Guns don't kill?

Originally posted by NJE777
Your right! Guns don't kill... bullets do.
Perhaps if bullets were so readily available... ?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
No, the asshole who unilaterally decides to use a gun for deviant purposes is who kills.

It is the same analogy. Whether it is guns, bullets, sticks, hammers. The op is putting it on people. Not the method or means available. If we look at the crisis in East Timor, killing and fighting relies on other methods, throwing rocks, sticks etc. From that, I agree, if people want to kill they will kill using whatever method is available. However, if anyone walked into a school and started to throw rocks, sticks I don't believe we would have 33 dead.

I am an Australian, after the Port Arthur massacre, Aust Govt., changed the laws regarding gun ownership, the homicide rates over here are very low. Homicide still occurs using different means BUT making guns harder to access was a socially responsible measure implemented at that time.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also gave his sympathies to the families of the dead on Tuesday. He went on to suggest that the "gun culture" in America had to change. He referred to an Australian massacre in 1996 by a man with a semi-automatic rifle who killed 35 people in Port Arthur on the island of Tasmania. At the time, Howard confronted Australia's gun lobby and banned almost all types of semi-automatic weapons.

"Eleven years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns," he said. "We showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."

www.spiegel.de...

You see, it's easy to blame everything under the sun. All of the excuses are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent personal responsibility.

Well, this is where I disagree with you. Personal responsibility - means taking responsiblity for ones actions/choices. With any crime, the issue of 'causation' arises. You cannot make a finding on liabililty without addressing the issue of causation. Now we can say, a crazy got a gun and went on a killing spree because he was a jilted jealous lover. That is just too simple. That of course, is what most people are willing to accept but it is not a thorough approach and the inquiry will not stop there. From the moment that individual was granted a visa to study in the US, he became the responsibility of the US and vice versa.

The gun issue is social issue therefore responsibility must be extended to society. It falls into this category simply because a gun has the potential to impact society in negative way...as the Virg Tech incident illustrates.

Now, may I point out for those who think Australia banned all guns, that is just nonsense. Part of the gun buy back scheme focused on military style weapons. Why would anyone need a gun like that???

About 640,000 guns were taken in under the amnesty and buy-back scheme which operated soon after the Port Arthur massacre. Victoria was been the most successful state to call in its prohibited weapons. Before the scheme started the Victorian Firearms Registry records showed that there were about 750,000 registered guns in Victoria. About 210,000 were handed in because they became prohibited weapons. These were mainly military style rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns and .22 low power rifles with 10 shot magazines. About 20% of those guns however were unregistered

www.guncontrol.org.au...

How would prohibiting military style weapons affect your right to bear arms???








[edit on 18-4-2007 by NJE777]

[edit on 18-4-2007 by NJE777]

Originally posted by NJE777

You see, it's easy to blame everything under the sun. All of the excuses are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent personal responsibility.

Well, this is where I disagree with you. Personal responsibility - means taking responsiblity for ones actions/choices. With any crime, the issue of 'causation' arises. You cannot make a finding on liabililty without addressing the issue of causation.

Really? Why is it that the same thing can happen to different people, yet, they react totally differently? For example, Joe Camel lives in a house where his Mom and Dad beat and molest him tremendously. Right down the road live John Haskle and his Mom and Dad beat and molest him tremendously as well.

Now, John Camel grows up to be an intelligent, angry young man. He tries to live with his ghosts, but one day it becomes too much for him. He goes out, buys a gun and decides he is going to make others feel the "pain" he has felt all of his life. So, he kills five people in a shopping mall.

Now, John Haskle, who had the same experience mind you, grows up to be an intelligent, happy individual who donates his time to local charities.

Now, since you want to emphasize on "causation," What was the "cause" of Joe Camel becoming a monster and John Haskle not, even though they had the same experience?

You tell me what you think it is and then I will respond.









[edit on 18-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You tell me what you think it is and then I will respond.

Wow! Are you telling me to tell you or would you like a discussion?

Angry Thinker

Why would I even bother having a discussion with someone who is so angry?

Well, your lack of "sociability" just indicates to me that you have no answer for what I just presented. So, don't answer. It's no sweat off of my chest.

Hi all

The purpose of a gun, is to be filled of bullets.
The purpose of the bullet is to be fired into a target.
The purpose of the target is to receive the bullet.


