but in my honest opinion, should never, ever be turned over.

Mentioning the 18th amdenment (prohibition of alcohol, 1919) was an interesting choice, and the way you presented it does a great disservice to the intense controversy, rise in organized crime, and damage to the economy that Amendment entailed. It was repealed (very quickly, at that) for a very clear reason-- it was a very bad idea. Look what happened when control of a hot commodity such as alcohol was pretty much turned over completely to the underground.....

The issue of gun control is a very sensitive topic for many Americans, and is a strong contributer to the Great Divide in our political ideologies. There really is no black and white on the issue, and the grey area is clearly quite convoluted. I just feel that so easily writing off the 2nd amendment sets a dangerous precedent for the company it keeps in the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure there's a better answer for control, but such concepts are not simple one-step answers. There's too many stances and angles to consider at once to sum up the entire debate in one convenient answer...

edit- actually, I think the 18th amendment serves as an excellent example of the damage an off-the-cuff wave of the Legislative hand can cause if not all factors are considered. Rash partisan decisions to solve more complex problems is certainly not the answer.

[Flarty]

ok, to hell with amendments and rights, did those vitims have a right to life? i think that right was stronger than anyones right to own a weapon.

This is a huge tragedy, and america will have many more to follow unless it begins issuing some serious gun control laws, its a tried and tested method that has worked in many countrys around the world.
And its a lot easier to control the sales of fire arms than it is to control the nuts out there.

And on that note **** your constitution and **** you if you more worried about having your guns taken away instead of having your neighbours life taken away.

sorry if i've offended anyone.

[Not_My_Style]

And on that note **** your constitution and **** you if you more worried about having your guns taken away instead of having your neighbours life taken away.

sorry if i've offended anyone.

The two issues are completely unrelated. People who support the 2nd Amendment are often hunters/gun nuts who will do no harm to another human being. The problem lies with the crazy folks who buy a gun to murder somebody because they're depressed.

It's not like these gun nuts wanted those VT students and professors dead. Just because you support the right to bear arms doesn't mean you support the killing of innocent civilians.

On that note, I believe the 2nd Amendment should be removed from the Constitution because it obviously has no bearing, no pun intended, on today's society. The 2nd Amendment was for post-Revolution War worries of invasion. I don't think our forefathers could predict the future, or could they? :huh:

[Flarty]

your missing my point completely, which is whats more important, your right to own a firearm or the needless victims of firearms right to life?

[Not_My_Style]

your missing my point completely, which is whats more important, your right to own a firearm or the needless victims of firearms right to life?

Well, even if laws were put into place, it wouldn't necessarily stop this type of violence. The black market is always an option, buying it legally at a store is just easier.

[Panther]

Before anyone continues, please read this paper, The Failed Experiment (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf) by Dr Mauser.

[John Clabo]

An interesting documentary on this is Bowling for Columbine. Don't ignore some of the messages it gives just because its Micheal Moore. There is some very well done research and well though out points. It explains, or at least tries to, the violence in America and why it is so much higher then other countries.

Micheal Moore and well done research are words that should never be within the same post hehe. :dry:

[Garcian Smith]

I think this case in particular, relies heavily not on Gun Laws, but whether or not his mental problems were detected early enough for this tragedy to have been averted.

A lot of the understanding and closure for the families could rest on whether his problems had been detected, but had - for lack of a better word - been ignored.

[TheTaxidermist]

Before anyone continues, please read this paper, The Failed Experiment (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf) by Dr Mauser.

That was a very interesting read and proved exactly what I've been saying all along.

[bluseychris]

That was a very interesting read and proved exactly what I've been saying all along.

That's actually a load of bollocks for the most part. It cites percentages but it doesn't cite hard numbers, the actual amounts. You could say that gun crime in switzerland has gone up 200% compared to the US having dropped by 15% in the past year to justify not putting more control on guns. If the swiss only had one gun crime in the previous year and the US gun crimes had dropped by 150 from 1000 then all it does is distort the facts.

If I wanted to make money on the black market I'd go to the same shop as that cho, buy a couple of guns, go round the rest of the state doing the same and then flog them. I could do a bit of identity theft and profit.

