Another Shooting at a University

[skavenhorde]

Just saw this on CNN, there has been another shooting in America. It happened in northern Illinois. I've got no words for this other than I hope they don't plaster the shooters face all over the net again and do a life story on the guy, it will just create more of these sick people who want to be famous at any cost.

[Remus]

Guns don't kill people but i think now there should be at least more limited accessibility to guns in the US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKRA48086720080214?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10005

[curiously undead]

guns don't kill people
death does;)

[Corwin]

No, it's the bullets inside the guns!! This stuff sickens me; AMERICA, WAKE UP and do something about access to guns!! Stuff your right to bear arms, get with the 21st century!!!!

[Ionstormsucks]

No, it's the bullets inside the guns!! This stuff sickens me; AMERICA, WAKE UP and do something about access to guns!! Stuff your right to bear arms, get with the 21st century!!!!

That probably won't happen... they should just give every student and professor one or two guns and ammunition for free, so they can at least shoot back should one of them crazies show up.

[Remus]

I remember years ago i argued on rpgdot on guns control issue and i'm kind of leaning toward pro-gun rights. A lot of other related issues such as Second Admendment and defensive gun use (the violence in America) involved. But at this rate something else must be done. Imaging everyone has guns and everyone is in bad mood or with serious personal problems on a particular day...

[JemyM]

I believe the US have dug a trap for itself that cannot be escaped easily. There's simply so many guns in circulation that it makes sense to have your own. It's a warzone.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

If Civil War would break out in a sudden,
everyone would have a weapon.
No doubt.

So let's hope this doesn't happen. ;)

[blatantninja]

No, it's the bullets inside the guns!! This stuff sickens me; AMERICA, WAKE UP and do something about access to guns!! Stuff your right to bear arms, get with the 21st century!!!!

Sorry, but changing the right to bear arms will do nothing to stop gun violence. For two reasons: 1) There are already enough guns out there, that access isn't that hard through illegal means. 2) Criminals have never followed the existing laws on gun control, why would they follow any new ones?

I'm all for background checks and such, but I also believe firmly in a citizen's right to own weapons to defend themselves. As someone that has been in a house while it was being broken into, I will never give up my guns.

This guy obviously wanted to kill people. If it wasn't guns, it would be homemade pipe bombs or something else. Hell, you can find the plans for such with just a quick google search and you can make them without any prohibited or illegal materials.

Our issue isn't access to guns. Our issue is that we have a society that is inherently more violent than other western societies. Identifying the reasons for that should be the focus, not more useless legislation that will just make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Hell, in Texas, we have concealed handgun licenses. When this law went into effect in 1994 (IIRC), people were screaming about how it would increase gun violence. While we still have an above average gun violence rate, it was not impacted in any significant manner, one way or the other, by the ability of private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest guns laws in the U.S., yet still has violence rates well above nearly every other major city.

People are the problem, not guns.

[Squeek]

Some people on these forums have suggested that, due to the actions of the US government, US citizens deserve to be killed in retaliation, that their deaths are equitable. What if this guy bought into that and was merely retaliating. Would that justify these killings?

Of course it wouldn't.

[mudsling3]

Guns are dangerous, the only thing more dangerous is without them - G E Griffin

When life is hung on by the seconds, cops will only be minutes away. Thanks you

[JemyM]

Our issue isn't access to guns. Our issue is that we have a society that is inherently more violent than other western societies. Identifying the reasons for that should be the focus, not more useless legislation that will just make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Nah. Your issue is access to guns. People gets pissed, it's part of our biology and our nature and there's nothing you can do about it unless you wish to start to gene manipulate or drug people.
When Europeans gets really really pissed off and deranged, they simply do not have easy access to guns. They take what they have available, which is usually an axe or knife which are not that effective as killing tools. The large majority of the population do not have the intellect to build homemade weapons and those who do are usually smart enough to not use them.

You have a country where even children and seniors are forced to carry around lethal firearms so they might be able to shoot down lethally armed people before they get killed themselves. People in Europe do not need to live like that. To them, everyday life is not about war and survival.

[Squeek]

You have a country where even children and seniors are forced to carry around lethal firearms so they might be able to shoot down lethally armed people before they get killed themselves.Oh, yeah we're all packing guns! :lol:

I have to admit it sure seems to be headed in that direction, though.

[Ionstormsucks]

People are the problem, not guns.

Reminds me of the old saying "Not guns kill people - people do!" Well, if you're asking me... guns help a lot. It's a bit naiv to believe that the easy availability of guns does not have an impact on a society.

[JemyM]

Oh, yeah we're all packing guns! :lol:
I have to admit it sure seems to be headed in that direction, though.

Yeah. Not all freedoms are worth to die for.

[JemyM]

Reminds me of the old saying "Not guns kill people - people do!" Well, if you're asking me... guns help a lot. It's a bit naiv to believe that the easy availability of guns does not have an impact on a society.

You mean "Guns do not kill people. People kill people." Which is a great argument to give them guns.

[blatantninja]

Nah. Your issue is access to guns. People gets pissed, it's part of our biology and our nature and there's nothing you can do about it unless you wish to start to gene manipulate or drug people.
When Europeans gets really really pissed off and deranged, they simply do not have easy access to guns. They take what they have available, which is usually an axe or knife which are not that effective as killing tools. The large majority of the population do not have the intellect to build homemade weapons and those who do are usually smart enough to not use them.

You have a country where even children and seniors are forced to carry around lethal firearms so they might be able to shoot down lethally armed people before they get killed themselves. People in Europe do not need to live like that. To them, everyday life is not about war and survival.

You'd be suprised how easy those things are to build. Regardless, I don't know what country you're talking about. The vast majority of people in our country walk around all their lives without ever seeing a loaded gun.

Regardless, I've always found it funny how the rest of the world likes to tell the United States that we don't have the right to tell the rest of the world how to live, yet somehow these same people want to tell US how to live! (IE gun control, capital punishment, etc.)

[Dez]

The argument called guns don't kill people is just naiv and silly. People are no more violent in states than they are in europe or asia. We just don't have that kind of firepower available as you do. Easy access to guns makes killing if not easier atleast more tempting. Even a child can pull trigger, but building a home-made bomb or slicing someone's throath with a knife is a lot harder task to pull off. Only sensible reason why a civilian should be allowed to own a firearm is hunting. Aside hunting rifles, every other firearm type should be banned.

[blatantninja]

Reminds me of the old saying "Not guns kill people - people do!" Well, if you're asking me... guns help a lot. It's a bit naiv to believe that the easy availability of guns does not have an impact on a society.

It's not as easy as you'd think. Pretty much every state mandates a waiting period and criminal background check before you can purchase a weapon.

Regardless, this guy apparently went off his meds about a week ago and began acting erratically. Here's an idea, if you've been prescribed medicine to control a psychotic behavior, TAKE THEM!!! And if you don't want to, you go to jail or the mental ward.

[JemyM]

You'd be suprised how easy those things are to build.

Point is, I, like the majority of my people, do not KNOW how easy those things are to build and if I did I would have to go through the hassle to find out. You can use the same analogy on why the majority of the population buy ready-made computers when they are easy to put together and much cheaper.

Regardless, I've always found it funny how the rest of the world likes to tell the United States that we don't have the right to tell the rest of the world how to live, yet somehow these same people want to tell US how to live! (IE gun control, capital punishment, etc.)

The US is the only country I know that made their lifestyle into a product. It sells to the young population and it's not always a good one. Thus the mix between "stop poisoning our culture with your culture" and "fix your culture" makes sense.

[blatantninja]

The argument called guns don't kill people is just naiv and silly. People are no more violent in states than they are in europe or asia. We just don't have that kind of firepower available as you do. Easy access to guns makes killing if not easier atleast more tempting. Even a child can pull trigger, but building a home-made bomb or slicing someone's throath with a knife is a lot harder task to pull off. Only sensible reason why a civilian should be allowed to own a firearm is hunting. Aside hunting rifles, every other firearm type should be banned.

Tempting? No. I could buy easier, but not tempting.

As for children, I think you should be tossed in jail if you have kids and don't keep your guns in a childproof case. That's just bad parenting.

Banning guns is a bad idea. Forget the fact that having them for home protection is a very valid reason, just consider what the first thing any fascist state does: round up the guns/gun owners. I simply don't trust my government (or any government) enough to let them have all the weapons. There is a reason that the founding fathers of our country felt the need to include the right to bear arms.

[blatantninja]

Point is, I, like the majority of my people, do not KNOW how easy those things are to build and if I did I would have to go through the hassle to find out. You can use the same analogy on why the majority of the population buy ready-made computers when they are easy to put together and much cheaper.

Like I said, a quick google search and you will know. Should we ban the internet as well?


The US is the only country I know that made their lifestyle into a product. It sells to the young population and it's not always a good one. Thus the mix between "stop poisoning our culture with your culture" and "fix your culture" makes sense.

I was referring more to the actual government interference than culture. Regardless if what we are packaging, no one is being forced to import it. So it really doesn't make sense.

[JemyM]

Like I said, a quick google search and you will know. Should we ban the internet as well?

Seems like alot of hassle compared to picking the gun out of my fathers locker (if I was a disgruntled teenager) or using that professionally crafted gun that I bought from the store to defend myself while I was still sane.

I was referring more to the actual government interference than culture. Regardless if what we are packaging, no one is being forced to import it. So it really doesn't make sense.

We can have the same argument on all tempting products such as drugs. It sells well to young people.

[blatantninja]

Seems like alot of hassle compared to picking the gun out of my fathers locker (if I was a disgruntled teenager) or using that professionally crafted gun that I bought from the store to defend myself while I was still sane.

If your father left the locker open or it doesn't even have a lock, he should be in jail.
Regardless, for a single murder? Sure, it might be a bit easier than without a gun, but the attacks we've seen at schools require a measurement of planning, hence you're already hassling yourself quite a bit. Again, your arguments fails. If these people are motivated to kill a large number of people, the hassle of building a bomb isn't going to stop them.

We can have the same argument on all tempting products such as drugs. It sells well to young people.

