Gun Crime in the USA ~ Shootings and Killings

[EXshad]

Repealing the 2nd amendment would not prohibit anyone from owning a gun. Plenty of other countries do not have any equivalent language in their founding documents about guns being a "right" yet gun ownership is still legal around the world. And I mean, think: do you know how many things you actually own that are not specifically constitutionally guaranteed to you as being a "right" to own?

 

 

The Second Amendment says that people have the right to bear arms. What this means is that people have the right to attain tools to defend themselves. And this was specifically done to keep the people armed and protect them from oppression, and to make sure that the common people had access to the tools necessary to bring down a government which they viewed as oppressive. Cannons used by Revolutionaries, for example, were owned more often than naught by members of the upper-class who supported the cause.

 

Now obviously times have changed. The amendment is incredibly vague. I get that. Hell, it doesn't even specify the right to own weapons, only to bear them. But the spirit of the law was meant to keep the people armed in order to prevent government oppression, and to keep themselves safe from people who sought to infringe their life and liberties.

 

The problem is the letter of the law. I support the second amendment, but I am all for the measures I mentioned being passed. I repeat: I think it is far too easy for anyone to get their hands on a gun in this country. That is wrong, and that is how people are able to do mass killings. This sick fuck should NOT have been able to have ANY sort of access to ANY type of gun.

 

However, the key words are mass killings. Given what we know about the situation, these victims were defenseless. What if this sick bastard came into school with a knife instead? Yes, it would have been far more difficult for him to perform a mass killing, but innocent lives would have still been in jeopardy. The tragic truth is that, again, there are evil, vile, and hate-filled people in the world, and they have absolutely no regard for a law saying that the common person cannot own a gun. The only thing that passing a law like that will accomplish is disarm the good guys. We have to be smarter than that.

Edited December 15, 2012 by EXshad

[KrazyBean]

This is just depressing...I am TIRED of this crap, I really am! The fact that the victims were little kids makes this even worse. He also killed his mum at home before going on his rampage. Wow.

 

May his soul burn for all eternity. FUCK him.

Edited December 15, 2012 by KrazyBean

[Wraith]

I wish this fucker hadn't killed himself. 

 

 

 

He should have rotted in prison like he deserved. I mean, who the FUCK kills kids like that?

[Nepenthe]

The Second Amendment says that people have the right to bear arms. What this means is that people have the right to attain tools to defend themselves. And this was specifically done to keep the people armed and protect them from oppression, and to make sure that the common people had access to the tools necessary to bring down a government which they viewed as oppressive. Cannons used by Revolutionaries, for example, were owned more often than naught by members of the upper-class who supported the cause.

 

Now obviously times have changed. The amendment is incredibly vague. I get that. Hell, it doesn't even specify the right to own weapons, only to bear them. But the spirit of the law was meant to keep the people armed in order to prevent government oppression, and to keep themselves safe from people who sought to infringe their life and liberties.

 

The problem is the letter of the law. I support the second amendment, but I am all for the measures I mentioned being passed. I repeat: I think it is far too easy for anyone to get their hands on a gun in this country. That is wrong, and that is how people are able to do mass killings. This sick fuck should NOT have been able to have ANY sort of access to ANY type of gun.

 

However, the key words are mass killings. Given what we know about the situation, these victims were defenseless. What if this sick bastard came into school with a knife instead? Yes, it would have been far more difficult for him to perform a mass killing, but innocent lives would have still been in jeopardy. The tragic truth is that, again, there are evil, vile, and hate-filled people in the world, and they have absolutely no regard for a law saying that the common person cannot own a gun. The only thing that passing a law like that will accomplish is disarm the good guys. We have to be smarter than that.

 

 

"Arm" is not a synonym for weapon. A baseball bat is not an arm. You can arm yourself with a baseball bat, but this doesn't denote the bat to be an arm. But forget my pedantry; let's assume there's no ribble-rabble over the nuances and definitions of the second amendment, that everyone universally agrees that it is for the sake of castle doctrine and to fight governmental oppression. Questions: Why would abolishing the second amendment end castle doctrine when this has not been the case for countries with similar self-defense laws, and what the fuck would any law matter if it came to a point where the citizenry absolutely had to turn our guns on the government? Frankly, I find the whole "fight the regime" idea to be crazy both as a point of the amendment in this day and age and a matter of reality: Your little pistol is not going to do anything against heat-seeking missiles. The American Armed Forces are nothing to fuck around with, and we would get our asses handed to us if we tried to fight a true tyranny of the US government. The second amendment needs an outright overhaul if not a repealing altogether.