[Panther]

That's actually a load of bollocks for the most part. It cites percentages but it doesn't cite hard numbers, the actual amounts. You could say that gun crime in switzerland has gone up 200% compared to the US having dropped by 15% in the past year to justify not putting more control on guns. If the swiss only had one gun crime in the previous year and the US gun crimes had dropped by 150 from 1000 then all it does is distort the facts.
Considering the size of the samples, this comment is totally irrelevant. He also cites his sources, so if you doubt him go to them and see.


If I wanted to make money on the black market I'd go to the same shop as that cho, buy a couple of guns, go round the rest of the state doing the same and then flog them. I could do a bit of identity theft and profit.

Only you need an FFL to purchase enough guns to make money. Additionally, criminals are on the NICS PPL, which would make it a hard act to do.

Additionally, NICS works on the basis of presumed innocent proven guilty. Once you're found trafficking arms, and YOU WILL BE you'll be convicted your records sent to the FBI and you can kiss your life goodbye.

[Flarty]

Well, even if laws were put into place, it wouldn't necessarily stop this type of violence. The black market is always an option, buying it legally at a store is just easier.

Ok sorry, lets make it easier for this mass killings to occur. that makes perfect sense, we got some right nut jobs out there who aint well adjusted human beings to say the least, but hey who gives a **** if he can get a gun easier than he should?


A lot of the understanding and closure for the families could rest on whether his problems had been detected, but had - for lack of a better word - been ignored.

it has already been stated that he fitted the profile to do such things and was offered help, but denyed it. with that said, he fitted a profile to do such a thing and he was still able to get hold of a gun?
fan-****ing-tastic

and panther any paper that use's percentages is a load of bollocks, whats to say the percentages wouldnt change drastically when you increase the hard numbers they are derived from?

[NavMan]

Ok sorry, lets make it easier for this mass killings to occur. that makes perfect sense, we got some right nut jobs out there who aint well adjusted human beings to say the list, but hey who gives a **** if he can get a gun easier than he should?

Exactly my thoughts. If that korean guys lived and snapped in Australia, he may have stabbed the girl and maybe injured the person who came to check.

Of course this is just speculation, but I reckon the second round of killings only happened because he had the gun and so much ammo. It was an on-the-spot, psychotic decision.

[Kester]

I totally agree, Navman. Unfortunately, however, Americans, who cite the right to bare arms crap, don't appear to be able to understand that, and seem to think it's quite easy to kill 32 people with a knife or other similar weapon.

[P-Thunder.]

I dont understand why americancs feel the need to carry firearms. What good becomes of them? For protection? If people did not carry guns then you would not need them for protection.

[NavMan]

Because all the gangs and criminals carry guns. But those gangs and criminals have them in the first place because of the stupid gun laws.

[Panther]

and panther any paper that use's percentages is a load of bollocks, whats to say the percentages wouldnt change drastically when you increase the hard numbers they are derived from?

"Hard numbers" mean nothing. When comparing two populations you need to normalise the results.

And what is your point about percentages? In first year stat you learn about proportions and percentages. In fact this is what is most useful as a statistic not just raw numbers. Why because they are more statistically significant and are less likely to be affected by sample bias.

Ok sorry, lets make it easier for this mass killings to occur. that makes perfect sense, we got some right nut jobs out there who aint well adjusted human beings to say the least, but hey who gives a **** if he can get a gun easier than he should?

Actually the reason he could get a gun was on the miscommunication between the courts and NICS. According to the National Firearms Act of 1968:
"Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution." is banned from owning a firearm. Legally, Cho should not have had access to a gun, but he wasn't in the NICS list.

However, I will find you ridiculously incapable of reason if you will not agree with this statement. If just one student or teacher had his CCW weapon which is allowed by state law Cho would have been killed before he did much more damage.

Lastly, your arguments are completely vacuous because they are hypotheticals. In theory these are limited and maybe taken to a logical but rather unrealistic extreme.

You have not cited one source, no scholarly research, just lambasting your views on others.

[TheTaxidermist]

With stricter gun laws in order, do you honestly think the criminals are going to give up their already purchased weapons? Good luck there buddy. This way the law-abiding safe gun owners will be without protection and the criminals will go on rampages.