Lots of things sell well to young people. Regardless, you dodge the fundamental question: Why are you buying it? If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you don't want your people to have it, ban the import of it. Of course we all know that just like with the drug trade, it will simply inspire a black market. You have to address the route of the issues, not the convenient excuse.

Just like this argument against guns. 99% of legal gun owners are responsible people that never have their weapons used in any type of crime. Yet the drama queens of the world over react anytime a high profile murder occurs where a gun is involved and say "Ban them all!", never getting at the route of the problem: the person them self.

It's pretty easy for me to use a car to run over someone I have a beef with. No hassle, and even easier than 'getting a gun from my father's locker,' yet I don't see you advocating the elimination of cars because occasionally someone gets intentionally run over.

[Corwin]

The one spurious argument I've seen in this thread is that criminals have guns, so we need them, etc. I don't really care about criminals having guns, THEY don't go around shooting lots of innocent people, the crazies do and America seems to have a lot of them!!

[curiously undead]

most criminals steal, not kill
most murders are commited by people they know not strangers
and most of the "school murders" over the past decade plus are by those with no criminal records. if people still want to hunt they can use a f'ing bow an arrow and for home protection get some mace, knives, or best a bludgeoning weapon like a bat or hockey stick.

[Remus]

..., the crazies do and America seems to have a lot of them!!

Not all mentally insane persons are dangerous, and not all of those involved in the killings in recent years were total nutcase. They're depressed or something like that but pretty much still functional in a lot of other ways. At least they still know how to plan and carried the killings successfully. They just somehow think that killing peoples is the way out of whatever situations they had.

And something more creepy is in the of case Kazmierczak, almost everyone said he was very normal person, in fact, very motivated in live and achieved quite a lot things. Imaging your completely normal best friends or collegue or schoolmate and one day suddenly pull out a bazooka and start firing left and right....

[Corwin]

'Crazies', was meant in a generic sense, rather than intimating that the people had a verifiable mental illness!!

[curiously undead]

it seems scarely like you are rationalizing someone murdering by saying, oh they were just depressed and its good that they were sane enough to plan a killing which somehow makes them superior to those who can't feed themselves without a nurse? so the ability to brandish a weapon makes someone better? intellegence does make a life more valuable than another.

normal is overrated.

and who cares

people justify murder and suicide all the time.

rockstars/moviestars/the rich
its often those who have the 'most' who often seem to value life the least unlike the 1/4 of the world who won't live to see old age and live on about a dollar a day.

is a lack of guns making these people suffer and starve--no its not.
so please anyone who circles the discussion of the access to guns being the core of the issue might as well just stick a quarter in the suicide booth...

apoligies for ranting but this thread should have really been posted in the politcs forum anyhow

[JemyM]

If your father left the locker open or it doesn't even have a lock, he should be in jail.
Regardless, for a single murder? Sure, it might be a bit easier than without a gun, but the attacks we've seen at schools require a measurement of planning, hence you're already hassling yourself quite a bit. Again, your arguments fails. If these people are motivated to kill a large number of people, the hassle of building a bomb isn't going to stop them.

Consider if he did. I go to school, kill about eight people and then myself. My father go to jail for forgetting to have his keys to his locker secured. Does this help the relatives to the victims I killed?

The fact that we do not have many bombs blowing up over here should be obvious to you. A such option is simply not easily available.

Lots of things sell well to young people. Regardless, you dodge the fundamental question: Why are you buying it? If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you don't want your people to have it, ban the import of it. Of course we all know that just like with the drug trade, it will simply inspire a black market. You have to address the route of the issues, not the convenient excuse.

That's an irresponsible comment. Kids do not have the experience of an adult. They cannot distinguish long lasting pleasures from short lasting/dangerous and a parent cannot go around and control their kids like some kind of robot. You can also not ban parts of the market you consider to be harmful to kids. It's the irresponsible lifestyle that is the problem, not the products.

Just like this argument against guns. 99% of legal gun owners are responsible people that never have their weapons used in any type of crime. Yet the drama queens of the world over react anytime a high profile murder occurs where a gun is involved and say "Ban them all!", never getting at the route of the problem: the person them self.

99% of the population would probably be able to store strong drugs in their home without using it as well. It's not a good excuse to have them legalized. The murder rate in the US is a fact and "ban them all" have been the case in Europe for ages.

And the "people is the problem" argument is pretty much nonsense because we cannot ban people. We cannot genetically manipulate people or drug them to become emotionless. People have the right to be angry and they get angry, it's a part of being human, but it's not easy to go from that position to being able to do serious damage.

It's pretty easy for me to use a car to run over someone I have a beef with. No hassle, and even easier than 'getting a gun from my father's locker,' yet I don't see you advocating the elimination of cars because occasionally someone gets intentionally run over.

No, it's not as easy to run over a bunch of specified targets with a car compared to a mass-murder with a gun.

[Ionstormsucks]

Regardless, this guy apparently went off his meds about a week ago and began acting erratically. Here's an idea, if you've been prescribed medicine to control a psychotic behavior, TAKE THEM!!! And if you don't want to, you go to jail or the mental ward.

Or you walk into a gunshop buy two guns, go to your old university and shoot a few people... because that's what the guy did.

It's not as easy as you'd think. Pretty much every state mandates a waiting period and criminal background check before you can purchase a weapon.


Obviously it is. The guy bought two guns six days before the shooting... must be incredibly long waiting times you got there. Fact is that in many other countries he would never have been able to buy these guns because of his mental health problems.


There is a reason that the founding fathers of our country felt the need to include the right to bear arms.


Always bringing in America's founding fathers is pretty lame. It was another country back then and I'm pretty sure your founding fathers didn't have semi-automatic weapons in mind when they came up with the second amendment.


It's pretty easy for me to use a car to run over someone I have a beef with. No hassle, and even easier than 'getting a gun from my father's locker,' yet I don't see you advocating the elimination of cars because occasionally someone gets intentionally run over.


That might be directly connected to the fact that so far we did not witness a Virginia-Tech-Car-massacre. C'mon honestly now... people don't take their car and try to run over 32 people. And if someone does it it's certainly the exception. There is also quite a difference between a car and a gun. If you use a car for killing someone you abuse it... it's not the purpose it was developed for. If you use the gun to kill someone then you used it exactly for what it was made.

[blatantninja]

Consider if he did. I go to school, kill about eight people and then myself. My father go to jail for forgetting to have his keys to his locker secured. Does this help the relatives to the victims I killed?

It doesn't help the victims, but the purpose of punishment isn't to compensate the victim, it's to deter the crime from happening again.

The fact that we do not have many bombs blowing up over here should be obvious to you. A such option is simply not easily available.

It's easily available, but people chose guns.

That's an irresponsible comment. Kids do not have the experience of an adult. They cannot distinguish long lasting pleasures from short lasting/dangerous and a parent cannot go around and control their kids like some kind of robot. You can also not ban parts of the market you consider to be harmful to kids. It's the irresponsible lifestyle that is the problem, not the products.

Nothing irresponsible about it. How about a little responsibility on the parents for what they all their children to be exposed to.


99% of the population would probably be able to store strong drugs in their home without using it as well. It's not a good excuse to have them legalized. The murder rate in the US is a fact and "ban them all" have been the case in Europe for ages.

I doubt 99% of people that stored drugs would not use them, regardless, it's a complete straw-man argument, so try to stay on the topic at hand.

You just illustrated the my point that America is more violent in general as more murders are committed without guns than with them. Guns simply are not the driving factor.

And the "people is the problem" argument is pretty much nonsense because we cannot ban people.

No but we can educate them about how to be a responsible gun owner among other things. We can do a better job of treating mental illness and monitoring those that are on medication.

People have the right to be angry and they get angry, it's a part of being human, but it's not easy to go from that position to being able to do serious damage.

You don't need a gun to do serious damage, as evidenced by the number of deaths that are not gun related.


No, it's not as easy to run over a bunch of specified targets with a car compared to a mass-murder with a gun.

Depends on the situation. In some it is, in some it is not.


Regardless, the fundamental point comes down to the fact that our Founding Fathers felt it was important for the populous to have a right to bear arms both for personal protection as well as protection from tyranny, and no matter what you may think of guns, the day will never come that 2/3 or more of the US agree to override the 2nd Amendment.

[blatantninja]

Or you walk into a gunshop buy two guns, go to your old university and shoot a few people... because that's what the guy did.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. From CNN:

"The guns used in the campus killings were purchased in August, December and February, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

We generally have a standard 7 day waiting period for most firearms. Regardless, the real problem is as follows:

"Kazmierczak had a valid state-required firearm ID card. The application form asks whether the applicant has been treated for mental illness within the past five years."

He lied on his app, and nobody bothered to to check it before allow him to buy guns. A simple check into his history would have found out about his mental illness and kept him from legally buying weapons.

Always bringing in America's founding fathers is pretty lame. It was another country back then and I'm pretty sure your founding fathers didn't have semi-automatic weapons in mind when they came up with the second amendment.

Well I guess we should just tear up the whole thing, huh? I mean screw prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, they never had to consider muslim terrorists either!



That might be directly connected to the fact that so far we did not witness a Virginia-Tech-Car-massacre. C'mon honestly now... people don't take their car and try to run over 32 people. And if someone does it it's certainly the exception. There is also quite a difference between a car and a gun. If you use a car for killing someone you abuse it... it's not the purpose it was developed for. If you use the gun to kill someone then you used it exactly for what it was made.

Of course it's the exception (Though there were three incidents last year that come to mind). So is this type of gun related homicide.

If you use a gun to kill someone in anything other than self-defense, you abuse it. Not much different.

[blatantninja]

Yes, they needed them to murder Indians.

Yeah, I'm sure that was the ONLY reason they wanted them.

[curiously undead]

your right. they need them to keep slaves 'in line' as well.

[GothicGothicness]

We can see a direct link to the shootings and the ease of getting weapons. All of those guys in the shootings got their weapons in more or less legal ways, aside from that this guy lied about his past, another guy took them from his grandad, three people bought them themselves.