 

But I digress, I don't like the "he could've found other means to kill" because it is anarchic in its implications and subsequently useless to the discussion, and it is also illogical because it assumes that every single potential threat to someone's life is perfectly equal. There was a guy that did indeed go on a stabbing spree in China today; hit 22 kids. Guess what: none of them died. Larger groups of people are far more likely to die from gunshot wounds than you are from a knife due to the damage a bullet can do from longer ranges and how quickly guns can be fired to subdue large crowds versus the entirely manual operations of a knife. This is why everyone uses guns to do these types of sprees in America, even though knives are more readily available. Ultimately, the purpose of a firearm is to kill things, and technology has perfected that purpose to such an insane degree that frankly I don't even know how we can continue deluding ourselves by saying a kitchen knife has the exact same potential to kill large groups of people as a semi-automatic gun. 

 

So yes, he could have gotten a knife. He also could've gotten his ass tackled before anyone was hurt should he have chosen to use a knife. Hypotheticals versus statistics; I would much rather be in a country of knife-wielding maniacs than I would a country of gun-wielding maniacs.

[EXshad]

"Arm" is not a synonym for weapon. A baseball bat is not an arm. You can arm yourself with a baseball bat, but this doesn't denote the bat to be an arm. But forget my pedantry; let's assume there's no ribble-rabble over the nuances and definitions of the second amendment, that everyone universally agrees that it is for the sake of castle doctrine and to fight governmental oppression. Questions: Why would abolishing the second amendment end castle doctrine when this has not been the case for countries with similar self-defense laws, and what the fuck would any law matter if it came to a point where the citizenry absolutely had to turn our guns on the government? Frankly, I find the whole "fight the regime" idea to be crazy both as a point of the amendment in this day and age and a matter of reality: Your little pistol is not going to do anything against heat-seeking missiles. The American Armed Forces are nothing to fuck around with, and we would get our asses handed to us if we tried to fight a true tyranny of the US government. The second amendment needs an outright overhaul if not a repealing altogether.

 

But I digress, I don't like the "he could've found other means to kill" because it is anarchic in its implications and subsequently useless to the discussion, and it is also illogical because it assumes that every single potential threat to someone's life is perfectly equal. There was a guy that did indeed go on a stabbing spree in China today; hit 22 kids. Guess what: none of them died. Larger groups of people are far more likely to die from gunshot wounds than you are from a knife due to the damage a bullet can do from longer ranges and how quickly guns can be fired to subdue large crowds versus the entirely manual operations of a knife. This is why everyone uses guns to do these types of sprees in America, even though knives are more readily available. Ultimately, the purpose of a firearm is to kill things, and technology has perfected that purpose to such an insane degree that frankly I don't even know how we can continue deluding ourselves by saying a kitchen knife has the exact same potential to kill large groups of people as a semi-automatic gun. 

 

So yes, he could have gotten a knife. He also could've gotten his ass tackled before anyone was hurt should he have chosen to use a knife. Hypotheticals versus statistics; I would much rather be in a country of knife-wielding maniacs than I would a country of gun-wielding maniacs.

 

 

Oh come on, the amendment obviously refers to the usage of weapons. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was that the general populous thought that the Constitution by itself did not do enough to defend the rights of the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was drafted, and amendment 2 was written for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. But I digress, because I agree with you that the amendment needs to be updated for modern times.

 

I'll also admit that my knife argument was rather flawed and sloppy, but you're missing my overarching point completely. I'm for that kind of country too, and I think anyone with half a functioning brain cell is for that. But people with mal-intent will always find a way to get their hands on contraband. It's a fact of life. I repeat: making a law to stop everyone in general from obtaining a gun will do absolutely nothing to prevent this. The monster could have simply found other illegal means of obtaining a gun and ammunition, concealed it in his coat, and done the same monstrous act that we saw him do today. The only difference would be that if an adult applied for a gun permit, met the requirements, and had a firearm, they would have had more of a chance at defending themselves and protecting those they love.