[Kester]

Criminals don't go on gun rampages in England, yet it's is widely known, as I have said many times, that gun are readily available in the UK if you know where to look.

The police should be the protection, not some person taking the law into their own hands in "defence".

Can I ask you this? Do you honestly believe that if only the crims had guns that it would be a totally slaughter everytime a crim did something where loads of innocent people would be shot?

[Flarty]

@ Panther, ok so you use statistics and pretend they are 100% solid evidence, ill stick to my point of all they do is give a rough idea.
And how about i use you as my source?


Actually the reason he could get a gun was on the miscommunication between the courts and NICS. According to the National Firearms Act of 1968:
"Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution." is banned from owning a firearm. Legally, Cho should not have had access to a gun, but he wasn't in the NICS list.


One of many reasons why tighter gun control and laws are needed. Besides i dont think he was actually adjudicated from what i've seen on news reports, the school had said he fits the criteria of someone who could suffer a mental break of some sorts and offered him counselling which he turned down.

I might not of qouted any sources like you, but that's because im talking simple common sense,
Kester is right there is always alternatives to get firearms but at least its a very limited alternative and not as readily available as they are from a gun store.
As for criminals not handing in there guns, you'd be surprised by the results of firearm amnesties we have had here in the u.k after the burger bar boys and johnson crew shootings in birmingham a good few years back.

[P-Thunder.]

South london is getting bad for gun crime, all the black "wanna be gansta" london kids are buying guns.

[Flarty]

actually i believe thats just down to more coverage in the recent years due to the garage and grime explosion in the media, the problem has always been there, its only just being addressed.

[Mad Scientist]

Firstly, i will try and keep my own opinions on gun control out of this as much as possible.

Now, in order for that shooting to happen, a lot of things went wrong. I believe that they can be summarised as follows:

Firstly, the person actually developed a mental illness. Even though this may have been unavoidable, in an ideal world, nobody would like to see someone else develop such an insanity. This may have been due to how others treated him (although this does not excuse the crime), or it may have been due to intrinsic instabilities.

Secondly, the persons mental illness was not detected and treated. Sadly this can only really be blamed on those around him. It is very hard to accuratly self diagnose oneself, so advice and motivation to go and see a pschiatrist has to come from others.

Thirdly, he aquired a firearm. Without going into arguments for and against gun control, i doubt there is anyone here who, in possession of a time machine that took them back to the moment of purchase of those weapons, would not deicde that this fellow SHOULD NOT have had access to guns. Of course this is an insight that gets given only with the basis of hindsight, but it should still be considered that their are individuals in any society who it would not be prudent to give guns to.

Fourthly, he was not prevented from discharging his firearms, and killing those people. The blame for this must rest on the inadequacies of the local police force, for being too slow in reacting.

Now, interestingly, if we look at the general types of these failures, with the exception of the third one, these are all local failures of people in and around the area. The only one that could be classed as a failure do to society at large was his procurment of a firearm, due to the fact that he was (presumably) in his legal rights to do so.

I do not claim to know if that means that gun control is where attention should be focused, but i do find it interesting that this particular link in the chain is distinguished in such a manner.

The jury is out on whether controling guns stops gun crime or not. i would cite the paper provided by panther as a wonderfull eample of pre-baisedness, when the thing goes on to talk about a variety conflicting statistics. I find it entertaining to find paragraphs talking about how the control of guns does not result in less criems with guns, before citing statistics such as table 1 on page seven which clearly states that in America where guns are not restricted, the percentage of violent crimes involving guns is 26%, as apposed to the restrictive UK where the same figure is estimated at 1%.

The report also makes the horrible flaw of not comparing things ceteris paribus. There are many factors involved in this that mean the reasearcher in this paper rarely compares like with like. Indeed the writer makes a couple of halfhearted acknowledgments of such things when he notes that "English gun laws are ineffectively enforced" demonstraiting that the principle of the laws themselves are fine, but the enforcement isn't. This also flies in the face of some of his earlier statments. Give me 2 hours on microsoft excel, and i could reinterpret all that data (without altering it) to make it look as though gun restrictions are the only things that stand between us and the imminent destruction of western civilisation. It is poor data and poorly examined. Ladies and gents, I would love to see what shredded remains of this paper came out of the peer review proccess.