If guns were illegal in the US, I sincerely doubt these shootings would happen. The entire reasoning of I Want to be able to protect myself doesn't work very well,,, the criminals have RPG's I also need one so I can protect myself. This kind of thinking just doesn't work, it may prevent some on street robbery with your gun, or some burglary, but the possibility of a more violent outcome is also very possibly, for example the criminal becomes afraid when you pull up the gun, and shoots you when he was just planing to stealing your money......

[JemyM]

It doesn't help the victims, but the purpose of punishment isn't to compensate the victim, it's to deter the crime from happening again.

So you put the father in jail for his lethal mistake so he wont accidentally leave the locker open for his second son/daughter. I bet that son/daughter is happy for that.

It's easily available, but people chose guns.

We have something known as Crime of Passion.
It takes a few seconds to grab an available tool out of impulse and use it on another person. Making a bomb takes time, effort and rational planning. It's not the same. Most people who have strong impulses like that do not have the kind of mindset necessary to craft a murder weapon.

Nothing irresponsible about it. How about a little responsibility on the parents for what they all their children to be exposed to.

If you control your child like a dictator they will grow up to be a dictator. If you want to teach your child the value of freedom and democracy you cannot have the kind of authoritarian control over a child like you suggest. You are forced to let them go and allow them to make their own mistakes. You cannot teach a child to think responsible, it's something they will have to learn by themselves. If they use that freedom to skip education for life and instead pick a "get rich quick" lifestyle they will waste an important part of their lives. The American lifestyle is a tempting but plastic illusion.

I doubt 99% of people that stored drugs would not use them, regardless, it's a complete straw-man argument, so try to stay on the topic at hand. You just illustrated the my point that America is more violent in general as more murders are committed without guns than with them. Guns simply are not the driving factor.

There is a reason why you do not allow a madman to carry guns. The problem is that most people do not realize just how mad a human is. Violence is part of our nature while pacifistic thought and diplomacy is something you learn. Each child have to "adapt" to society, which means reprogramming their natural impulses. We call them who have reprogrammed the impulses "mature" or "adult", but sometimes that's not enough. Normally though a child is adapted at the age of 15-25. If you want to see what mankind is by nature, look at children, especially teenage boys who often coordinate attacks against specific targets, exactly like our ancestors did against their neighbor villages, then equipped with spears and swords.
As a child or adult a human that feels secure runs minimal risk of committing murder and the more insecure a human becomes the more lethal they are. If you want to reduce violence, spend some thought on what in our modern society makes people feel scared and insecure.

No but we can educate them about how to be a responsible gun owner among other things. We can do a better job of treating mental illness and monitoring those that are on medication.

There will always be another child that have not yet learned or another person who are ready to burst even if you do not see it on the surface. Making mistakes is a part of life, they are best made when they are not lethal.

You don't need a gun to do serious damage, as evidenced by the number of deaths that are not gun related.

To kill someone without a gun is not a simple task even if it's possible to do so. Guns are specifically made to overcome these problems and that's why they are so effective. If you compare the death statistics of a country such as France or Sweden with the United States, then I can assure you that the access to guns is the key difference. Sweden is a country that have terrible problems with alcohol so violent turbulence is a norm. With gunlaws like the US I am pretty sure we would have a higher murderrate than you.

Depends on the situation. In some it is, in some it is not. Regardless, the fundamental point comes down to the fact that our Founding Fathers felt it was important for the populous to have a right to bear arms both for personal protection as well as protection from tyranny, and no matter what you may think of guns, the day will never come that 2/3 or more of the US agree to override the 2nd Amendment.

America was founded 1776 which is over 200 years ago. Back then it made sense to have firearms. Sweden for example fought seven wars between 1776-1814. We live in another world today.

[Ionstormsucks]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. From CNN:

"The guns used in the campus killings were purchased in August, December and February, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

We generally have a standard 7 day waiting period for most firearms. Regardless, the real problem is as follows:

"Kazmierczak had a valid state-required firearm ID card. The application form asks whether the applicant has been treated for mental illness within the past five years."

He lied on his app, and nobody bothered to to check it before allow him to buy guns. A simple check into his history would have found out about his mental illness and kept him from legally buying weapons.


The fact that he bought three weapons at three different points in time makes it even worse... not better. Three chances to realize that something is wrong with the guy...

Ask yourself why no one checked... the problem is that in a culture where firearms are considered to be something "normal" people will begin to treat them accordingly. It's exactely this kind of mind set - that everyone has the right to own firearms - that attributes a certain harmlessnes to firearms. How dangerous can they be if everyone has the right to own them?
I won't deny that mistakes are always possible (someone not checking thoroughly) but that you're constantly trying to imply that the USA has strict laws concerning the ownership of firearms is pretty much unbearable.

The crucial problem in the US is that no one aks what you need the weapon for - because you can simply say that you need them for self-defense... after all it's your right. In other countries that's simply not the case. In Germany for example you have (among other thing) to prove that you need the gun - that you are a hunter, a member of a shooting club, that you need it for your job, etc.


Well I guess we should just tear up the whole thing, huh? I mean screw prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, they never had to consider muslim terrorists either!


Right... wild guess... you also believed that the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Sadam was responsible for 9/11? Do you honestly want to tell me that US citizens own weapons to defend themselves against muslim terrorists?


Of course it's the exception (Though there were three incidents last year that come to mind). So is this type of gun related homicide.


I'm not living in the USA, but I seriously doubt that there was any incident last year that is comparable to anything like the shootings that took place. I have not yet heard of someone having being able to intentionally run over 30 people with a car.

We should also not forget that gun violence is not limited to crazies going on a rampage. I mean, have you ever heard of a bank robber threatening the clerk to run him over with a car if he doesn't hand over the money? The same goes for domestic violence. Imagine a jelaous husband finding his wife in bed with another man. Do you really believe he'll use his car to kill him if he has a gun in the house?

The problem with guns is that they provide such an easy and fast way of killing. There is hardly time to think over what you're doing. The victim has hardly any chance to flee or defend him/herself and the risk that the criminal himself is wounded is minimal.


If you use a gun to kill someone in anything other than self-defense, you abuse it. Not much different.

Yes it is... and if you would think for a moment you'd get it. A gun is an instrument of physical or psychological terror. You can't do anything else with it. That's its purpose. Even if you kill someone in self-defense you still kill him. Even if you use a rifle for hunting - you still kill something. There is clearly a difference to multi-functional tools like knives or axes that can be used as a weapon.
Now, I find your statement dubious at best, but let's assume that you're right in saying that if you use a gun in anything other then self-defense then you abuse it. If that's true it should be obvious that the potential of guns for abuse is greater than that of other weapons. I already mentioned the reasons. Of course you can kill someone with a knife... but in the same time someone with a gun will have killed ten people.

[dteowner]

So then, what do we do about second-hand smoke? Kills more non-smokers than guns every single year. Death inflicted on innocent victims by uncaring pigs, no different than this shooting. Better start your protest parades, folks, lest you seem like a pack of hypocrites.

Gun rampages suffer from the same problem as airplane crashes. The number of people killed in airplane crashes is insignificant compared to auto deaths, but airplane crashes kill more people at once and it's usually a far more spectacular event, with balls of fire and huge debris fields. Thus, airplane crashes get more coverage and people will feel safer hopping in their car than getting on a plane.

[Corwin]

Well, here, smoking is banned in all enclosed spaces and within 10 metres of doorways ( I think, but could be wrong on the actual distance ) and is not allowed anywhere near where food is either prepared, served, or eaten!! Otherwise, we'd have to shoot all the smokers and drop bombs on the tobacco companies!! :)

[JemyM]

So then, what do we do about second-hand smoke? Kills more non-smokers than guns every single year. Death inflicted on innocent victims by uncaring pigs, no different than this shooting. Better start your protest parades, folks, lest you seem like a pack of hypocrites.
Gun rampages suffer from the same problem as airplane crashes. The number of people killed in airplane crashes is insignificant compared to auto deaths, but airplane crashes kill more people at once and it's usually a far more spectacular event, with balls of fire and huge debris fields. Thus, airplane crashes get more coverage and people will feel safer hopping in their car than getting on a plane.

I do not see your reasoning here. Every person you can give a good life is a bonus and stacking reasons to die on top of each other does not make any of them ok.

For the record, smoking is pretty much banned in Sweden. There are not many places left in which you are allowed to smoke and smokers are generally discriminated and urged to stop. I cannot compare guns and smoking with vehicles, but there have been alot of effort to reduce deaths in traffic here as well.

[Zaleukos]

EDIT: The smoking ban is luckily limited to publicly accessible spaces (so bars et al are included even if they arent public). I as a non-smoker appreciate the convenience of not smelling old goat when I come home from a night club, but as a liberal I'm deeply troubled by the nanny-statism of the whole thing...

So then, what do we do about second-hand smoke? Kills more non-smokers than guns every single year. Death inflicted on innocent victims by uncaring pigs, no different than this shooting. Better start your protest parades, folks, lest you seem like a pack of hypocrites.

There is one problem with the analogy between guns and most other items that cause deaths in the US though. Guns are largely designed to inflict damage. Cars, cigarettes (pointless and stupid as they may be), and whatnot are not.

Gun rampages suffer from the same problem as airplane crashes. The number of people killed in airplane crashes is insignificant compared to auto deaths, but airplane crashes kill more people at once and it's usually a far more spectacular event, with balls of fire and huge debris fields. Thus, airplane crashes get more coverage and people will feel safer hopping in their car than getting on a plane.

Agree completely about this part. This kind of incident, horrible as it is, represent an outlier. The case for or against gun should IMHO rather be based upon underlying effects on security vs "arms race" against the criminals, but such things are a tad too difficult for your average media to analyze... At most we get Michael Moore propaganda on the issue.

[dteowner]

I do not see your reasoning here. Every person you can give a good life is a bonus and stacking reasons to die on top of each other does not make any of them ok.

For the record, smoking is pretty much banned in Sweden. There are not many places left in which you are allowed to smoke and smokers are generally discriminated and urged to stop. I cannot compare guns and smoking with vehicles, but there have been alot of effort to reduce deaths in traffic here as well.Since you're proposing gun control in the US, a smoking ban in Sweden (while admirable and sadly missing here) is irrelevant. I'm not sure where you're getting "stacking reasons". With a single quick example, I've shown that the gun control folks are jumping up and down about a secondary problem. If they're so wrapped up in saving the world, they should be working on the big problems. That's not to say victims of gun violence are any less important nor any less dead, but if you're going to save the world you've got to prioritize based on impact.