One more thing
Guns are not a form of art but a device to impose power.


Peace to all

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, your lack of "sociability" just indicates to me that you have no answer for what I just presented. So, don't answer. It's no sweat off of my chest.

my lack of sociability? Perhaps you need to look in the mirror.

You have come across very agressive. Seems you would rather have an argument than a discussion. Who are you to dictate the terms of the discussion or shape my response? Go and suck a fart.

Originally posted by NJE777


You have come across very agressive. Seems you would rather have an argument than a discussion. Who are you to dictate the terms of the discussion or shape my response? Go and suck a fart.

Are you serious? I suggest that you go back and look at my previous posts. I haven't been "aggressive" at all. Unless you consider presenting a pretty rock solid argument as being "aggressive." By the way, maybe I don't want to "suck a fart."

However, the fact remains, that if guns were not so freely available, then this sort of crime would happen less frequently.

This is my first post and am usually just a lurker on this forum but I felt I had to respond as I think this issue is going to keep popping up over and over again until the anti gun group eventually wins. (irregardless of whether crime actually drops as a result of more gun control or whether the media actually reports everything that ever happens and tells us all things as opposed to what they WANT us to see or choose to sensationalise to further an agenda)

I believe that the above quote isn't proven fact.

Before anyone can have a debate, we have to first agree what the facts are. (that is a debate in itself) Otherwise its just two biased opinions saying what they think and not what they know, and what can be done to stop the killing sprees.

My opinion: everyone has a right to defend themselves, guns are a form os security. Sure they are tools used for killing. But they can be used to prevent a killing from happening. So long as nuclear bombs, tanks, fighter jets, missiles etc exist, you can not 100% guarantee your security from a threat. Doesn't matter whether you are a civilian or military or police, each person has the right to defend themselves and their property.

The debate shouldn't be about how deadly a weapon is and how it can kill but whether shooting someone to stop them or prevent them from harming an innocent person is justified, and if yes, is the use of a gun for defence right or is it wrong? If it is wrong then change the laws. But I don't think it is right to disarm the law abiding person in the hope a cop is there to prevent a crime from happening.

The reason is that if both criminal and innocent person are armed it means both are on an equal playing field. The criminal can respect that a person has a defence in place to prevent a crime from happening. The person with the gun does not NEED to fire it, but it can act as a deterrent to the criminal to "think before he does anything". Like how locks on doors can deter a robber because it takes more effort/risk to succeed.

Now if only the criminal is armed (through stealing a gun from someone or buying illegally) and the innocent person is unarmed, it means less chance of catching or preventing the crime from happening. What you want is to prevent death not let it happen and have police just report what has just happened and close the case. (with the criminal killing themselves so information can't be gained from them of who sent them to commit the crime - I don't believe these massacres are by lone nuts like the mainstream media reports BTW.)

The criminal in this case is the murderer who has no regard for laws and just wants to get away with what they can. The gunowner protecting his property, his family and himself is the person who should be armed since doing the above things is a right. The gun allows a person to stop a thief, buy some time while the crook is held at gunpoint to call the police and hopefully (if the criminal values his life) prevent the crime from going through.

Actually PREVENTING the crime is what is preferred. If you can't stop the crime from happening, how can you prevent the deaths when something like a massacre happens? If everyone were allowed to have a gun, and going by the logic that there are more good people in your community than bad, then such things could be prevented or lessened.

In war we have nukes. We don't just use these recklessly for fear of retaliation by powers who also have them. It's a very basic concept that a normal person would want to preserve their life. But in the event of a massacre the only way may be to kill the shooter. 911 showed how useless US defense was against so called terrorist attack. So you can't rely on the government to babysit you. Take responsibility for yourself, empower yourself. If people acted responsibly crime can't prevail.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by Snake Plisskin]

How many criminals are armed with guns that have been stolen from a law abiding person, or armed with guns that they bought themselves?

If they are criminals, all the more reason to have a gun now that they have been armed. That criminal may try to go on a massacre which nobody can prepare for unless they are psychic. The world is full of criminals and crime will never go away 100%. Just like illegal drugs, or "terror". Guns are deadly when criminals have them. Law abiding citizens feel safe when they have them. It's a person's right to own them. You are not a criminal until you start to commit a crime. To prevent the crime you have to have info on the criminal to catch them, or at least have defence to stop them if they try to commit the crime against you. (ie rob you of your weapon for example.)