 

Now of course, this is hypothetical. I'm sure the average person probably wouldn't have time to fight back when someone unexpectedly bursts in and shoots a hole in their chest. Not to mention most good-hearted, sensible people probably would have a hard time firing upon anyone, regardless of the crimes that person is committing. But at least the playing field would be even. Any ordinary person would have the same chance at defending themselves that the nutcase has at killing people. What you're suggesting is passing measures to keep ANYONE besides law enforcement, military, or other such forces from handling weapons, and in a perfect world, I would agree. But once again, people like this would find a way to get these weapons, and their targets would have no reliable defense.

 

The problem isn't THAT these guns are sold, it's HOW they are sold and how easily weapons for licenses are handed out. If online sale of guns is outlawed, and multiple, strict, government-certified mental tests were required in order for someone to get a gun license, then I think steps would be taken to eliminate the problem. It would require much more extreme means for someone to illegally obtain a gun, and it wouldn't completely disarm someone who, theoretically, could have had a chance at incapacitating this fucker. It's a much more logical approach that still makes it harder for ANYONE to obtain a firearm, ensuring that it would legally get into the right hands.

 

Is it perfect? No. Nothing is perfect in this sick world, as today has proven. Gun crime wouldn't be white-washed because of this, but it sure as hell would be a start.

 

Finally, there are crimes with far higher death-tolls that have been committed in crimes with very, very strict gun-control laws. I quote an article written by All That Remains-frontman Phil Labonte:

 

 

While popular opinion is that these horrible acts are a uniquely American problem due to the liberal gun laws we have, I submit that it is a problem worldwide. July 22 was the one-year anniversary of the massacre in Norway—a country with very strict gun control laws—perpetrated by Anders Breivik where 77 people (mostly children) lost their lives. In June, there was a shooting in a Toronto mall where one man was killed and seven others injured. Again, a country with strict gun regulation. There was also the March 11, 2009, shooting at the Winnenden School in Winnenden, Germany, leaving 16 dead and 11 injured. Germany also has strict gun regulation. There are violent and mentally damaged people all over the world. If they are looking to harm innocents, they are going to do it, regardless of law.

Edited December 15, 2012 by EXshad

[Nepenthe]

Not everyone who is for stricter gun control has deluded themselves into believing mere law will completely eradicate any and every tragic death that happens at the hand of the gun, so telling me that a country with stricter gun control than the US had a mass shooting is a complete strawman. Yes, Breivik killed 77 people. What does that have to do with the fact that in the US, around 11,000 people a year die from guns? Absolutely nothing.

 

Now, I do agree that stricter means of legally obtaining them would help to a degree. Another thing we could do is close loopholes preventing high-risk people like felons from skirting around current laws to obtain guns anyway. It's very easy for people who aren't supposed to acquire them getting them from gun shows, or by simply going to another state. But in general though, I think we will forever go back to the problem of the mass availability of guns in this country just fucking up the whole issue. They're everywhere, so laws indeed will only do so much. In turn, what we realistically need is a complete cultural overhaul about how we look at guns. A pistol is not some "right," like humans have a right to "free speech" or to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but as an instrument of killing; nothing more, nothing less. Idealistically, in a utopian dimension, I'd find some way to limit the actual physical availability of the damn things.

Edited December 15, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[SonikkuForever]

The original wording of the Second Amendment refers only to "well-regulated militia", not some nutcase that wants to look tough by strutting around with a gun. It is really a complex issue, because there are legitimate, legal uses for a gun, such as hunting. However, the populace's right to life is much, much greater than the "right" of owning a deadly weapon. It shouldn't be too hard for our lawmakers to ban the sale of automatic weapons to the general public. Those guns are specifically meant for one purpose - mowing down as many people as possible. Shotguns and hunting rifles are tricky, because there are legitimate, legal uses for them. Still, the process to buy one needs to be completely overhauled. Don't sell them to people with a history of violent mental illness. Heck, psychologically screen everyone who wants to buy a gun. It's not a difficult process. And why not re-evaluate gun license holders periodically? If they end up with a violent criminal record or are diagnosed with mental instability, there goes the gun. It sounds a bit draconian, but how many more children are going to die before we finally do something about this?