For the record, I don't own a gun and have no intentions of getting one. I'd be perfectly happy if they all disappeared. But it's a minor issue in a world of very large issues.

[txa1265]

cigarettes (pointless and stupid as they may be), and whatnot are not.

For my entire 40++ years of life cigarettes have been known as 'death sticks' ... so I don't know if the argument is so strong ...

[Zaleukos]

For my entire 40++ years of life cigarettes have been known as 'death sticks' ... so I don't know if the argument is so strong ...

They're not primarily designed to cause cancer thoug, and I'm pretty sure that the tobacco industry would be quite happy if they could get rid of that little side effect even if they arent actively working towards that end, and the cigarette would still work as a recreational drug. But would a gun that cant make a hole in its target be able to serve as anything but an ornament?

[Ionstormsucks]

Since you're proposing gun control in the US, a smoking ban in Sweden (while admirable and sadly missing here) is irrelevant. I'm not sure where you're getting "stacking reasons". With a single quick example, I've shown that the gun control folks are jumping up and down about a secondary problem. If they're so wrapped up in saving the world, they should be working on the big problems. That's not to say victims of gun violence are any less important nor any less dead, but if you're going to save the world you've got to prioritize based on impact.

For the record, I don't own a gun and have no intentions of getting one. I'd be perfectly happy if they all disappeared. But it's a minor issue in a world of very large issues.

Sorry mate, but we're neither talking about saving the world, nor are we talking about smoking... we're talking about gun violence. It's like saying - why are people trying to save the whales? They should rather try to save the rain forests because in the great sheme of things the rain forests are more important. Fact is however that the world does not work like that.

Seriously, you came up with with an example that is worthy of the firearms lobby. It neglects nearly all social, logical, emotional and cultural aspects of human life. And, as some people have shown, it also ignores reality (since in many countries smoking in public spaces is no longer allowed).

That you have to prioritize is a theory at best. Why should a society prioritize an issue over another if it has the possibility to deal with both of them? Apart from the fact that it is pretty much impossible from a sociological point of view to achieve such a priorization it also makes no sense because there is no proof that a priorization would lead to a faster or more efficient solution of the problem.

To pick up your example of cars and airplanes... do you really believe that if we stopped working on improving the security of airplanes and focus on improving the security of cars would make cars essentially more safe? What kinda sad society would we be if we could only work on one given problem at a time.

[mudsling3]

Here is the 2nd Amend in the US Constitution: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Out founders understand that portection of citizens' freedom and legal rights depends on their own vigilance. It's designed to keep the government in check and safe guard the 1st Amend. It is not about turkey shooting... I found few would understand this point without indepth knowledge of US history.

A few loonies and accidents happened thus banning regular citizens' access to firearms is nothing short of cutting off your whole arm because a snake once bite your pinky.

[dteowner]

You must be in management, trying to cover every problem equally at the same time with limited resources. By trying to fix every problem in the world at the same time, you end up making minimal progress on anything. Proof is in the pudding, friend, cuz ain't nothing gettin' fixed, whales, rainforests, cigarettes, guns, or otherwise. It may be a theory, but the evidence is on my side.

Similarly, the way you prioritize IS by "neglecting nearly all social, logical, emotional, and cultural aspects of human life" (wow, there's a broad accusation I haven't shouldered before...) and sticking to numbers and facts. Fact: second hand smoke kills more innocent victims than guns. Which one sounds more important to you? Do you save 1 or do you save 10? (and please don't call me out over the numbers, I know the ratio isn't 10:1) Or, do you fiddle around with both problems and save nobody, as you've been doing for some time now?

Finally, I'm not really proposing that we only work on a single issue at any given time. Work generally isn't done by the bleeding hearts--the work (be it engineering, policy change, or social reform) is merely a response to their pressure (and occasionally, leadership). I AM proposing that the bleeding hearts focus their considerable energy applying pressure where they get the most bang for the buck.

[Corwin]

"the most bang for the buck." Ah Dte, so you are advocating gun use!! :) Let me be a real little stirrer here. The ROOT problem is NOT guns, cigarettes, etc, it's people turning their backs on church, religion, the Bible, etc. If basic Christian principles ( eg the golden rule for example ) were still taught in schools, along with scripture readings, etc, as they were when I was young, then many of today's issues would not have been anywhere near as bad.

Lucky I'm going away for a couple of weeks, I think some fiery darts are heading my way!! :)

[Ionstormsucks]

Similarly, the way you prioritize IS by "neglecting nearly all social, logical, emotional, and cultural aspects of human life" (wow, there's a broad accusation I haven't shouldered before...) and sticking to numbers and facts. Fact: second hand smoke kills more innocent victims than guns. Which one sounds more important to you? Do you save 1 or do you save 10? (and please don't call me out over the numbers, I know the ratio isn't 10:1) Or, do you fiddle around with both problems and save nobody, as you've been doing for some time now?


As I said before, there is no proof that focusing on one topic would result in a faster solution. It's just an assumption on your part. We're dealing with a rather abstract problem here which will most likely not follow the pattern "two persons will build a house faster than one person".

You are also neglecting sociological and emotional factors. Most people won't act on a purely logical basis... their decision is based on a lot of factors... their cultural background might play a role, their general political agenda, how much a certain issue concerns them, and many other factors. Even if we assume that what you are proposing is the best solution it would simply never work out. It's also not desirable... imagine everyone would act based on the same list of priorities - that would inevitably lead to neglecting other important topics.
I'd even go so far as to say that such a system of priorities becomes morally questionable at some point. Think about health issues for example (researching diseases, etc.).

The problem with guns in private hands is that it seems to have no advantages whatsoever. Smoking has at least the "quality" that some people can gain a feeling of pleasure from it (despite all its negative side-effects). Guns are supposed to have the "quality" to offer protection... but as it turns out it seems to be just a feeling of safety - but not real safety. If that were true the USA would be a relatively safe country, but if we compare the USA to other, similar countries we have to realize that this is just not the case.

[dteowner]

@Corwin- While you know I'm not a fan of organized religion, I actually believe you are on the right track. People have become largely self-centered, which results in a lack of consideration for others and reduced ability to cope with interpersonal interactions (positive and negative). The symptoms of that disease include violent response, lack of respect for others, and general disinterest. Organized religion (among many vehicles) could serve as a way to reintroduce a sense of community, a support network, and the dismissal of the "every man is an island" mentality. Of course, I like my island...

@ISS- while I can't prove 2 people build a house faster than one, I think we have a fair bit of empirical evidence that 2 people building 17 houses isn't working terribly well right now. You're oversimplifying the idea of priorities. At work, I have about a dozen active projects going right now. I have one which takes precedence (at least until management backslides into trying to ask for everything at once). That doesn't mean that nothing happens on #2-12, that just means that a whole lot more gets done on #1 and when a choice has to be made #1 wins. #1 was selected because it makes the most money for the company right now and in the future. I don't see where it's such a dramatic step to apply that concept to "bleeding heart campaigns". You're really seeing a taste of it with the introduction of hybrid cars. The greenhouse eco-warriors got together with the fossil fuel haters, the government regulators, the energy isolationists, and government researchers to drag public opinion and government policy around to their way of thinking. $3/gallon gas didn't hurt the push, but Detroit had no interest in pursuing hybrid technology until they got gang-tackled by all those bleeding heart groups at the same time.

[JemyM]

@Corwin- While you know I'm not a fan of organized religion, I actually believe you are on the right track. People have become largely self-centered, which results in a lack of consideration for others and reduced ability to cope with interpersonal interactions (positive and negative). The symptoms of that disease include violent response, lack of respect for others, and general disinterest. Organized religion (among many vehicles) could serve as a way to reintroduce a sense of community, a support network, and the dismissal of the "every man is an island" mentality. Of course, I like my island...

We would need a new religion for that. The goal of the major ones is to have a personal relationship with the leader of the world so that you can die and go to paradise. That does not teach responsibility nor attention to the planet or humanity. The major ones also contain an exclusive message that we are better than the rest because we are different than them. That's not a way to get a good worldwide community. Organized religion is really one of the problems rather than the solution. Furthermore, the fundamentalists of the major religions does not seem eager to lay down their weapons. The Christian fundamentalists of the south are outspoken for the Iraqi war and liberal gunlaws while the fundamentalist muslims are not that eager to lay down their weapons.

[Ionstormsucks]

@ISS- while I can't prove 2 people build a house faster than one, I think we have a fair bit of empirical evidence that 2 people building 17 houses isn't working terribly well right now. You're oversimplifying the idea of priorities.


I never said that you have to prove that. What I said was:

We're dealing with a rather abstract problem here which will most likely not follow the pattern "two persons will build a house faster than one person"
What I meant was that social problems are so complex that they do not follow such a simple logic. There are intervening external variables which simply make that impossible (for example social acceptance).


At work, I have about a dozen active projects going right now. I have one which takes precedence (at least until management backslides into trying to ask for everything at once). That doesn't mean that nothing happens on #2-12, that just means that a whole lot more gets done on #1 and when a choice has to be made #1 wins. #1 was selected because it makes the most money for the company right now and in the future. I don't see where it's such a dramatic step to apply that concept to "bleeding heart campaigns". You're really seeing a taste of it with the introduction of hybrid cars. The greenhouse eco-warriors got together with the fossil fuel haters, the government regulators, the energy isolationists, and government researchers to drag public opinion and government policy around to their way of thinking. $3/gallon gas didn't hurt the push, but Detroit had no interest in pursuing hybrid technology until they got gang-tackled by all those bleeding heart groups at the same time.

With all due respect, but if anyone here is oversimplifying it's certainly not me. What you just explained there is pretty much how I understood it all the time. And I'm saying it's neither possible nor desirable to transfer such a system to a larger society.