That said, the general goals of the paper could still be correct. Its just that paper does a piss-poor job of bringing any meaningfull interpretation to bear. Ultimatly, this "experiement" (as he calls it) of a restictive attitude to guns has only run for a few years. If a better written paper came out in perhaps another 5 to 7 years, then its results may be more authoratative, but that report isn't worth the paper its printed on. I'm not saying this settles the argument over gun control or not. Only that proponents, and opponents need to work harder.

[Flarty]

i dont think no one is trying to say tighter gun control or the banning of guns is going to completely stop gun crime, but you have to acknowledge its a step in the right direction.

And as for the lad developing a mental disorder, its been reported he was offered therapy, but its the old age truth that you cant help someone who doesnt want to be helped.

and its is a shame he didnt have the friends who could give him the support and urge him to get some proffesional help.

No one is denying all these factors contributed to this horrific event, but if this happened next week, in a completely diffrent part of the states, then all contributing factors could be completely diffrent. Though the current trend does seem to be that the weapons used to commit these crimes were purchased legally from a gun store at some point.

as always though an intresting read mad scientist

p.s sorry about the spellin im eating me dinner.

[7ty714]

Yes, great read, thumbs up Mad, you address everything people seem to miss.

[Vincent]

that gun are readily available in the UK if you know where to look.


I've read in the newspapers that there are candy shops in London selling guns for 50 Pounds, is this true :ohmy:??

[Garcian Smith]

I was in Bolton town centre (to the North of England) a while ago, and there was a small Newsagents that sold - yes, Candy - and also Ball Bearing air pistols.

They ranged from £15-£35. It's worrying.

[TheTaxidermist]

Secondly, the persons mental illness was not detected and treated. Sadly this can only really be blamed on those around him. It is very hard to accuratly self diagnose oneself, so advice and motivation to go and see a pschiatrist has to come from others.


If a person hasn't done anything (such as killing people), he cannot be forced to stay in a mental institution. It can be recommended. And from what I've heard his teacher did advise him to see someone. But it was up to him. Nobody could force him to do it. Unless you actually commit a crime and are sentenced to be in a mental institution, there's nothing you can do.


Fourthly, he was not prevented from discharging his firearms, and killing those people. The blame for this must rest on the inadequacies of the local police force, for being too slow in reacting.
If I recall correctly, the doors were chained from inside. By the time the police managed to get inside it was too late. Not to mention, to get a swat team there, it would have taken even longer.

And in Pittsburgh, I'd say only about 2% (if even that) of violent crimes are actually committed with guns. And when there are instances of gun crimes, these are people that would more than likely obtain a firearm illegally if necessary. For example, a shooting around a local school where a boy(17 years old I think) shot two people sitting in a car with an AK-47. Would gun laws have helped in that instance? Obviously no.

[Flarty]

no but gun laws would of helped in this instance, and thats the point. if the states had stricter gun laws we would only have the ak47 incident, and we wouldnt have this thread.

[Black Op]

If a person hasn't done anything (such as killing people), he cannot be forced to stay in a mental institution. It can be recommended. And from what I've heard his teacher did advise him to see someone. But it was up to him. Nobody could force him to do it. Unless you actually commit a crime and are sentenced to be in a mental institution, there's nothing you can do.
Not to be undemocratic here, but perhaps society should realize that we can't count on all these disturbed individuals to commit themsleves to mental institutions to recieve help. If someone notices someone that needs help, they should be encouraged to report possible nutjobs so they can evaluate the person in question. If there is enough evidence to suggest signs of a mental illness, then by law that person will have to stay in a mental institution untill cured. To avoid any misuse of this system, the standards for "convicting" someone (for lack of a better term) for a mental problem should be more or less similar to those in criminal cases.

If I recall correctly, the doors were chained from inside. By the time the police managed to get inside it was too late. Not to mention, to get a swat team there, it would have taken even longer.
Two shootings in a nearby building preceeded the actual massacre. Classes could have been canceled and further bloodshed might not have happened to the excess that took place.