But if both criminal and citizen has arms, it means you fight on an even playing field. So the criminal is likely to get caught, or held at gunpoint by someone with a weapon who can warn them to not try to run away as they phone the police to put them behind bars.

Nobody can argue against the gun being dangerous, but we can control the danger by using a weapon and deterring the criminal from trying anything. If there is more non-criminals in society than criminals, then it is a matter of how much do you trust your neighbor? He could be a psycho or a law abiding citizen. If you are paranoid about crime, why not arm yourself? Put a warning sign on your fence warning of the guard dog you have. Lock your doors, talk to your neighbor and get to know them so they can watch your place when you go on holiday or not home. That sort of thing.

The gun IS dangerous but that is why a criminal will respect it if it is pointed at them. The whole reason they would prepare for the crime and carry one out is if they believe they could succeed or get away with it. How I see it is they have less chance of getting away if they had to deal with people around them who were going to potentially intervene as the crime was to be committed. It's about calculated risk. If they think they have the skill to pull it off then they will go ahead. If they think they will get caught they won't. Having the citizens armed means less chance of success for the criminal so it leads to less crime or more chance of preventing the crime and hopefully (in the case of a robbery) leading to capture as the gun owner is able to hold them there until police arrive to deal with it.

The minority of irresponsible people in society (criminals) don't tell the majority of good people in society what is right or wrong. The problem of crime can't be cured or fixed such that it never happens again. There will always be some level of danger in anything. How much is a matter of how hard it is to catch the criminals. The way I see it, is if they are allowed to get away, they can keep doing the crime and get better at it so they become harder to catch in future. (as they develop in experience)

If a massacre happens again, it won't be easy for the criminal to get away with a high number of kills if everyone else is able to fight him on an even footing. If it is just a lone nut, what is a lone person against a group of many? ie An armed community of people taking control of the situation to protect each other? ..vs.. A lone nut against a room full of unarmed victims? Because the nut doesn't think like a sane person, the danger of them having free reign to kill whoever they want without resistance outweighs the danger of a law abiding person abusing his use of a gun and accidentally killing others to get to the lone nut. If I were in that room with the lone nut I would feel a lot safer with a room full of other people armed who are only average shots at best, vs a room full of unarmed people who just have to use their body to tackle.

Originally posted by crustas
Guns are not a form of art but a device to impose power.

Sometimes.

But they are also for self protection. They are also used to liberate people - such as happened in WWII when people had to fight against Hitler. They are also our RIGHT according to the US Constitution.

These were mainly military style rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns and .22 low power rifles with 10 shot magazines. About 20% of those guns however were unregistered

www.guncontrol.org.au...

How would prohibiting military style weapons affect your right to bear arms???


I had no idea the Ruger 10/22 I got when I was 9 is a "military style" rifle.

Please, someone tell me what a "military style" rifle is. A fully automatic, semi-automatic, select fire? Anyone with any shooting experience at all could fire a revolver, lever or pump just as fast. Even a bolt action can be moved just as fast as any semi-auto. Depending on the rifle with just as much accuracy, even more.

As soon as you start trying to define and catagorize the various firearms out there your asking for failure. Its like when here in CT and in other states they tried to ban "handgun ammunition" from being bought by people under the age of 21 or from bring sold in department stores like WalMart. Are you telling me you've never seen a .44 or 9mm rifle? How would you class the .22 long rifle? It says rifle right in its name but Ive 3 pistols that shoot that round.

A page or so back I like Budski's bit about he is against GUNS period. Well, yo uget right on that rounding up and destruction of all guns thing. Clearly thats a feasable and practical solution. You could start with what we have fewer of and round up all the nukes and ICBM. Then move on to tanks and artillery. It shouldnt be too hard to convince the world to shut down its navy's after that. Then Im sure every 3rd wordl warlord and arms trader will simply package up their inventory and send it straight to the incinerator. Dont forget to shut down the home workshops in the tribal regions of Pakistan. They may object a bit but Im sure you can convince them you're right.

None of this will ever work. You'd have to kill them all because I assure you they will kill you if you or anyone else goes waltzing in there to clean it up. Theres a reason Musharaf leaves them alone. Theres a reason Iraq and Afganistan are such a mess. People wont give up their freedoms. They simply wont.