It should be fairly obvious that society as a whole does not work like a company. Structurally and from a social point of view it's simply not the same. A company has to work under the premise to do what is most beneficial to the company. But interest groups do not have to do what's most beneficial to society. You still work on the assumption that people who join interest group do it to "save the world" as you said. But, as I mentioned before, interest groups do not aim at doing what's best for society - they work in the interest of their members.

To believe that large societies are controlable like companies is extremly unrealistic. We're not dealing with one or two interest groups here, we're dealing with hundreds. Sometimes certain groups work in fact together, but in such cases it is a common goal that unites them... In many cases that's just not the case. Take your example of guns and tobacco. Apart from the fact that these two things kill people they have little in common. A lot of people that are against guns in private households could even be smokers themselves, so why should they focus on protesting against cigarettes?

[dteowner]

I see where our disconnect is, ISS. The entire premise is based on a rather key statement.
Similarly, the way you prioritize IS by "neglecting nearly all social, logical, emotional, and cultural aspects of human life" (wow, there's a broad accusation I haven't shouldered before...) and sticking to numbers and facts.You're saying that there's no way to pull all the touchie-feelie garbage out of the decision-making process and I'm saying you won't have real progress until you pull all that garbage out. Based on the evidence, we're probably both right.

I guess my proposal would have the most in common with a coalition government. You get a wide variety of activist groups that agree to work together toward a prioritized list of goals. Everyone agrees to bend a little on their agenda for the greater good. The thread that binds them together is "saving the world". Is it likely to happen? Doubtful, unless people buy into that concept I quoted. Would it be more effective than the current shotgun approach? I'm saying it would.

[blatantninja]

Yes and to infiltrate Mexico in order to steal parts of that country, like Texas.

Of all the ignorant things on this thread, that has to be the worst. While some argument can be made that the US 'stole the southwest purchase that was forced after the Mexican-American war, to say Texas was stolen is just plain false. Forget all the history about the Anglo colonists being invited into the territory or that Santa Anna dismissed their legislature and revoked their constitution (BTW, the 1824 that appeared on the Alamo flag was for the Mexican Constitution of 1824).

More Tejanos (hispanics) fought on the side of Texas Independence than Anglos! The vice-president of the Texas convention that declared independence was none other than Lorenzo de Zavala, an ethnic Mexican, not even a Tejano.

So learn some history before you believe the left-wing BS.

[blatantninja]

So you put the father in jail for his lethal mistake so he wont accidentally leave the locker open for his second son/daughter. I bet that son/daughter is happy for that.

I wouldn't really care if their son/daughter is happy for that. I would care that another father doesn't make the same mistake.



America was founded 1776 which is over 200 years ago. Back then it made sense to have firearms. Sweden for example fought seven wars between 1776-1814. We live in another world today.

Yes, we do live in another world today. But it is one where the right to bear arms is as essential as it was 200 years ago.

[JemyM]

I wouldn't really care if their son/daughter is happy for that. I would care that another father doesn't make the same mistake.

People generally do not take others disasters as hints. They usually say "it will never happen to me" or "I would never do the same mistake" and then they do so anyway. Most people in this world are convinced about their own superiority to others.

Yes, we do live in another world today. But it is one where the right to bear arms is as essential as it was 200 years ago.

Maybe so in the US where people live in constant fear of their neighbors, their government and other countries. Definitely not over here. The large majority in western Europe have never seen a real firearm and they really do not want to see them either. In fact, if you show a firearm (that is not a hunting rifle) to a Swede, chances are great they will see upon it as an evil artifact of mythical proportions. It's never associated with "protection", it's always associated with death.

[blatantninja]

People generally do not take others disasters as hints. They usually say "it will never happen to me" or "I would never do the same mistake" and then they do so anyway. Most people in this world are convinced about their own superiority to others.

I disagree. While not everyone heeds the warnings of such, the purpose of punishment is as much to deter the person from doing the crime again as well as to deter others. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't put people in prison when there was no chance for them to commit the crime again.


Maybe so in the US where people live in constant fear of their neighbors, their government and other countries. Definitely not over here. The large majority in western Europe have never seen a real firearm and they really do not want to see them either. In fact, if you show a firearm (that is not a hunting rifle) to a Swede, chances are great they will see upon it as an evil artifact of mythical proportions. It's never associated with "protection", it's always associated with death.

I'm not in fear of my neighbors, I do have a healthy fear of the guy who randomly (or not so randomly) selects my house to break into. I've had to happen to me. I also have little fear of other countries thanks to living in the world's only remaining superpower.

And while I do not fear my government, I do have a healthy suspicion of it and am quite happy that if need people, our population has the ability to rise up against it.

If you Europeans are content to have governments that have little to fear of their people, then that's you cup of tea, but don't presume to tell us how to view our government.

[Prime Junta]

You know what's a shame? That discussions like this that *could* be about practical solutions to a practical problem tend to turn into rather shrill discussions involving more or less thinly veiled prejudice. It doesn't matter whether we're discussing a terrorist attack ("it's in their religion to kill us because we're rich, free, and white") or a university shooting ("it's in their culture to be trigger-happy cowboys that are shit scared of their neighbors"); the target of the rhetoric changes, but the rhetoric itself stays virtually the same.

I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of workable solution out there that would let normal law-abiding people have all the guns they want, but would significantly restrict access to guns for people who shouldn't be trusted with them. We'd just need to drop a fair bit of ideology on all sides -- hiding behind the Second Amendment isn't any more constructive than branding everybody who believes that people should be allowed to have guns as dangerous militant gun-nuts.

[blatantninja]

Agreed. I'm all for solutions that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those that are mentally unstable, so long as they don't impeded my rights to have them.

[JemyM]

I disagree. While not everyone heeds the warnings of such, the purpose of punishment is as much to deter the person from doing the crime again as well as to deter others. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't put people in prison when there was no chance for them to commit the crime again.

Wish I could show you a link.
When the school shootings in Virginia took place, one blogger entertained himself by publishing links to every blame accusation he could find on the web. He found over 50 different accusations in which someone wrote why they believed that a specific group of people or issue were to be blamed.

That's how people work. They quickly make up an idea about who's to be blamed and then move on.

A threat about jail and punishment only work on rational people living good lives. Irrational people who feel uncomfortable or insecure do not care about the consequences and they do not read the news. Locking them up is no fix to the problem itself. The best way to deal with crimes is to deal with them before they even happen and you can only deal with them if you accept a few things about human nature that might be difficult to swallow.

I'm not in fear of my neighbors, I do have a healthy fear of the guy who randomly (or not so randomly) selects my house to break into. I've had to happen to me.

I do not see how a firearm fix that.

I also have little fear of other countries thanks to living in the world's only remaining superpower.

I have little fear of other countries thanks to living in a country that noone wants to attack, unlike 9/11. If you know anything about tribal thinking when it comes to whom attacks whom you know that flexing of your military power makes people attack you in fear of you attacking them first. It's a "we better attack them before they attack us" mentality that have been with us since the days of hunters & gatherers.

And while I do not fear my government, I do have a healthy suspicion of it and am quite happy that if need people, our population has the ability to rise up against it.

Are you sure? I have seen lots of opinions to be labeled unamerican and unpatriotic recently.

If you Europeans are content to have governments that have little to fear of their people, then that's you cup of tea, but don't presume to tell us how to view our government.

You need to educate yourself on how people of western Europe have treated their politicians, especially after the socialist revolution.

[blatantninja]

A threat about jail and punishment only work on rational people living good lives. Irrational people who feel uncomfortable or insecure do not care about the consequences and they do not read the news. Locking them up is no fix to the problem itself. The best way to deal with crimes is to deal with them before they even happen and you can only deal with them if you accept a few things about human nature that might be difficult to swallow.

In the scenario you came up with, the father was no irrational, just negligent. As such, all else equal, while punishment of the father would not deter the child, it would deter the father, who is not the disgruntled, irrational person in this situation.


I have little fear of other countries thanks to living in a country that noone wants to attack, unlike 9/11. If you know anything about tribal thinking when it comes to whom attacks whom you know that flexing of your military power makes people attack you in fear of you attacking them first. It's a "we better attack them before they attack us" mentality that have been with us since the days of hunters & gatherers.

Unfortunately, our place in the world makes us a target, regardless of the action of our military. I have little fear of other countries, because no legitimate government is dumb enough to attack the US. Now, terrorist groups and the like? Of course, because the reprecutions of such only effect them tangently.


Are you sure? I have seen lots of opinions to be labeled unamerican and unpatriotic recently.

While I lean to the right, I don't condone those types of attacks.


You need to educate yourself on how people of western Europe have treated their politicians, especially after the socialist revolution.

I am well aware of what has happened in the wake of socialist revolutions. But don't forget that people have a very short memory. I doubt any western European government is particularly concerned that their populace might rise up against them if they devolve into a dictatorship.

So long as democracy is preserved, there is no need to use guns. However guns ensure that democracy is preserved.

[blatantninja]

You mean a history lesson by Abraham Lincoln, like this? (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=949)

Nice try. Did you actually read that? Lincoln was correct that the original southern boundary of Texas was the Nueces when it was the Tejas Provence of Mexico (though Tejas was never actually a distinct political entity, being combined with the Coahuila territory into a single political entity, another grievance of the Texians).

However, Texas did claim to the Rio Grande after Independence (it's not clear if Santa Anna agreed to this in the surrender documents he signed) and more importantly controlled it for most of it's 9 year period as a Republic. So it's claim was as legitimate at least as Mexico's.

Even so, let's pretend that it wasn't Texas' to claim. In that case, you would be correct that the US Stole approximately 10% of what is now Texas from Mexico. And since the area 'stolen' was pretty much unpopulated at the time, how can either side really claim it properly?

While the war itself may have been unjust in the end, there simply is no doubt that the areas that the United States acquired through force or through purchase from Mexico are undoubtedly better off being part of the US than part of Mexico.

So, nice try. You aren't going to win a debate with me concerning Texas history.

[Prime Junta]

So long as democracy is preserved, there is no need to use guns. However guns ensure that democracy is preserved.

That's an interesting claim.

Can you give an example of just one democracy that has been preserved by an armed populace rising against its government?

I can name several cases where armed paramilitary groups -- organized, armed citizens -- have played a crucial role in endangering or even destroying democracies.