And in Pittsburgh, I'd say only about 2% (if even that) of violent crimes are actually committed with guns.
Where did you get your percentage from?

[Garcian Smith]

Not to be undemocratic here, but perhaps society should realize that we can't count on all these disturbed individuals to commit themsleves to mental institutions to recieve help.

I agree with you, somewhat. Unfortunately, in regards to the young man who committed this mass-murder - as far as I can tell - his major 'symptom' of mental health problems were his creative writings. If an individual exhibited symptoms like being physically unpredictable (such as violently lashing out), then I agree, but to institutionalise someone because of writings? That could have major implications.

If someone notices someone that needs help, they should be encouraged to report possible nutjobs so they can evaluate the person in question. If there is enough evidence to suggest signs of a mental illness, then by law that person will have to stay in a mental institution untill cured.

This brings up the potential hazard of how does a legislative body define the level of mental health problems to be severe enough to warrant what sounds like imprisonment? Would an entirely new bureau have to be established in every province to 'enforce' this?

Personally, I think that - just like criminals - there is never a 100% certainty that those with mental health problems will be 'cured'. So therefore, if someone is considered a danger to others because of his/her problems, surely they should be kept out of the public for good?

To avoid any misuse of this system, the standards for "convicting" someone (for lack of a better term) for a mental problem should be more or less similar to those in criminal cases.

Perhaps 'diagnosing' would be a better terminology.

This also throws up some problems. Specifically that of whether 'diagnosis by jury' which this sounds like, is a practical solution to the problem. Especially when we have to first get over the aforementioned problem of detecting dangerous individuals.

[TheTaxidermist]

no but gun laws would of helped in this instance, and thats the point. if the states had stricter gun laws we would only have the ak47 incident, and we wouldnt have this thread.

The point is, he obviously thought this out very well and could have obtained a gun regardless, very easily, as the boy did in my example.

Not to be undemocratic here, but perhaps society should realize that we can't count on all these disturbed individuals to commit themsleves to mental institutions to recieve help.

Could not agree more. Sadly, that's not the way it is.

Where did you get your percentage from?

Honestly, I made it up. I'm not trying to fool you with that statistic because I could not find that kind of information. But I'm positive there are very few violent acts reported that occur with guns involved. I mean, how many people are getting arrested for gun violence, compared to people being arrested for assault cases not involving guns.

[Panther]

The jury is out on whether controling guns stops gun crime or not. i would cite the paper provided by panther as a wonderfull eample of pre-baisedness, when the thing goes on to talk about a variety conflicting statistics. I find it entertaining to find paragraphs talking about how the control of guns does not result in less criems with guns, before citing statistics such as table 1 on page seven which clearly states that in America where guns are not restricted, the percentage of violent crimes involving guns is 26%, as apposed to the restrictive UK where the same figure is estimated at 1%.

Straw man argument. It really doesn't matter how much violent crime is committed using what weapon. If 1% of violent crimes are committed using a handgun yet more violent crime is committed overall what have you gained? Nothing.


The report also makes the horrible flaw of not comparing things ceteris paribus. There are many factors involved in this that mean the researcher in this paper rarely compares like with like. Indeed the writer makes a couple of halfhearted acknowledgments of such things when he notes that "English gun laws are ineffectively enforced" demonstraiting that the principle of the laws themselves are fine, but the enforcement isn't. This also flies in the face of some of his earlier statments. Give me 2 hours on microsoft excel, and i could reinterpret all that data (without altering it) to make it look as though gun restrictions are the only things that stand between us and the imminent destruction of western civilisation. It is poor data and poorly examined. Ladies and gents, I would love to see what shredded remains of this paper came out of the peer review proccess.

That is quite obvious. The point is to show the the positive assertion of "the experiment" is wrong. The argument is the restriction of guns in itself is wrong, and one of the many reasons is it also assumes without good reason ceteris paribus. He is not asserting anything beyond this AFAIK.

The argument begins the right to bear arms unrestricted, and is the prima facie. Henceforth, further restrictions must be proved to work before they are acceptable.