[Indigo Rush]

 

 

 

Can we at least agree that Justin Bieber fans are the worst?

[Speederino]

 

 

 

Can we at least agree that Justin Bieber fans are the worst?

Why do assholes like these always crop up after a tragedy like this happens?

And there are still Justin Bieber fans?

[Soniman]

[img=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-Gw3YOCEAAizZz.jpg]   Can we at least agree that Justin Bieber fans are the worst?

Just when you thought Bieber as a phenomenon couldnt get any more wretched.

[Old dead account]

Fucking Bieberfags. Such a cancer

It shames me to say that I sort of just tuned this out earlier and dismissed it as just another school shooting this year... How many of these things have there been this year that I just wasn't phazed by this? Like 5 or so? I don't know what they plan to do about this but they better do something fast before the next one happens. Sure nothing will ever guarantee eradication of these shootings but they have to be reduced at least and some action is better than none. I was listening to a radio show earlier about this and the fucking people in my area are fucking STUPID. Calling in saying that they should torture the shooter even though he's dead or some tough guy that says all the teachers should carry guns so that this won't happen and one person even said they should burn down all the gun stores... Fuck

[SonikkuForever]

You know what's really pathetic? The most popular story on the CNN website right now isn't about the shootings, the Middle East, or any other problems....it's that Wal-Mart is having a sale on iPhones and iPads.

 

Sometimes, I wonder why we call ourselves the greatest country in the world... 

[1991sealedquality]

I will pray for these people and also the hard times that their families are going through.

[EXshad]

Not everyone who is for stricter gun control has deluded themselves into believing mere law will completely eradicate any and every tragic death that happens at the hand of the gun, so telling me that a country with stricter gun control than the US had a mass shooting is a complete strawman. Yes, Breivik killed 77 people. What does that have to do with the fact that in the US, around 11,000 people a year die from guns? Absolutely nothing.

 

I completely disagree. This clearly shows that the problem persists, in some ways to a larger degree, based on how long his killings persisted and how many casualties emerged. Nonetheless, you're right, we have a major problem. And not once did I ever claim we didn't. And I definitely think reform needs to be done, I just don't think that it should be the kind you're proposing.

 

 

Now, I do agree that stricter means of legally obtaining them would help to a degree. Another thing we could do is close loopholes preventing high-risk people like felons from skirting around current laws to obtain guns anyway. It's very easy for people who aren't supposed to acquire them getting them from gun shows, or by simply going to another state. 

 

I agree with you 110%, you are totally right. Hell, I outright can't state the NRA. They treat guns like fucking toys for god's sake.

 

 

But in general though, I think we will forever go back to the problem of the mass availability of guns in this country just fucking up the whole issue. They're everywhere, so laws indeed will only do so much. In turn, what we realistically need is a complete cultural overhaul about how we look at guns. A pistol is not some "right," like humans have a right to "free speech" or to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but as an instrument of killing; nothing more, nothing less. Idealistically, in a utopian dimension, I'd find some way to limit the actual physical availability of the damn things.

 

The gun in and of itself is not a right, but we have the rights to 3 things, according to the constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When those things are under fire, defense is necessary. As our society has progressed, weapons have grown more elaborate and destructive, and criminals exploit these weapons to perpetrate evil. Currently, we're dealing with guns. Do I like guns? No, not really, I'm not a fan of the idea of a tool existing that's sole purpose is to end life in an instant. Hell, I never even liked hunting (though I see the use for it, but that's a debate for another time...). But I just think that people are entitled to defend those 3 rights, and sadly, if a criminal is going to use a gun to attack children, then I think a responsible adult has just as much a right to blow that fucker's brains out of his head before he can hurt another soul.

 

Our society is so polarized on the issue though, that we either have morons like the NRA who think that everyone should have a gun sticking out of every orifice, or people who want nothing to do with the matter. I think people should be responsible about their defense, and (I'm sincerely hoping) once stricter laws are passed regarding who can and cannot receive a weapons license, people can get educated on how dangerous a gun really is and when it is appropriate to be used. There can't be ambiguity surrounding this topic anymore.