In other words, this particular pro-gun argument is complete bullshit.

[dteowner]

Well, PJ, I'm pretty sure I know of one that was established that way. Partial credit, maybe?

[blatantninja]

That's an interesting claim.

Can you give an example of just one democracy that has been preserved by an armed populace rising against its government?

I can name several cases where armed paramilitary groups -- organized, armed citizens -- have played a crucial role in endangering or even destroying democracies.

In other words, this particular pro-gun argument is complete bullshit.

It's called the United States of America. You might toss Italy in there as well as Musolinni was originally 'elected' as well.

[Prime Junta]

It's called the United States of America. You might toss Italy in there as well as Musolinni was originally 'elected' as well.

Wrong. Try again, please.

The democracy of the USA has never been in serious danger of being terminated by its own government -- or even external intervention. There was the 1812 war, but the French won that one for you, not your armed citizenry.

And Mussolini... uh, what? He and his Blackshirts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts) weren't exactly democratic, y'know.

[Prime Junta]

Well, PJ, I'm pretty sure I know of one that was established that way. Partial credit, maybe?

That's a wee bit different -- establishing a state, or liberating one from domination by another, usually involves violence of some sort, whether the resulting state is democratic or not. The question here is the role of an armed citizenry in preserving an already existing democracy -- and in this case, the evidence shows very strongly that an armed citizenry is more likely to overthrow a democracy than save it.

In other words, if you believe strongly that, say, the Lakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah)should have the right to independence from the United States of America, then you should strongly argue for their right to establish independent militias, and conduct an insurgency against the federal government if thwarted.

You could make a pretty good argument for universal military service on this basis, though, but naturally that doesn't involve citizens actually *owning* their guns.

[Zaleukos]

Mussolini wasnt elected either, but rather appointed by the king (replacing a prime minister who actually was elected). So that's a case of armed thugs destroying a democracy (albeit a shaky one).

As long as a government is ruthless/oppressive enough and commands the loyalty of the armed forces and the police it tends to survive even against an armed citizenry, simply by virtue of being better organised. It's usually when soldiers stop following orders that rotten regimes fall.

Cases of armed civilians kicking out disliked regimes mainly happened during decolonisation, and almost none of the decolonisation conflicts involved the full military/police might of the mother country. Not to mention that barely any of the violently decolonised places became democracies...

[blatantninja]

Aha that may be, but did you realise that most of your post consists of concessions? E. g. "only" ten percent of Texas stolen during the war. And these concessions were triggered only by the leftwing BS of Abraham Lincoln?

I made the concessions simply to point out how wrong your claim was. Even with those concessions, you claim that Texas was stolen is complete BS. Even Lincoln didn't state that. He disputed the border claim, but not the right of Texas to not be part of Mexico.

I don't need to win a discussion with you, for me it is sufficient if truth does it for me.

Obviously you are not interested in the truth and only bad-mouthing the US. The facts simply don't support your claim.

And that areas are "better off" belonging to the US than beloning to Mexico? What kind of justification for theft is that? Your money would probably be better off with me than with you, so please hand it over.

No I'm pretty frugal, so my money is very well off with me. The point is that Mexico is a grade A shithole of a country. What is now the Southwest of the United States would be no different. I have yet to see large amounts of people in these territories petitioning to rejoin Mexico.

Nearly every country (including Mexico) has expanded its territory through war. If we were talking about something that had happened in the past 50 years, I would grant that it was unethical as the dynamics of the world have changed. However, we can't view history with our set of values and be intellectually honest. The fact that the US paid Mexico for the SW shows that they were more benevolent that their contemporaries. We had captured Mexico City. If we'd wanted to, we could have just forced them to give it to us. We didn't.

Do we really want to get into this? How about Canada? It was stolen by the English from the French who stole it from the Indians. How about any country in Europe? How many times have borders changed there by process of war? as usual, just more hate-mongering against the US.

Or that Texas occupied a territory for nine years is a justification for claiming it? So China is authorised to claim Tibet?

Completely different issue. Texas legally achieved independence from Mexico. There simply remained a dispute about where the border existed.

And your knowledge about those Tejanos, does it come from the film discussed in this (http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/article_1863.jsp) leftwing BS?

Opendemocracy is one of the most biased sources on the net. Regardless, if you will notice from the article, it talks about what happened AFTER the revolution, not what occurred during it.

Sadly, Tejanos were not treated particularly well by American immigrants that arrived after 1836. The story of Juan Seguin is particularly tragic. A true hero of the revolution that was eventually driven out of Texas due to the rising racism of the new waves of immigration. Settlers arriving after 1836 came mainly from the US and viewed all Hispanics as Mexicans, not understanding or appreciating the sacrifices of the Tejano soldiers of the revolution. Though a large Tejano population remained in Texas, the treatment of them is a blight on our great state's history.

As sad as a tale as that is though, it doesn't change the fact that the Texas Revolution was fought by both whites and Tejanos and that it was simply the people of Texas revolting against a tyrant.

Does the existence of slavery or the treatment of Native Americans in the US mean that the US was wrong to revolt from Great Britain? Does it diminish the ideals that formed the basis of our society? Of course not.

Just as with the American Revolution, the society that developed from the Texas Revolution had its flaws. They should be acknowledged, never forgotten, and we should strive to fix any remaining effects of them, but the ideals of the Revolution itself should not be forgotten either.

[blatantninja]

Mussolini wasnt elected either, but rather appointed by the king (replacing a prime minister who actually was elected). So that's a case of armed thugs destroying a democracy (albeit a shaky one).

As long as a government is ruthless/oppressive enough and commands the loyalty of the armed forces and the police it tends to survive even against an armed citizenry, simply by virtue of being better organised. It's usually when soldiers stop following orders that rotten regimes fall.

Cases of armed civilians kicking out disliked regimes mainly happened during decolonisation, and almost none of the decolonisation conflicts involved the full military/police might of the mother country. Not to mention that barely any of the violently decolonised places became democracies...

My mistake, I thought he had been elected prime minister. I guess I confused his appointment with Hitler's 'election.'

Regardless, the point remains that a democracy, through fraud or ignorance, can become a dictatorship or other repressive regime, and when protests fail, armed rebellion is the only course of action left.

[Prime Junta]

My mistake, I thought he had been elected prime minister. I guess I confused his appointment with Hitler's 'election.'

Regardless, the point remains that a democracy, through fraud or ignorance, can become a dictatorship or other repressive regime, and when protests fail, armed rebellion is the only course of action left.

And, regardless, you're unable to point to even a single instance of an armed citizenry saving a democracy from its own government -- while we can point to many instances of armed citizenries endangering or destroying them.

Again, liberation from foreign domination is a completely different situation -- and, in such cases, the wars are very often prosecuted successfully *despite* bans on bearing arms.

IOW... there are good arguments for gun ownership, but this isn't one of them. By insisting on it, you're only making yourself look silly (and weakening your case).

[blatantninja]

And, regardless, you're unable to point to even a single instance of an armed citizenry saving a democracy from its own government -- while we can point to many instances of armed citizenries endangering or destroying them.

Again, liberation from foreign domination is a completely different situation -- and, in such cases, the wars are very often prosecuted successfully *despite* bans on bearing arms.

IOW... there are good arguments for gun ownership, but this isn't one of them. By insisting on it, you're only making yourself look silly (and weakening your case).

Citizens would have no need to revolt against a democracy. The point is that when it is no longer is a democracy, weapons are the last resort. Is it difficult? Sure, but possible.

Populist revolts require weapons. Most oft he notable ones in history have had support from other major powers true, ( Cuba, etc.).

You want an example? How about the Texas Revolution that I've been discussing in this thread. Mexico had been a democracy until Santa Anna came along and declared himself dictator. The people of Texas revolted, mostly using their own weapons.

[magerette]

*snip*
Wish I could show you a link.
When the school shootings in Virginia took place, one blogger entertained himself by publishing links to every blame accusation he could find on the web. He found over 50 different accusations in which someone wrote why they believed that a specific group of people or issue were to be blamed.

That's how people work. They quickly make up an idea about who's to be blamed and then move on.
.

Excellent point, JemyM. It ties in with Prime J's post about

... discussions like this that *could* be about practical solutions to a practical problem tend to turn into rather shrill discussions involving more or less thinly veiled prejudice. It doesn't matter whether we're discussing a terrorist attack ("it's in their religion to kill us because we're rich, free, and white") or a university shooting ("it's in their culture to be trigger-happy cowboys that are shit scared of their neighbors"); the target of the rhetoric changes, but the rhetoric itself stays virtually the same.

It's really time to stop blaming the superficialities and try to understand what is really happening to American society as revealed in these incidents. They are obviously the result of a variety of pressures and factors, and far more complex personal scenarios than the availability of guns meets post-adolescent angst. To blame the violence we see around us on guns ( or video games) is like blaming HIV on sex--a gross oversimplification.

I agree something needs to be done about the availability of guns--there's a huge difference between having a licensed handgun for self-defense or a .22 to hunt game and the ability to obtain assault rifles and automatic weapons at the local pawnshop. I don't think high-powered mega-guns should be available to anyone--if you need that kind of technology to slaughter a small herbivore with a brain the size of peach, you have issues.

Unfortunately if our track record with drugs is any example, restricting the forbidden in America just creates a black market with no regulation at all.

[Zaleukos]

Regardless, the point remains that a democracy, through fraud or ignorance, can become a dictatorship or other repressive regime, and when protests fail, armed rebellion is the only course of action left.

As PJ points out the problem is that this never has happened. Even if we include armed insurrections against foreign oppressors there arent that many cases where this produced a democracy in the short to medium term (the USA and the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 90s (sort of) are the only ones that I can think of, and in these cases the revolters built upon existing local governments rather than a spontaneous uprising of armed citizens). EDIT: I typed this before your pointing to the Texas revolution, but was Santa Anna that much less democratic than his predecessor?

But to take up PJs train of thought, what do you think can be done to limit abuse without prohibiting legitimate use of guns?

I think that one could go some way by introducing inertia in the process. Make people take a gun safety class to obtain a gun license, just as one has to take driving lessons to obtain a drivers license.
Maybe introduce some sort of grace period for felons? No guns for a year after release?