That said, the general goals of the paper could still be correct. Its just that paper does a piss-poor job of bringing any meaningfull interpretation to bear. Ultimatly, this "experiement" (as he calls it) of a restictive attitude to guns has only run for a few years. If a better written paper came out in perhaps another 5 to 7 years, then its results may be more authoratative, but that report isn't worth the paper its printed on. I'm not saying this settles the argument over gun control or not. Only that proponents, and opponents need to work harder.

The point of the paper, is that gun control has no effect on violent crime. It's a direct response to gun control = less violent crime.

Besides i dont think he was actually adjudicated from what i've seen on news reports, the school had said he fits the criteria of someone who could suffer a mental break of some sorts and offered him counselling which he turned down.

Yes he was adjudicated, because a magistrate found him to be "mentally ill" and "an imminent danger to himself". Notice this IS a mental illness. This fulfils the criteria of GCA68.

[jackattack502]

I've just saw this on TV, I hope they won't blame Videogames...

Too late

[Garcian Smith]

Specifically? Counter Strike...

[Flarty]

Yes he was adjudicated, because a magistrate found him to be "mentally ill" and "an imminent danger to himself". Notice this IS a mental illness. This fulfils the criteria of GCA68.

Do you mind posting the source for this please, all i have heard is several news reports saying what i have stated about him being advised by teachers to seek therapy.

And your argument saying we should not restrict gun laws till we know if the restriction will reduce crime, well erm how are you going to know that till you try it?

[Vincent]

Specifically? Counter Strike...
He just picks the most popular games, or maybe he just says the first game which comes in his head :dry:

[Mad Scientist]

maybe he just says the first game which comes in his head :dry:

and so, i think it is time we remove this evil from society! It is time to cast down this heinous invention that is corrupting our youth, and turning them into violent hoodlums! Ladies and gentlemen, i think it is abundantly clear, that it is for the good of our civilization that we entirely get rid of pong!

Ahem...

Anyhow more seriously, one little point.

The point of the paper, is that gun control has no effect on violent crime. It's a direct response to gun control = less violent crime.

Panther, i don't think ANYBODY here has been arguing that gun control will reduce violent crime. If they are then I would be the first to agree with your point of view. However what many people have succinctly pointed out is that controlling firearms DOES lead to less violent crimes that involves guns. Most people that i know categorically believe that a violent crime that involves a gun is worse than one that does NOT involve a gun. That is why gun restriction does not reduce violent crime in total, but it makes those violent crimes that do happen not as serious because criminals more often than not are unable to procure a firearm. I would be interested to know how many people the gunman at Va Tech would have been able to murder, had he been limited to a knife or cudgel, rather than a gun.

[Panther]

However what many people have succinctly pointed out is that controlling firearms DOES lead to less violent crimes that involves guns. Most people that i know categorically believe that a violent crime that involves a gun is worse than one that does NOT involve a gun. That is why gun restriction does not reduce violent crime in total, but it makes those violent crimes that do happen not as serious because criminals more often than not are unable to procure a firearm.

Yes, beating someone to death with a baseball bat is far less serious. I agree.

I would be interested to know how many people the gunman at Va Tech would have been able to murder, had he been limited to a knife or cudgel, rather than a gun.

Probably less, but that's like asking what if the Carthaginians won the Second Punic War, nice for speculation but totally useless. The fact is since Bochardt invented his pistol, guns are here to STAY. You can't get rid of them, so one must learn to live with them.

The controls were there, they just weren't executed properly.

[bluseychris]

Considering the size of the samples, this comment is totally irrelevant. He also cites his sources, so if you doubt him go to them and see.

Not really, gun crime in the UK can involve simple possesion owing to the fact that the majority of firearms are illegal. Secondly using an immitation firearm to threaten someone counts a a gun crime, as does being caught in possesion of a gun shaped cigarette lighter (illegal). There's more in the UK that counts as gun crime the more laws are brought in. Look at the U.S. and you'll see that various bans have lapsed or been repealed over the years. This means that less things fall under the catagory of gun crime. Has no bearing on how safe the country is. He also fails to address the situation of whether or not US cops need guns. If they do then the free availability of guns goes toward the argument that the free availability of firearms is detrimental. In the UK we don't need to arm our police, all firearms are handled by armed response anyway (excluding MDP where all officers are armed 75% of the time).

