Virginia Tech massacre

[evenwolf]

You're taking two separate entities, the American mindset & the American gun laws.  You splice them together as if they are synchronized.   As if one equals the other.

The two most brutal school shootings (Whitman held the record until VT, right?) were perpetrated by mentally ill 20 something year olds.   You actually think that a sane person would shoot and murder someone ( seeing the carnage and experiencing those emotions)  and continue to murder others around him?    It is not a coincidence that the two bloodiest mass murders like this were by mentally debilitated individuals.

You are dead wrong.  Most Americans carry handguns because of these events, and even when insulted in a bar or cheated on by their spouse it is not a western shootout.   You have such a great selective memory when it comes to gun violence because you cannot tally the number of times violence was prevented by a gun.

You can't.   With all your facts and figures, you can only negate. negate. negate.  And you do.    And you don't realize that most of the people training to use handguns in the US are women.   If they come close to being raped one time in their life, just pulling a gun on the perp makes it all the while worth it.  Deterrent, deterrent, deterrent.

You took my words and pulled out "Jesse thinks there should be gunfights everywhere"  when Jesse quite adequately stated "There would not have been a gun fight if guns, LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE, were concealed in the purses and on the bodies of some of the students."  Guns cannot legally be carried in schools which means innocent law abiding citizens are fooled into submission, and the idea that criminals obey signs.   The police DID nothing in this case WHEREAS you argue that police will protect you.   Its done more to suggest that I need my own gun.

You actually think Americans are less likely to carry guns now that they feel they can be murdered in the most "gun-free" areas?  Gun free areas are the problem.

[big brother]

I am no expert, but don't you have sensationalist entertainers-cum-political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on prime-time TV and Radio with a large percentage of listeners?

Rush has a radio show and Coulter writes a opinion column. Probably too fringe for "prime-time TV", considering how ongodly expensive media space has become. Coulter has appeared on TV for stuff relating to her bestselling books, but she isn't a commentator and doesn't have a show.

Sensationalism sells, so you'll find it everywhere.

Newspaper circulation is down (I'd guess this trend extends beyond  just the US), probably due to the prevalence of the internet (since the internet circulation of many papers like the WSJ is on the rise).

If it did come down to numbers and strict interpretations of numbers I think however that a simple look at the number of accidental gun injuries and fatalities on a yearly scale in the US is a good argument in itself to start thinking about gradual pull-back on gun availability.

Annual accidental gun deaths in the US for all age groups total about 1,500. More kids drown in bathtubs and swimming pools every year. In a country like Switzerland, where firearm training is mandatory, there is an extremely low accidental firearm death rate. Responsible parenting/gun ownership is the key to minimize these statistics.

Can you say that you prefer the wild west scenario where anyonce can carry out justice at will; everyone's a judge and an excecutor?

Allowing citizens to be armed doesn't absolve them of the consequences of their actions. If more citizens carry, we won't magically be transported to the 1840s.

You pro-gun people need to realise that you can't tell who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in advance.

When did anyone argue that? All this discussion has been about a reactive situation. If someone attacks me, I will defend myself, and I would like to be able to respond on an appropriate scale. Perhaps this doesn't further the concept of civilization and mild-mannered temperance, but I would argue that most people consider their lives to supercede those noble ideals.

[Andail]

The two most brutal school shootings (Whitman held the record until VT, right?) were perpetrated by mentally ill 20 something year olds.   You actually think that a sane person would shoot and murder someone ( seeing the carnage and experiencing those emotions)  and continue to murder others around him?    It is not a coincidence that the two bloodiest mass murders like this were by mentally debilitated individuals.

I'm not saying they're weren't crazy, I'm saying you can often not tell in beforehand who's crazy and who's not. Therefore, that nifty little clause about how only 'sane' or 'normal' people should be allowed to carry guns is practically impossible. Most maniacs appear normal until they flip.

You took my words and pulled out "Jesse thinks there should be gunfights everywhere"  when Jesse quite adequately stated "There would not have been a gun fight if guns, LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE, were concealed in the purses and the shirt tails of innocent citizens."

Innocent good guys, lawful citizens. Do you agree this is a tricky term? Everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

You actually think Americans are less likely to carry guns now that they feel they can be murdered in the most "gun-free" areas?

No, I think they are more likely to carry guns now, which is a problem.