[dteowner]

I suppose there was some violent lag time between our declaration of independence and the British acceptance of it. More partial credit?

[Prime Junta]

Citizens would have no need to revolt against a democracy. The point is that when it is no longer is a democracy, weapons are the last resort. Is it difficult? Sure, but possible.

It's easier to organize a fascist revolt to overthrow a democracy, though.

Populist revolts require weapons. Most oft he notable ones in history have had support from other major powers true, ( Cuba, etc.).

And, more to the point, populist revolts are rarely democratic.

You want an example? How about the Texas Revolution that I've been discussing in this thread. Mexico had been a democracy until Santa Anna came along and declared himself dictator. The people of Texas revolted, mostly using their own weapons.

That didn't save the Mexican democracy, though -- it simply ended up transferring sovereignty of Texas from Mexico to the United States. None of the other statelets that split off from Mexico in the 1830's survived, because they had no big neighbor to turn to. From where I'm at, it also appears that this was at least as much a struggle for regional self-determination as it is for democracy -- not unlike the Kosovo mess currently underway, as a matter of fact.

In other words, at best this one is a "partial credit" -- and it doesn't really help much to prop up your original assertion that an armed populace is required to protect a democracy from its own government.

[JemyM]

I do not blame violence on guns. Im saying violence is part of human nature, guns simply make it more deadly.

I would like to point you to two excellent talks on the subject of evolutionary-driven violence.

Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163)

Andy Thomson on Suicide Terrorism 1/3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uuipt15s08c)
Andy Thomson on Suicide Terrorism 2/3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0iyCPDHplq8)
Andy Thomson on Suicide Terrorism 3/3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=t_Sda8oMjaI)

[Prime Junta]

I suppose there was some violent lag time between our declaration of independence and the British acceptance of it. More partial credit?

Again, not really -- that's still about establishing a state which happens to be a democracy, not maintaining a democracy per se.

To go off on a bit of a tangent (even though IMO a somewhat relevant one)...

It's just about exactly 90 years since our civil war. It was a very bloody affair, but the end result was an independent and democratic country, whereas Russia went the way of Lenin and Stalin. Does that mean that Finnish democracy -- which existed in an incipient form since the reforms of 1905 -- was saved by an armed citizenry? Not really -- since the war started out with a political crisis followed by an armed revolt of another part of the citizenry. The Reds wanted a Socialist Democratic Republic, the Whites wanted a constitutional monarchy.

Ironically, the social-democratic Reds were arguably more democratic than the monarchist Whites, even though it's pretty clear in retrospect that had they won the war, Finland would have been absorbed into the USSR, or at best become a satellite state. Finland only became a republic by accident, because Germany collapsed in 1918, and the guy the Whites had picked to be the king bowed out of the job. In other words, unintended consequences all around.

[blatantninja]

As PJ points out the problem is that this never has happened. Even if we include armed insurrections against foreign oppressors there arent that many cases where this produced a democracy in the short to medium term (the USA and the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 90s (sort of) are the only ones that I can think of, and in these cases the revolters built upon existing local governments rather than a spontaneous uprising of armed citizens).

Well, it has happened. Regardless, I never said it would necessarily produce a democracy, just that it was the citizen's last resort against tyranny.


But to take up PJs train of thought, what do you think can be done to limit abuse without prohibiting legitimate use of guns?

Well first and foremost, I think the number of guns you can have should be limited. It's one thing to have multiple types of guns that serve different purposes, but have 7 different handguns, or 3 different semi-automatic assault rifles just allows abuse by people that buy them, then resell them, often to people that can't legally acquire them.

Second, there needs to be better and more thorough background checks. In the Illinois case, it shouldn't have been enough that the guy checked the box that said he had no history of mental illness. Either he should have been required to submit a doctor's report indicating so (though that could be forged) or some type of database should exist that can be referenced. We have a very big problem here where even if the information does it exist, it often is segregated among states and the information doesn't get where it is needed.

Third, there needs to be a national crackdown on illegal guns. Make everyone that has a licensed firearm produce it every few years or lose the license, and potentially face other fines, maybe even jail. This would crack down on the resale that is largely unregulated.

Fourth, we don't need new guns laws, but we do need stiffer punishment. In NYC for example, they have gone hard core. If you have possession of an illegal gun, you go to jail for 3 years, no time off for good behavior, no deals with the prosecution, nothing, just jail for 3 years, plus more time if you were doing something else. While I don't agree with the restrictions placed on people owning weapons in NYC, I like the approach they take to illegal guns.

Even with all that, as was said above, we need to combat the problems that are causing people to commit these horrendous crimes, or all of this will be nice, but ultimately we will see more tradegies.


I think that one could go some way by introducing inertia in the process. Make people take a gun safety class to obtain a gun license, just as one has to take driving lessons to obtain a drivers license.
Maybe introduce some sort of grace period for felons? No guns for a year after release?

For many types of gun licenses (Particularly CHL's), a long class process is required. I would be ok with requiring it for all guns.

[Prime Junta]

@blatantninja -- there you go, I think that sort of policy would sort out the problem rather nicely, without having to resort to arguing whether you have to have them in order to be able to stage a revolt against Wash. D.C. in case the go fascist.

[blatantninja]

That didn't save the Mexican democracy, though -- it simply ended up transferring sovereignty of Texas from Mexico to the United States. None of the other statelets that split off from Mexico in the 1830's survived, because they had no big neighbor to turn to. From where I'm at, it also appears that this was at least as much a struggle for regional self-determination as it is for democracy -- not unlike the Kosovo mess currently underway, as a matter of fact.

Texas received little to no support from the United States during the war. Mexico was not the also-ran it is today, nor was the US a super-power. The US rebuffed attempts by Texas to join the union immediately after the revolution because they didn't want to spark a war with Mexico.

In reality, Texas won it's independence because of the perfect combination of determination by its people and pure luck. They don't call it the running scrape for nothing! The other breakway regions just weren't as lucky (or determined) in their engagements with the Mexican Army.

You are correct that it did not return democracy to Mexico, but what it was return democracy to Texas, which was the point.

In other words, at best this one is a "partial credit" -- and it doesn't really help much to prop up your original assertion that an armed populace is required to protect a democracy from its own government.

Of course it does. No one said that the nation that emerges from a revolution is going to have the same make up as the original nation, or that the revolution would even be successful throughout all the territory. The fact remains that without the weapons that the populace had in place, they could not have revolted again Santa Anna.

[blatantninja]

@blatantninja -- there you go, I think that sort of policy would sort out the problem rather nicely, without having to resort to arguing whether you have to have them in order to be able to stage a revolt against Wash. D.C. in case the go fascist.


In case? :D

[Prime Junta]

Texas received little to no support from the United States during the war. Mexico was not the also-ran it is today, nor was the US a super-power. The US rebuffed attempts by Texas to join the union immediately after the revolution because they didn't want to spark a war with Mexico.

That's irrelevant -- the other Mexican revolts succeeded too; the only difference was that Mexico reabsorbed all of the other statelets, whereas the US absorbed Texas.

You are correct that it did not return democracy to Mexico, but what it was return democracy to Texas, which was the point.

But only because the US was there to absorb Texas. The Yucatán revolt succeeded too -- until the region was reabsorbed in 1848, three years after the US absorbed Texas.

Of course it does. No one said that the nation that emerges from a revolution is going to have the same make up as the original nation, or that the revolution would even be successful throughout all the territory. The fact remains that without the weapons that the populace had in place, they could not have revolted again Santa Anna.

As I said -- partial credit at best: this was about regional particularism at least as much as about democracy, and democracy was only saved because the US was there to absorb Texas.

[Ionstormsucks]

It's really time to stop blaming the superficialities and try to understand what is really happening to American society as revealed in these incidents. They are obviously the result of a variety of pressures and factors, and far more complex personal scenarios than the availability of guns meets post-adolescent angst. To blame the violence we see around us on guns ( or video games) is like blaming HIV on sex--a gross oversimplification.


While I won't deny that guns are certainly not the sole reason for violence, a lot of social scientists argue that there is a direct connection between men (especially young men), masculinity, power, violence and guns. Guns are not only weapons, they are also symbols of power which links them indirectly with masculinity and that makes them attractive. It's notable that assault weapons (semi-automatic guns, rifles, etc.) hardly play a role here, because most crimes are commited with small guns.
I absolutely agree that you have to change social structures if you want to get rid of violence. But it seems to be obvious that something like that takes time. Cutting off the influx of weapons into a society however is something that you can achieve rather easily and I see no reason why one should not do that.

[blatantninja]

That's irrelevant -- the other Mexican revolts succeeded too; the only difference was that Mexico reabsorbed all of the other statelets, whereas the US absorbed Texas.


I hadn't realized that the Yucatan had stayed indpendent for so long (I had though it was only a few years). Although to be truthful, it was a really a succession of secede-rejoin movements over the time period that finally ended when the Mayan's revolted against the Hispanics in power and the Hispanics started pleading for anyone to help them.

Regardless of how the other breakaway groups ended up, Texas did reestablish democracy in it's region. It also could have continued as an independent nation. While there were many reasons that annexation was favored, it doesn't change the fact that revolting re-established democracy for Texas. The democracy decided to join the US, but there is no reason to believe that Texas would have been reabsorbed into Mexico again unless it wanted to.

But only because the US was there to absorb Texas. The Yucatán revolt succeeded too -- until the region was reabsorbed in 1848, three years after the US absorbed Texas.

Texas had could have continued to be an independent nation had it so chosen. It had troubles for sure, but no worse than the US did after it's revolution.

As I said -- partial credit at best: this was about regional particularism at least as much as about democracy, and democracy was only saved because the US was there to absorb Texas.

That is a matter of opinion. While Texas did face a daunting task if Mexico had chosen to reinvade, it was no more daunting than the original revolution itself.

[Prime Junta]

In case? :D

Hur hur.

Seriously, though -- my hunch is that *in case* there is a genuine attempt at disestablishing democracy from the top, the US military will stage a coup, and you'll go the way of Turkey. Your politicians are terrible but you have pretty good generals.