 

 

.....fuck it, now I want a gun.

Edited December 15, 2012 by EXshad

[SuperStingray]

It always pisses me off how people always have to find something to blame when tragedies like this come around.  It's apparently too much to consider that some people just don't develop a moral code fit for society.  What this person did is deplorable by any rational person's account, but I can't prove that there isn't an alternate set of circumstances where I had different developmental conditions or brain chemistry that wouldn't lead me to do the exact same thing.  The only way we are going to mature as a society is to accept that human nature isn't fixed to an objective moral standard and that anyone who doesn't adhere to that is inhuman because when you dismiss the result, you dismiss the problem with it.  There's nothing special about us that makes us "better" than him other than that we were simply lucky enough to not be psychopaths.

[Patticus]

RE: 2nd Amendment

The language of this amendment is vague at best, which has long fed (and continues to feed) misinterpretations made by pro-gun lobby groups and their supporters. It needs to be clarified once and for all by whichever branch of government is best able to do so, although given the power of the lobbyists and the sheer unwillingness of the country's big figures to engage in any kind of constructive public debate on the matter of guns (thanks, fearmongerers), this won't happen any time soon. The abolition of lobbyists should ideally come first, as should the take-down of Citizens United, to begin the separation of government and the special interest groups to which it is so disgustingly beholden nowadays.

 

But in any case, I do wonder how it's possible to twist "a well regulated militia" to be understood to mean "a well-armed and unregulated populace."

[Tornado]

Larger groups of people are far more likely to die from gunshot wounds than you are from a knife due to the damage a bullet can do from longer ranges and how quickly guns can be fired to subdue large crowds versus the entirely manual operations of a knife. This is why everyone uses guns to do these types of sprees in America, even though knives are more readily available. Ultimately, the purpose of a firearm is to kill things, and technology has perfected that purpose to such an insane degree that frankly I don't even know how we can continue deluding ourselves by saying a kitchen knife has the exact same potential to kill large groups of people as a semi-automatic gun. 

 

So yes, he could have gotten a knife. He also could've gotten his ass tackled before anyone was hurt should he have chosen to use a knife. Hypotheticals versus statistics; I would much rather be in a country of knife-wielding maniacs than I would a country of gun-wielding maniacs.

 

Kitchen knife was an exceedingly poor example, yes.

 

 

 

 

But:

 

 

Which is incidentally the exact reason why the "not having easy access to a gun could have prevented this" argument fell flat when applied to the theater shooting a few months ago, or Columbine.

 

 

 A pistol is not some "right," like humans have a right to "free speech" or to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but as an instrument of killing; nothing more, nothing less

 

It is an instrument to fire a small projectile at around the speed of sound. It's nothing more and nothing less than that.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[Johnny Boy]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'><p>I wish this fucker hadn't killed himself.<br />

He should have rotted in prison like he deserved. I mean, who the FUCK kills kids like that?</p></blockquote>

Or better yet he could've gotten raped and shanked in prison. The people in there have zero tolerance for people who hurt kids.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Goddamn Batman

[Nepenthe]

I completely disagree. This clearly shows that the problem persists, in some ways to a larger degree, based on how long his killings persisted and how many casualties emerged. Nonetheless, you're right, we have a major problem. And not once did I ever claim we didn't. And I definitely think reform needs to be done, I just don't think that it should be the kind you're proposing.

I am not talking about the problem merely existing elsewhere, because crime will always exist. I am talking about the prevalence of the problem in different countries. The US is literally the only first-world country with gun deaths as high as we have them. This warrants gun control discussion. To point to Norway and say "But what about Breivik?!" is dumb, in the same way that saying "He could've gotten a knife" is dumb; neither of which addresses the issue about what to do about prevalent gun crime in the US. They are strawman arguments.

 

 

I agree with you 110%, you are totally right. Hell, I outright can't state the NRA. They treat guns like fucking toys for god's sake.

Indeed; a hearty "fuck the NRA" never goes out of style.