As I said, it's getting increasingly hard for people like me to discuss this, since I consider a society without guns the best scenario, whereas most americans consider this ridiculous, and limit their discussions to how and where these guns should be distributed. Why are the guns there in the first place? Guns are just an escalation from knives. Next step is bombs. When every Joe Smith has his own bomb, people will be even more deterred, even more affraid of reprisals. Therefore violence will drop. True or false?

[Pumaman]

We've all seen the stupid fist fights that people get into on the street after having too much to drink.

If everyone were carrying guns, surely some of these fist-fights would undoubtedly turn into drunken shootouts and end up with people dead rather than just having a black eye. Nobody intended to kill of course, they were just drunk and didn't realise what they were doing.

[evenwolf]

Innocent good guys, lawful citizens. Do you agree this is a tricky term? Everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

You actually think Americans are less likely to carry guns now that they feel they can be murdered in the most "gun-free" areas?

No, I think they are more likely to carry guns now, which is a problem.

Read this article.  Pay close attention to how the police had no solutions to stopping this man.  And what they did.  This was before SWAT and emergency rescue teams etc.  You grew up in an era post swat.  You have grown up with violent movies and video games, you yourself have not murdered anybody, yet you don't trust anybody else to do the same.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/02/152847.php  (seventh paragraph and beyond)

[Helm]

If they come close to being raped one time in their life, just pulling a gun on the perp makes it all the while worth it. 

Holy shit, what about a tazer? Pepper spray? Going through some self-defense course?

[Andail]

Let's picture me being a ultra weapon-lobbyist now. I claim that if everyone was allowed, yes even forced, to own a nuclear bomb, violence would drop. My argument would be that people would be so deterred, so affraid of reprisals, that nobody would dare to provoke anyone.
What would your counter-argument be?

[evenwolf]

The Cold War.

[Andail]

Was that a counter-argument, or an argument supporting my made-up scenario?

So you do support the notion that if every private citizen owned a nuclear bomb, things would be allright and everything would be peaceful?

[evenwolf]

How am I supporting your argument when the only nuclear bombs were dropped on people BEFORE the Cold War.

There was no violence during the Cold War.  US had bombs as a deterrent, the Soviets had bombs as a deterrent.   You're the ambassador from Dreamland visiting both countries saying "Mr President, i think you'll find that your enemy will withdraw all weapons if you only withdraw first."   Deterrent.  Deterrent. Deterrent.  Nothing happened.

I am however weary to give nukes to mentally ill people!  And I think you'll find gun control lobbyists will have success if they switched their focus toward un-arming the mentally ill.  Instead they argue ideologies.

[LimpingFish]

The problem isn't the crime rate in America. It isn't that americans are more prone to violence than any other country (clearly they are not).

It may not even be the (relatively) easy way you can acquire a gun.

The problem is in the mindset of modern America.

"I better carry my gun to school/church/temple/the mall/this baseball game, just in case some nut decides to open fire in my vicinity."

I'm not saying that every american thinks like this, but judging by some of the responses to the VT massacre (contained in the media, and even this thread) it's clear that some people do.

How could anyone actually hope to relax in such an enviroment? Wouldn't you always be on edge?

"Uh oh, here comes that dude who I had an argument with in the supermarket yesterday. He's coming towards me. He looks a little pissed. Jeez, maybe he snapped. He could be packing! I better have my finger on the trigger just in case..."

Insanity.

[Helm]

Nothing happened during the Cold War? ?!

?!?!!11?!!?!?!!?!?

Oh my

[Andail]

But Jesse, I thought we were discussing people now, not nations. (Not that I support nuclear weapons on that scale either.)

A decision in a government goes through a chain of approvals and are often discussed on many levels during a period of time.
A person on a street is subject to his on sudden whims, mentally unbalanced, even inner voices. Or drunken aggressions like CJ just described.
A bit different, right?

I am however weary to give nukes to mentally ill people!  And I think you'll find gun control lobbyists will have success if they switched their focus toward un-arming the mentally ill.  Instead they argue ideologies

But didn't we just discuss that it's very hard to point out the mentally ill in beforehand? Only a small portion of them have medical records proving their illness.

[evenwolf]

The problem isn't the crime rate in America. It isn't that americans are more prone to violence than any other country (clearly they are not).

It may not even be the (relatively) easy way you can acquire a gun.

The problem is in the mindset of modern America.