Only you need an FFL to purchase enough guns to make money. Additionally, criminals are on the NICS PPL, which would make it a hard act to do.

Not your using identity theft. You go somewhere else and use different identity. It's big in the UK at the moment.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

Have a look a the various state laws including those of Virginia.

Additionally, NICS works on the basis of presumed innocent proven guilty.

Wow, they've actually caught up with the rest of the world in terms of civility! Shocking.

Once you're found trafficking arms, and YOU WILL BE you'll be convicted your records sent to the FBI and you can kiss your life goodbye.

Like anywhere really.

[TheTaxidermist]

Panther, i don't think ANYBODY here has been arguing that gun control will reduce violent crime.

If gun control does not reduce violent crime, why even bother wasting time on it?

And how can you say beating someone to death with a baseball bat is less serious than shooting someone to death? If I recall correctly they both end up in death. And in my opinion, beating someone to death with a baseball bat is a bit more personal than just shooting someone from 50 feet away.

[Vincent]

It is much harder to kill 32 people with a baseball bat though :-O

[TheTaxidermist]

You guys don't get it. If somebody really wants to murder 32 people, they WILL GET A GUN, LEGAL OR NOT. I bet you any money that if they turned him down for a weapon, he would have gotten one illegally.

[bluseychris]

You guys don't get it. If somebody really wants to murder 32 people, they WILL GET A GUN, LEGAL OR NOT. I bet you any money that if they turned him down for a weapon, he would have gotten one illegally.

And how do you think most illegal weapons reach the US black market? Over here you have to convert a replica or disabalised weapon to get hold of anything but a double barrel shotgun. That or smuggle them in. It's easier to import disabled firearms (legal) and re-enable them (illegal).

[Mad Scientist]

You guys don't get it. If somebody really wants to murder 32 people, they WILL GET A GUN, LEGAL OR NOT. I bet you any money that if they turned him down for a weapon, he would have gotten one illegally.

And what about that person who is but a petty thief? The one is not so determined? There is no denying the fact that if you make guns harder to get, then some criminals who would otherwise have guns will now not have them.

The question is not one of "does restricting gun ownership result in less crime with guns?" That is pretty much a fact. The question is "is the reduction in gun crime worth the cost of not being able to get a gun so easily". As to that, i have my own opinion, but it is not one i will articulate in detail here.

Yes, beating someone to death with a baseball bat is far less serious. I agree.

Then in that case i am glad we do agree, whether sarcasm was intended or not. With weapons that are but knives or blunt instruments, it is far easier to defend oneself, without having to resort to excessive force. One can even take self defence classes to such effect. What defence is is their against someone with a handgun standing out of reach?

And i'm sure you would not indignify such a response with something along the lines of "a bigger gun".

Probably less, but that's like asking what if the Carthaginians won the Second Punic War, nice for speculation but totally useless.

Actually, i would argue that thought experiments on matters such as these are extremely useful. It is by examining what went wrong, and comparing it with what we want to go right that we make progress. If i make a circuit in which a component explodes, i most certainly would not count it a waste of time to ask "what is that component had been of a different rating?". It is by asking such questions that we learn from our mistakes.

The controls were there, they just weren't executed properly.

I have to say that i have never been in disagreement with this. But i will point out that a poorly executed control can be every bit as bad as a simply poor control. Its an irrelevant point, but something i would point out anyway.

[Panther]

And what about that person who is but a petty thief? The one is not so determined? There is no denying the fact that if you make guns harder to get, then some criminals who would otherwise have guns will now not have them.

Depends on what you mean by "harder". If it is simply taking away guns from LAFOs (Law Abiding Firearm Owners), this does not dry up the supply of firearms. Even in totalitarian countries firearms are still very acquirable. You just need the right connections. The reasons their violent crime rates are so low (discounting of course crimes by the state) is they have draconian punishments and enforcements.

The question is not one of "does restricting gun ownership result in less crime with guns?" That is pretty much a fact. The question is "is the reduction in gun crime worth the cost of not being able to get a gun so easily". As to that, i have my own opinion, but it is not one i will articulate in detail here.

You actually have to look at it the other way "Is the ability to get a gun easily without government interference worth the cost of gun crime?"