Now if you want a short sighted win to boost the collective ego of your cause then the only people you'd have a chance of forcing to comply are the decent, law abiding citizens who do everything they can to live within the boundaries set.

Its like picking on the littlest kid at school because youre afraid of the jocks. Sooner or later you'll get to the jocks. Then what? Im sure rolling in with the military and forcing them to hand over their weapons will do wonders to convince them their weapons arent needed.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

news.bbc.co.uk...

It seems that Cho Seung-hui was an extremely disturbed young man, and that in mental health parlance, he "slipped through the net" of mental health care.

This does nothing to excuse his crime, or nullify the points mad on this thread.
What it does do is raise more questions, such as;
if authority's were aware of his violent and aggressive tendency's, why was he not receiving treatment;
how did he purchase the weapons and why was he allowed to given his mental state;
during the TWO HOUR time gap, where were the police;
why was this person allowed to remain on campus, when the campus authorities were fully aware of his "illness";
why did campus security not maintain at least a modicum of surveillance, given that the higher ups KNEW he was unstable.

Can ANYONE seriously tell me that tighter controls would not have prevented this person getting hold of the weapons he did.

On a slightly different note, it is estimated that >25%,

Originally posted by budski


This does nothing to excuse his crime, or nullify the points mad on this thread.
What it does do is raise more questions, such as;
if authority's were aware of his violent and aggressive tendency's, why was he not receiving treatment;
how did he purchase the weapons and why was he allowed to given his mental state;
during the TWO HOUR time gap, where were the police;
why was this person allowed to remain on campus, when the campus authorities were fully aware of his "illness";
why did campus security not maintain at least a modicum of surveillance, given that the higher ups KNEW he was unstable.

Budski, all of your questions are legitimate. I really don't know why some get labeled as being "crazy" and don't receive treatment. I suppose that a lot of it depends upon PERCEIVED magnitude of the disorder.

Now, let me give you a little personal information because I don't mind and I think it may be relevant to this discussion. By most people's standards of normal, I'd be considered "mad." I have been diagnosed as being

1) Mildly to moderately depressed. Who isn't,right?

2) Social phobic. Social Phobia Disorder

3) I have been diagnosed as having Borderline Personality disorder, with a tendency towards Schizoid personality disorder.

Guess what. I am under no kind of treatment what so ever. I have wrestled with the reason for this, and the only conclusion that I couuld come to is that my psychologist didn't see my mental illness/illnesses of such magnitude that I needed to consult a psychiatrist.

Now, given those circumstances, if I were to do anything out of the ordinary all of this would be called into account. We have a number of people who are not under some sort of psychiatrical care that probably should be. It is one of those issues that I have questioned many times myself.

This young man that did this shooting was obviously "sick." How was it that his psychologist didn't consider him as a prime candidate for psychiatry I do not understand. Listening to bits and pieces of his tape that he left, it almost sounded as if he had a "messiah complex." He equated his situation with that of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

SpeakerofTruth,
doubtless we will be inundated with opinions of experts trying to retrospectively diagnose this clearly disturbed young man, but unfortunately it will be too little, too late.

The degree of disturbance is an issue, but not the main one with regard to this thread.

I would question the ease with which he obtained the weapons he used, whatever his mental state.

Lots of people on this thread have posted about how knives and rocks, spears etc can also be used to kill - but the fact remains that he COULD NOT have murdered 32 people with any of those things, only guns are capable of this scale of murder in what was something of an impulse crime (I'm aware he planned it, but according to reports, had only been planning for a few days, and this qualifies as an impulse crime). With any other type of hand weapon he would have been disarmed pretty quickly, and not been able to complete his rampage.

You're right. They should have known and he shouldn't have slipped through the net.

Originally posted by budski
Can ANYONE seriously tell me that tighter controls would not have prevented this person getting hold of the weapons he did.

The fact that he was mentally ill makes it all the more clear (to me) that he would have taken whatever steps necessary to carry out his sick plan. He could have easily gotten guns from the black market, where most criminals get their guns.

I haven't changed my mind about the need to get ALL guns off the streets, merely addressed some points that, perhaps, could have prevented this tragedy.

If getting all guns off the streets were something that could possibly be done in reality, I might at least understand your point of view, although I wouldn't agree with you. (that 2nd Amendment thing)

Think about illegal drugs... They're illegal to have, to make, to transport. But I could go out today and get ANY kind of illegal drug I wanted, from pot to heroin to crack to controlled prescriptions. From whom? The criminals. In many cases, the same ones who sell illegal guns.