 

  

The gun in and of itself is not a right, but we have the rights to 3 things, according to the constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When those things are under fire, defense is necessary. As our society has progressed, weapons have grown more elaborate and destructive, and criminals exploit these weapons to perpetrate evil. Currently, we're dealing with guns. Do I like guns? No, not really, I'm not a fan of the idea of a tool existing that's sole purpose is to end life in an instant. Hell, I never even liked hunting (though I see the use for it, but that's a debate for another time...). But I just think that people are entitled to defend those 3 rights, and sadly, if a criminal is going to use a gun to attack children, then I think a responsible adult has just as much a right to blow that fucker's brains out of his head before he can hurt another soul.

 

Our society is so polarized on the issue though, that we either have morons like the NRA who think that everyone should have a gun sticking out of every orifice, or people who want nothing to do with the matter. I think people should be responsible about their defense, and (I'm sincerely hoping) once stricter laws are passed regarding who can and cannot receive a weapons license, people can get educated on how dangerous a gun really is and when it is appropriate to be used. There can't be ambiguity surrounding this topic anymore.

I believe in the right to self-defense, which again, I keep insisting is possible to have without the second amendment by way of its existence as a concept in other countries that do not rely on the US Constitution for the basis of their government. I don't even have a problem with this guy having been shot to death. But let's not ignore the fact that people do believe that the 2nd amendment means they have an inalienable right to own a gun and thus the government cannot "take them away." Let's also not ignore the fact that self-defense has been perverted as a means to justify egregious harm and death to people who, either ethically or legally, did not deserve it, many, many, many times. Remember Trayvon Martin and the embarrassing inability for right-wingers to universally condemn Zimmerman because he had injuries and Martin underwent drug testing, which in turn somehow justified lethal force? How about the murderer who confronted two teenagers who broke into his home over the Thanksgiving holiday and, in his own words, "put them out of their misery" with head shots from another gun he had to retrieve after adequately subduing them?

People in this country have proven over and over again to have a deeply flawed understanding of the concept of the 2nd amendment and self-defense which, in simple terms, stems from a consideration of "freedom" as if it's a linear spectrum in that the more you have, the better off society is, even at the expense of other's lives, and this shit is just going to keep on happening to the degree that it is until we make drastic steps towards changing that flawed cultural perception.

 

Which is incidentally the exact reason why the "not having easy access to a gun could have prevented this" argument fell flat when applied to the theater shooting a few months ago, or Columbine.

 

I don't see how this is any different from the "he could've gotten a knife" argument. No one is denying a bomb can kill a lot of people even quicker than a gun, at least if done right. No one is also denying that a knife can kill at all. However, let's stop denying that guns are the favored weapon of choice of psychopaths for obvious reasons. When thousands of Americans are getting domestically killed by bombs every single year from crazy people, I will certainly think it's worthy of a discussion about what to do for bomb control.

 

[Tornado]

I don't see how this is any different from the "he could've gotten a knife" argument. No one is denying a bomb can kill a lot of people even quicker than a gun, at least if done right. No one is also denying that a knife can kill at all. However, let's stop denying that guns are the favored weapon of choice of psychopaths for obvious reasons. When thousands of Americans are getting domestically killed by bombs every single year from crazy people, I will certainly think it's worthy of a discussion about what to do for bomb control.

 

Because you're focusing on the statistics instead of the root argument. Of course most mass killings are done with guns. It is more convenient (or at least cheaper) to do it that way unless you're planning on killing truly massive amounts of people; plus I have to assume there is some kind of increased psychological satisfaction in most cases. The issue is that someone who is fucked up in the head enough to shoot up a school is fucked up in the head enough to throw together a bomb and attempt to blow up a school if they can't get access to a gun. And, in fact, for the school shooting whose name is synonymous with the entire concept of school shootings, the people involved attempted to do that very thing; and they attempted to do it first, at that. Running around shooting people was something they did as some sort of sick backup plan.

 

 

As I said months ago, cracking down on the things that make people feel like an acceptable outlet for their emotions is to shoot up a Wal-Mart is more important than limiting one of the options that they have for doing it. Because the people who have reached a state where they decide to do such a thing are going to do such a thing with whatever the most convenient/destructive outlet they have at their disposal. The major problem is not guns nor violent video games, neither gun control nor a militaristic attitude, but mostly how our society deals with and represses mental problems.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[Nepenthe]

Because you're not getting the actual argument and are focusing on the statistics instead. Someone who is fucked up in the head enough to shoot up a school is fucked up in the head enough to throw together a bomb and attempt to use that if they can't get access to a gun. And, in fact, for the school shooting whose name is synonymous with the entire concept of school shootings, the people involved attempted to do that very thing.