[blatantninja]

Hur hur.

Seriously, though -- my hunch is that *in case* there is a genuine attempt at disestablishing democracy from the top, the US military will stage a coup, and you'll go the way of Turkey. Your politicians are terrible but you have pretty good generals.

Yeah, I could see that happening, well theoretically. I have no doubt the GW will leave gracefully in January. However, with the mess that was the 2000 election, I was seriously concerned that Bill would refuse to leave.

[Prime Junta]

Texas had could have continued to be an independent nation had it so chosen. It had troubles for sure, but no worse than the US did after it's revolution.

Only the US didn't have England as a next-door neighbor. The Rio Grande and Yucatán republics didn't have a border with the USA nor (AFAIK) a significant Anglo settler population, and they were reabsorbed. What makes you think Texas would've done any better?

[blatantninja]

Only the US didn't have England as a next-door neighbor. The Rio Grande and Yucatán republics didn't have a border with the USA nor (AFAIK) a significant Anglo settler population, and they were reabsorbed. What makes you think Texas would've done any better?

We didn't have England, but we did have Canada! (Which proved particularly bad in the War of 1812 when English troops basically marched straight down to DC and torched it!)

I think you are correct on the lack of Anglo settlers in Rio Grande and Yucatan, however they did have mixed populations similar to Texas. Where we had Texian and Tejano, they had Native and Hispanic. Texas also was recieving a steady stream of Anglo settlers during the Republic years due to the availability of land and the ability to leave your debts behind.

Why could Texas have survived? While not a given, by any means, they had a lot of things going for them. One, they had an expanding population due to immigration from the US. Two, Texas has a lot of natural resources. Three, while Lamar was an idiot and nearly drove the Republic to bankruptcy with his wars against the Native American population, Houston was much more level headed. Four, Texas defeated Mexico when it had a tiny population with limited weaponry. Mexico made no military attempt to recover any part of Texas (Rio Grande or otherwise) until annexation by the US. They had enough other problems.

The Texas Republic had a lot of problems, just as do many, if not most nations when they first form, but they had a strong foundation to build on. They had everything they needed to be viable long term as an independent nation.

Now granted, I think they were better off joining the US (though in certain respects that were worse off for a while), but if annexation had not been possible, I think it is entirely possible for Texas to functioned as an independent nation for a long time.

[magerette]

While I won't deny that guns are certainly not the sole reason for violence, a lot of social scientists argue that there is a direct connection between men (especially young men), masculinity, power, violence and guns. Guns are not only weapons, they are also symbols of power which links them indirectly with masculinity and that makes them attractive...

If that's the case, ISS, why are the shootings becoming so much more high-profile and frequent? I assume that this macho symbolism thing isn't something that evolved in the last ten years, and that guns or clubs or large pointy rocks have always been attractive to some men. There has to be something more behind all this that isn't being addressed, though I agree it may be something even harder to fix than the gun availability issue.


I absolutely agree that you have to change social structures if you want to get rid of violence. But it seems to be obvious that something like that takes time. Cutting off the influx of weapons into a society however is something that you can achieve rather easily and I see no reason why one should not do that.

Cutting off the legal influx, certainly, but as I mentioned earlier, the more you outlaw something here, the more enforcement you have to devote to suppress it. Our prison/judicial system is so overloaded already that you're talking a huge amount of investment to pour into trying to plug yet another leak in the dam representing the rule of law. I like blatantninja's suggestions for enforcing the laws we already have, and making it very unpleasant for those who break them.

[Prime Junta]

Another thing that could have a significant, quick effect would be to control the sale of bullets -- i.e., require gun licenses through a procedure something like NN outlined, and then require presentation of a gun license matching the bullets when buying them. That would certainly reduce the amount of bullets in circulation and make it just a bit harder to use illegal firearms, which would reduce gun violence.

Didn't some comedian say that the whole thing would be solved if bullets cost five grand a pop -- if someone got offed, with that kind of money it's pretty sure he did *something* to deserve it?

[Ionstormsucks]

If that's the case, ISS, why are the shootings becoming so much more high-profile and frequent? I assume that this macho symbolism thing isn't something that evolved in the last ten years, and that guns or clubs or large pointy rocks have always been attractive to some men. There has to be something more behind all this that isn't being addressed, though I agree it may be something even harder to fix than the gun availability issue.

As I said - guns are not the sole reason. I'm just saying that some social scientists see the particular connection I mentioned. And to be honest, I agree with them. Why such shootings have become more frequent I cannot say, but I would guess that again social reasons play a role. Social structures today are changing rapidly... think about the role of the family for example or the influence of the media. It's hard to say who or what is to blame which is exactly the reason why it is so hard to change something.


Cutting off the legal influx, certainly, but as I mentioned earlier, the more you outlaw something here, the more enforcement you have to devote to suppress it. Our prison/judicial system is so overloaded already that you're talking a huge amount of investment to pour into trying to plug yet another leak in the dam representing the rule of law. I like blatantninja's suggestions for enforcing the laws we already have, and making it very unpleasant for those who break them.

Harder punishment... you know, the countries that have the hardest punishments have the highest crime rates... funny, isn't it? The US is willing to invest i-dont-know-how-much-money (though I'd guess the amount is considerable) in a war that cannot be won, do you honestly believe that money should actually play a role in such a discussion?

Since I found the whole debate quite interesting I did a bit of research and came across the costs of gun violence. And frankly spoken, I could hardly believe what I've read. The total costs, including lost productivity, in the late 1990s were estimated at roughly 100 billion $ annually (in North America). I know... someone will probably now show up and tell me how much money was made with the sale of guns...

[blatantninja]

Another thing that could have a significant, quick effect would be to control the sale of bullets -- i.e., require gun licenses through a procedure something like NN outlined, and then require presentation of a gun license matching the bullets when buying them. That would certainly reduce the amount of bullets in circulation and make it just a bit harder to use illegal firearms, which would reduce gun violence.

Didn't some comedian say that the whole thing would be solved if bullets cost five grand a pop -- if someone got offed, with that kind of money it's pretty sure he did *something* to deserve it?

A friend of mine has the saying: "People don't kill people, guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people!"

Unfortunately, it is entirely possible to manufacture high quality bullets yourself with the proper equipment, so the more restricted it becomes, the bigger the black market will be.

[Prime Junta]

Unfortunately, it is entirely possible to manufacture high quality bullets yourself with the proper equipment, so the more restricted it becomes, the bigger the black market will be.

Certainly -- I never meant that it would eliminate the supply; it would simply reduce it. In binge-drinking countries like Finland, there's a strong correlation between the (official) price of alcohol and alcohol-related deaths. If you raise the price of alcohol, the black market gets bigger, but up to a certain point at least the overall amount of alcohol on the market goes down, and so do the negative public-health effects. I strongly suspect that controlling the availability of bullets would have a similar effect.

Of course, at some point the curve starts to go down -- people simply stop buying alcohol/bullets on the legal market, and any further tightening will have no effect on supply, but will have a negative effect on overall respect for the law. So you should stop tightening well before that point.

(Incidentally, the same argument could be applied to pot, cocaine, or heroin -- which is why I believe that we'd be better off with recreational drugs legal, taxed, and regulated than completely in the black market. It's not like it's difficult to score dope as it is, if you want to.)

[blatantninja]

(Incidentally, the same argument could be applied to pot, cocaine, or heroin -- which is why I believe that we'd be better off with recreational drugs legal, taxed, and regulated than completely in the black market. It's not like it's difficult to score dope as it is, if you want to.)

I completely agree! Legalize, regulate, tax the living hell out of it! Between the revenue generated from the taxes and the savings from the 'war on drugs', we' probably be able to fund social security for the next 100 years!

[magerette]

Harder punishment... you know, the countries that have the hardest punishments have the highest crime rates... funny, isn't it? The US is willing to invest i-dont-know-how-much-money (though I'd guess the amount is considerable) in a war that cannot be won, do you honestly believe that money should actually play a role in such a discussion?

?? Money funding the infrastructure involved in punishing crime and money funding war profiteers are two different discussions to me. The only thing I see they have in common is that money has to play a role in either one. We shouldn't try to find the most cost-effective and practical way to address the problem because we have an unpopular and expensive war going on?

Still I think you may have a point about the harder punishment idea--Here's an interesting little chart at wikipedia that lists homicides stats worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate) over time.

While there's certainly room for error in this chart, just looking at the last few decades, you can see that despite the unaltered gun laws, the actual homicide rates while fluctuating from year to year, have declined in the U.S. since 1979.

What has changed is the prevalence of capitol punishment, which is possibly some support for your idea. AFA some of the countries with the highest homicide rates(i.e., Swaziland in the '90's or El Salvador currently) I don't know if that's due to a more chaotic and violent social situation or a more punitive legal system or both.

You in Europe have obviously got your own violent crime well under control, and deserve all the credit in the world for it. Still, stating the obvious, this isn't Europe and may have some problems that don't echo the European experience.

BTW--just out of curiosity, what is the punishment for possessing an illegal firearm(which I would assume would be most firearms) in your country? Harsh or lenient?

Since I found the whole debate quite interesting I did a bit of research and came across the costs of gun violence. And frankly spoken, I could hardly believe what I've read. The total costs, including lost productivity, in the late 1990s were estimated at roughly 100 billion $ annually (in North America). I know... someone will probably now show up and tell me how much money was made with the sale of guns...

Not me. :)

That figure's a strong argument for doing something about it, isn't it? I don't think anyone's in disagreement about that, just about the most effective way to do so.

[dteowner]

Public hangings! Rope is cheap. If prison is all about "rehabilitation" as the bleeding hearts claim, then people getting life sentences (directly or effectively) have no reason to stay in the system. Perhaps, three strikes and you're WAY out since you've proven to be "un-rehabilitate-able". Those folks aren't going to be reintroduced to society, so let their "removal" offer some tiny repayment to society in the form of deterent. Financially, we'd be ahead billions.

[curiously undead]

why stop there we should just give anyone the option when they turn 18: join the military if you're not in a full time job or school, or step right up to the lousiana trees...

[Corwin]

er Dte, didn't we just decide that bullets are even cheaper than rope!! :)