You don't assume the citizen is guilty. You have to justify the restriction not the improperness of restriction.


Then in that case i am glad we do agree, whether sarcasm was intended or not. With weapons that are but knives or blunt instruments, it is far easier to defend oneself, without having to resort to excessive force. One can even take self defence classes to such effect. What defence is is their against someone with a handgun standing out of reach?

Mad Scientist please do some hoplological research and see how dumb you sound. All the "training" in "self-defence" still relies on the physical prowess of the practitioner. Additionally, strength is often a decisive factor in determining the victor of the encounter.

Finally, their defence against "against someone with a handgun standing out of reach" is their own handgun. There's a reason they're called the "great equaliser". Most scumbags do not like even fights.


Actually, i would argue that thought experiments on matters such as these are extremely useful. It is by examining what went wrong, and comparing it with what we want to go right that we make progress. If i make a circuit in which a component explodes, i most certainly would not count it a waste of time to ask "what is that component had been of a different rating?". It is by asking such questions that we learn from our mistakes.

Yeah, but the things we learn must be useful. Your speculation is not useful beyond the technical study of an engagement because you framed it as "how many people the gunman at Va Tech would have been able to murder, had he been limited to a knife or cudgel, rather than a gun.". As a policy issue it is too narrow. He should have not had access to any firearms, but thanks to the break down in communications he did. I doubt he would have gone on the first place with a knife or cudgel. He was rational enough to maximise his damage potential by closing off an exit, and I think he would have been rational enough to think that using a bladed weapon would not achieve his objectives.


I have to say that i have never been in disagreement with this. But i will point out that a poorly executed control can be every bit as bad as a simply poor control. Its an irrelevant point, but something i would point out anyway.

And that then is the crux of the argument, and not the actual existence of the control.

And how do you think most illegal weapons reach the US black market? Over here you have to convert a replica or disabalised weapon to get hold of anything but a double barrel shotgun. That or smuggle them in. It's easier to import disabled firearms (legal) and re-enable them (illegal).

In the US:
Mexico & Canada. The US has two large land borders, and they are traditionally easier for smuggling than the sea because it's easier to track boats over open sea rather than hundred of miles of border where any point can have smuggling groups moving through.


Not really, gun crime in the UK can involve simple possesion owing to the fact that the majority of firearms are illegal.

So can in the US. Illegal possession is exactly the same everywhere; you have a weapon in your possession you are not supposed to.

Secondly using an immitation firearm to threaten someone counts a a gun crime, as does being caught in possesion of a gun shaped cigarette lighter (illegal).There's more in the UK that counts as gun crime the more laws are brought in.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. From the perspective of the victim those still look like guns and they still react to them as REAL GUNS, so there's no difference in counting them as different. The only useful application is to distinguish what is being used in gun crime.



Look at the U.S. and you'll see that various bans have lapsed or been repealed over the years. This means that less things fall under the catagory of gun crime. Has no bearing on how safe the country is.

Which means the statistics highlight the "true" use of guns IN CRIME, as opposed to mere possession. This is where the measurement of safety comes from. Now possession by a CRIMINAL counts as guns used IN CRIME.

He also fails to address the situation of whether or not US cops need guns. If they do then the free availability of guns goes toward the argument that the free availability of firearms is detrimental. In the UK we don't need to arm our police, all firearms are handled by armed response anyway (excluding MDP where all officers are armed 75% of the time).

That's pretty irrelevant. There's plenty of places where cops use guns but the availability of guns is minimal, and that's still defined as "cops need guns". Besides your definition erroneous. If violent crime is low but the population is armed then the police must be armed to achieve parity because they are part of the populace. The police are simple the populace there to help control crime, and as such they need parity with their population. Your argument simply stems from "guns are bad".

[Flarty]

panther, i take it you've never been in many fights, strength isnt always a factor.

And i'm still in disbelief that you cant even acknowledge the smallest possibility that tighter gun control might even help reduce gun crime by the tiniest percentage.

[Panther]

panther, i take it you've never been in many fights, strength isnt always a factor.

It appears the other be the other way around, because had it been the case you would come to the exact same conclusion. I've too much anecdotal evidence of women still being victims of violence despite taking "self-defence" classes.