 

 

As I said months ago, cracking down on the things that make people feel like an acceptable outlet for their emotions is to shoot up a Wal-Mart is more important than limiting one of the options that they have for doing it. Because the people who have reached a state where they decide to do such a thing are going to do such a thing with whatever the most convenient/destructive outlet they have at their disposal.

 

The argument that a crazy person will find any possible means of killing someone, thus an inability to procure a gun would not have prevented the tragedy to the degree with which we see it today is inherently flawed because it is a slippery slope fallacy that doesn't reflect the reality of the matter. If I'm supposed to believe that psychos would just go for bombs instead of guns, why aren't we prone to as many bombing incidents in other countries where guns are hard to procure and instead have stupid shit like knifing massacres where the risk of death is statistically lower anyway? If we assume that it's because bombing materials are hard to procure in China and other places, then what about chemical attacks? Remember the anthrax scares, or the Tokyo Subway attacks? There's deadly chemicals everywhere, and I'd wager you could take a shitload of people out in a big enough building, or just by poisoning a supply of water or food. Indeed, if it is indisputable fact that crazies are gonna craze, thus tragedies to the degree we see them in the US during gun sprees are actually inevitable, why aren't we seeing this amazing plethora of all manner of unique attacks with as high or a higher body count as our massacres whenever someone else in another country decides to go postal? Why is it that Breivik was a complete anomaly in the fact of the matter?

 

I don't say all of this to negate the need for action in the area of mental health, mainly by getting more people treated, by eliminating the stigma we have about mental health patients, and that men, the group usually most responsible for gun massacres, are not lesser for recognizing a need for help and attaining it from a mental health physician. However, I don't believe in this paranoid idea that homicides by other means like knife, blunt object, or bomb would suddenly shoot up to the stratosphere and be on par with the amount of homicides we have by gun if crazy people weren't allowed to get their hands on them; that our rates wouldn't change whatsoever. There's just no proof for it. Instead, I believe strongly in this insane idea that if we had less guns, we'd have less gun massacres, and the biggest reason why we're never going to talk about eliminating them is because of sheer physical impossibility of doing so at this point in time; forget the law and the Constitution. Regardless though, gun control needs to be in the public discourse just as much as mental health does.

Edited December 15, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[EXshad]

I am not talking about the problem merely existing elsewhere, because crime will always exist. I am talking about the prevalence of the problem in different countries. The US is literally the only first-world country with gun deaths as high as we have them. This warrants gun control discussion. To point to Norway and say "But what about Breivik?!" is dumb, in the same way that saying "He could've gotten a knife" is dumb; neither of which addresses the issue about what to do about prevalent gun crime in the US. They are strawman arguments.

 

That wasn't the point. I was simply trying to show that the wrong person was able to get his hands on a gun, despite the strict laws of the country. Though if you really want to dig into it, was it an isolated incident? Yes. For example, in 2009, only 107 people died in gun-related incidents. That's fucking incredible.

 

But here's the kicker: gun ownership is high in Norway. A large chunk of the population is armed, yet thanks to regulations, gun-related crime is incredibly low. The reasons they are so safe, despite the apparent excess of firearms? Gun safes are mandatory. Licenses aren't handed out like candy. People are educated on how to use a gun properly. And a criminal market is virtually non-existent since most can buy weapons through legal means. I wasn't bashing Norway; hell, if anything, they support my argument, as they are pretty much an ideal representation of what I think needs to be done in America. Hell, I think America as a whole should sit its collective ass down and take notes. I was simply pointing out the fallacy that the solution to the problem is disarming the general populous. 

 

And yes, the knife-argument was fucking stupid, and I feel dumb for mentioning it. Hurrah.

Edited December 15, 2012 by EXshad

[Nepenthe]

That wasn't the point. I was simply trying to show that the wrong person was able to get his hands on a gun, despite the strict laws of the country. Though if you really want to dig into it, was it an isolated incident? Yes. For example, in 2009, only 107 people died in gun-related incidents. That's fucking incredible.