(Real Question) How do you propose we get all the illegal guns out of the criminals' hands? It would be fairly easy to collect the guns from the law-abiding owners, whose weapons are registered and tracked. Then that would leave the criminals with guns and the private citizens with no way to protect themselves.

Surely though, this news is a point for, at the very least, mental health checks on individuals wanting guns, a block on private sales and gun fair sales and some semblance of order in the process of buying or obtaining a gun.

I agree with you to an extent. (not because of this news, I have always felt this way) SOME sort of check, I have no problem with. Asking a person if they've ever been mentally ill and taking their word for it isn't good enough, in my opinion. That's like asking, "Have you ever lied"?

And they answer, "No."

Originally posted by budski
but the fact remains that he COULD NOT have murdered 32 people with any of those things,

He could have murdered a lot more with poison in the cafeteria or several bombs.


AND if other students had guns, he could have been disarmed or taken out right quick-like.

I know it could probably never happen in reality, without becoming, at least in part, a police state.

My approach would be an amnesty on ALL guns, but with special emphasis on illegal guns, whilst making it known that when amnesty ended, there would be a zero tolerance policy initiated, with heavy penalties for any kind of ownership.
This has worked in the UK to a degree, and also in Australia where gun crime has fallen drastically.

In the UK, gun crime is now almost always drug/gang related, and this is also a social issue as well as a law and order issue. We have also had our hands tied somewhat by the european human rights act, which has resulted in softer sentencing, softer jails and more rights for criminals, even those who have committed the most heinous crimes.

Nonetheless, the changes in the law post Hungerford and Dunblane have made most of the UK a safer place.

We too have cities with no-go areas, where guns are seen as some kind of fashion accessory and it is deemed cool to own or carry one. However with 5 year penalties for possession of an illegal firearm, we are now starting to see less of them outside the blighted urban area's where they are most prevalent.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by budski
but the fact remains that he COULD NOT have murdered 32 people with any of those things,

He could have murdered a lot more with poison in the cafeteria or several bombs.


AND if other students had guns, he could have been disarmed or taken out right quick-like.

I understand this, however, it would take a large degree of sophistication and planning to achieve this, and he probably would have been caught, as these are viewed as more of a terrorist activity (i.e. certain chemicals, trigger devices etc are highly controlled and would have been red-flagged).

There is also no way the authorities can condone carrying firearms on a school campus, given the volatile natures of a fairly large proportion of young people.

I remain pretty much convinced that this could have been avoided with much tighter control.

Also, the fact that he chose a gun, rather than another (perhaps more difficult method) is indicative of a gun culture, and I remain firm in my view that gun culture promotes gun violence.

I'm very much enjoying this discussion, budski.

Originally posted by budski
I know it could probably never happen in reality, without becoming, at least in part, a police state.

And please tell me that's not ok with you.

Speaking of a police state, if ALL legal guns are registered (none sold at fairs or through personal sales) where is the FIRST place the authorities will go to collect guns when that time comes? Then who will be left with guns?

My approach would be an amnesty on ALL guns, but with special emphasis on illegal guns,

So, you think criminals will feel relieved to hand over their guns, knowing they won't get in trouble for having them? Will this amnesty convince them to give up the life of crime they've been leading? They're already criminals. Take their guns away and they're still criminals. What would be their incentive to give them up? The threat of "getting into trouble" obviously isn't enough or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

This has worked in the UK to a degree, and also in Australia where gun crime has fallen drastically.

BBC

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
...
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

Nonetheless, the changes in the law post Hungerford and Dunblane have made most of the UK a safer place.

Not according to the above source. It even mentions Dunblane. Do you have a source that refutes this BBC claim? Because I have always been under the impression that both in the UK and Australia, gun crime has increased...

Australia never did have a constitutional right to bear arms, as the US does. Firearm ownership has always been restricted. So, I'm not sure how applicable their record is.

Snopes

The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

So, Australia's situation isn't really comparable to the US in any way, in my opinion.

Here's one for Australia right out of Syndney.

Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.
www.smh.com.au...

and 3 years prior:

# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Will it continue to rise in another 3 years?

I'll toss in a UK one for good measure:

Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise.
www.fraserinstitute.ca...

[edit on 19-4-2007 by thisguyrighthere]