"I better carry my gun to school/church/temple/the mall/this baseball game, just in case some nut decides to open fire in my vicinity."

I'm not saying that every american thinks like this, but judging by some of the responses to the VT massacre (contained in the media, and even this thread) it's clear that some people do.

How could anyone actually hope to relax in such an enviroment? Wouldn't you always be on edge?

"Uh oh, here comes that dude who I had an argument with in the supermarket yesterday. He's coming towards me. He looks a little pissed. Jeez, maybe he snapped. He could be packing! I better have my finger on the trigger just in case..."

Insanity.

I completely agree with you limping fish.   But Michael Moore sort of tactics (ie whining) didnt do anything productive to tell citizens how to go about making change.   And how do you change the American mindset?  Well it would help if there weren't mass murders in college campuses every forty years.

[evenwolf]

Nothing happened during the Cold War? ?!

?!?!!11?!!?!?!!?!?

Oh my

There were a lot of scares.   I'll go so far to trivialze history if it makes you feel better.  For Andail: (altho secretly as not to effect helm's ego) "no nukes".


Andail, you'll find that I completely agree that targeting gun control toward the mentally ill is exactly what I want.  Your argument that everyone is suspect of mental illness until proven... uh guilty??  is a bit flawed but we are on the same side.  IF only we could regulate.   I just don't see any practicality, or a reasonable solution in suspecting everyone of being potential murderers. -edit-  I trust my neighbors much more than I trust my government.  I mean, look at my government!!!!

Charles Whitman had a documented history.  Seung- Hui had a documented history.  Fact.


-sorry for all the edits and the chaos herein but I must depart for the night!  Will respond most likely in personal
messages.   

-final side to Andail:  Drunken people on the street are subject to whims yes.  We have strict laws in most cities against public intoxication and showing those signs.  But might I argue with you that the physical HAND of my government is subject to every one of those whims just the same.  A drunken sailor or an abusive cop doesn't necessarily asymbolize my country's tedious and delicate lawmaking, does it?  Emergency response is still pathetic and most cops are 'good ol boys' who use racial profiling.  If I were black, i would definitely own a gun.

[Helm]

Trivialize history? My ego? What? Uh


I'm a bit dazed

[Becky]

There was no violence during the Cold War.

There were a lot of scares.   I'll go so far to trivialze history if it makes you feel better.

You'll find you're the one living in Dreamland, and your lack of historical knowledge astounds me.  The US and the USSR, whilst not necessarily killing each other in all-out-full-scale-total-war, funded and supported opposite sides in many other wars, pointscoring against each other.  For starters:

- Korean War 1950-1953
- Vietnam War 1964-1975
- Soviet-Afghan War 1979-1989

[LimpingFish]

Well it would help if there weren't mass murders in college campuses every forty years.

Yes it would. But since the world will always have crazy people, we have to look at other ways of tackling this.

I simply believe that a society that limits (that's limits) the availablity of guns, not just to "crazy" people (a person could own a gun and then go crazy), would be a step in the right direction.

If I want stroke books I go to a Pornography Store.

If I want a gun, I should have to go to a Gun Store. Then fill in a form. Then get my photo signed by an officer of the law. Then wait six to eight weeks. Then get my gun.

I shouldn't be able to go to the gun counter in Walmart, and pick one up with my wheeties. They don't stock instruments of masturbation, so why stock instruments of death?

The types of gun sold to the public could even be limited. Manual load revolvers or the like. I don't know guns, maybe there are others more suited to public consumption.

On the other hand, Smith & Wesson (and others) have shareholders and profit margins to consider. The NRA has all those fancy licenses for guns of a certain calibre to sell.

Yes, whinging about it isn't going to help. We need a pro-active stance on this problem. We don't need people separating into camps and arguing over things that really have little to do with the situation.

We need unity, and a willingness on both sides to compromise.

[evenwolf]

Becky, Andail's comments were regarding nuclear weapons only.  Helm disregarded the context too, so no worries.  Bullets = Nukes was my understanding.

No nukes dropped = no bullets fired.  anything else could be considered a punch or a stab.. but no nukes negates the allegory, I'm afraid.

[Helm]

But that's important because when both have nukes, they STILL want to mess with each other and just take it to a 'cold' War. They take it to other countries, they take it to espionage and attrition. It doesn't make anyone safer or anyone more civilized.

When both me and my neighbours have guns then I start killing his pets, not him. To piss him off.