 

But here's the kicker: gun ownership is high in Norway. A majority of the population is armed, yet thanks to regulations, gun-related crime is incredibly low. The reasons they are so safe, despite the apparently excess of firearms? Gun safes are mandatory. Licenses aren't handed out like candy. People are educated on how to use a gun properly. I wasn't bashing Norway; hell, if anything, they support my argument, as they are pretty much an ideal representation of what I think needs to be done in America. Hell, I think America as a whole should sit its collective ass down and take notes. I was simply pointing out the fallacy that the solution to the problem is disarming the general populous. 

 

And yes, the knife-argument was fucking stupid, and I feel dumb for mentioning it. Hurrah.

 

Norway isn't a real equivalency, though. Norway's gun ownership rates are 31.1 per 100. The United States' is 88.8 per 100; over twice as high. Norway also has greater restrictions on the firearms a person can actually own and modify that frankly don't exist here. Also, the majority of gun owners there are actual hunters; instead, most people in the US use firearms as personal protection. And of course, they have a much lower amount of guns than we do. This is all in addition to their completely different cultural attitude towards guns and the subsequent documentation laws that have followed. Regardless, my argument is not one of disarming the population anyway. I've already admitted that's impossible.

[Patticus]

The problem with American gun ownership isn't the prevalence of firearms in and of itself, it's the attitude of the general population toward firearms, which views them less as dangerous weapons to be locked up when not in use, and more as noisy toys for grown-ups. This gets exploited by the powerful gun lobby all the time. Add to this the rampant poverty this country has, its terrible social mobility rate, awful healthcare, the ridiculous difficulty of obtaining mental healthcare (it's much easier to buy a gun than it is to get mental healthcare - actual madness!), repeated misinterpretations of the frustratingly unclear 2nd Amendment, pro-gun myths and propaganda spouted by pro-gun groups, the various powerful gun lobby groups, the country's habitual deification of heroic Army Generals (oh Petraeus, so nearly were you the anointed one)... It all adds up to a mystifying and frankly very unhealthy obsession with firearms.

 

Also, sales like these have got to stop:

[EXshad]

Norway isn't a real equivalency, though. Norway's gun ownership rates are 31.1 per 100. The United States' is 88.8 per 100; over twice as high. Norway also has greater restrictions on the firearms a person can actually own and modify that frankly don't exist here. Also, the majority of gun owners there are actual hunters; instead, most people in the US use firearms as personal protection. And of course, they have a much lower amount of guns than we do. This is all in addition to their completely different cultural attitude towards guns and the subsequent documentation laws that have followed. Regardless, my argument is not one of disarming the population anyway. I've already admitted that's impossible.

 

The reason that their number is lower than ours, again, can come down to the care that is taken when handing out licenses and how it's more difficult to purchase the actual weapon. I'm also gonna make the stretch and say the Norwegian culture isn't as trigger happy as ours. I'm sure our bloated statistics would decrease if the appropriate measures were taken. In a normal situation, 33% of the population would be a large number in and of itself, and that's important to keep in mind.

 

And of course they have a lower amount of guns than we do, for both the reasons you mentioned as well as the smaller populous. The problem is we have organizations like the NRA, who make a profit off of selling a ton of guns to anyone and everyone, pouring money into lobbying. The bastards actually lobbied against efforts towards passing laws that make it more difficult for people to attain a weapons license. Now, as a corporation, profits come first; they don't care who the consumer is, or how they market the product. And they have so much money entrenched in Congress that it's going to be difficult to see major reform take place. They are blatantly against education and gun safety, seeing it as a threat to their sales.

 

Of course, this all ties into how the US government is essentially bought by the highest bidders, but that's a debate for another time. But the overarching point is that Norway does not have a single law barring the general sale and manufacturing of firearms in regards to the general public, so long as they are license and taking the necessary training. I feel confident in saying that, largely, the probable primary reason for less of their populous owning more guns than ours is that many people simply choose not to own them, not the government abridging their ability to own them (so long as they meet the required standards).

Edited December 15, 2012 by EXshad