67 replies to this topic

[welliwonder]

Yet again, a tragedy of the kind almost exclusive to the U.S, will lead to the inevitable calls for gun control and an even more inevitable rejection of it on the grounds of 'the right to bear arms'.

Yet again, we have President Bush addressing the nation like some kind of priest, using religious language in order avoid reality.

This is reality; Gun crime homicides in the U.K  (just as many aggressive people I would guess) around 100-200 per year, in the U.S its a staggering 11000 or around 80 a day.There are only 5 times more people in the U.S than the U.K.

Are Americans really that much more 'evil' ,to use Bush style language, or is it down to the gun laws/gun lobby?

When will the 'war on terror' take in issues such as yesterdays tragedy.Was that not terror enough?

Is terrorism from abroad really the greatest threat to American citizens, or is it a simple fact,that in the U.S, it is far,far more likely you will be killed by an American than by a foreign terrorist, bearing in mind there are nearly 4 times more gun killings by Americans in the U.S. than the total killed on 9/11 EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

[wagtail]

I haven't heard too much about this issue yet, but I think ease of access to guns might be more of an issue in regards to crimes relating to domestic violence and the like [where the assailant is known to the victim].  I'm less convinced that strict gun control can stop an incident like this.  To me, this incident raises more issues about peoples ability to access mental health resources/facilities, than their ability to get hold of a gun.

Although it's never been as easy here to get a gun as it seems to be in the States, now Australia has some very strict gun control laws as a response to the Port Arthur Massacre where 35 people [I think] were murdered.  I can not say that our laws make me feel that we are less likely to ever have some kind of massacre happen again.  My feeling is that if someone is that fucking crazy and they have obviously premeditated such a crime, if they can't get hold of a gun, they will probably use their car as a weapon, or make a bomb, or a molotov cocktail or who knows what.

So yeah, if I were American I would be in favour of stricter gun laws, but my reasoning would be in regard to domestic violence issues, which I think is incredibly important and really needs to be discussed, but not in the 'aftershock' of an incident like this.

[inspectorjason]

"Well, you know, I'd like to murder 32 people in cold blood at a college campus, but I won't be able to do this because it's against the law to have guns and I might get in trouble.   Awww, man."

That's not how things will work.

If someone with ill intent wants to take the life of another human being and, therefore, break the most important laws in existence, then this person will likely not be deterred one way or another by laws against firearms.  

It's cliché these days to say that, if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.   This is true, though.   The only ones who will be adversely affected by more stringent gun laws will be the ones who wouldn't cause a problem in the first place.  

Let's take the 1999 Columbine murders as an example.   Here is a list of laws that were broken during the Columbine tragedy:
Premeditated murder, Murder, Attempted murder, Aggravated assault, Assault with a deadly weapon, Assault and battery, Assault, Threatening and intimidating, Conspiracy to commit felony, Conspiracy to commit misdemeanor, Aiding and abetting, Providing firearm to minor, Providing handgun to minor, Possession of firearm by minor, Possession of handgun by minor, Possession of firearm by minor without federally required permission slip from parent or guardian, Use of firearm or bomb to commit murder that is federally prosecutable, Possession of NFA weapon (sawed off shotgun), Manufacture of NFA weapon, Brandishing a gun, Brandishing a bomb, Possession of bomb making materials, Possession of explosives, Possession of explosives by minor, Possession of explosives with malicious intent, Making of explosives, Placing of explosives, Use of explosives, Concealed carry without permit, Gun on school grounds, Another gun on school grounds, Yet another gun on school grounds, Possession of ammunition on school grounds, Obtaining guns and ammo through bogus means, Discharging firearm in city limits, Discharging firearm on school grounds with reckless disregard for another person's safety, Disturbing the peace, Committing a hate crime, Multiple counts of all of the above, Multiple torts (harm suffered that is subject to civil lawsuits)

Roughly 40 laws broken during the Columbine tragedy.   Would 41 have been the magic number that would have prevented the shootings?   I doubt it.  

A "criminal" is defined as someone who does not obey the law.   Tougher gun laws will not deter criminals.   Tougher gun laws will only affect those who are responsible with firearms and have no intent to break laws.  

Additional gun laws that penalize responsible gun owners will not deter people who have murderous intent.   People will murderous intent will find a way to commit their crimes regardless of what laws affect them.   After all, the most shocking mass murder committed within the United States was committed by men who boarded airplanes armed only with box cutters.  

America doesn't have the monopoly on gun murders.  Manchester, England has been referred to as "Gunchester" because of the drug-related gun crimes within that city.  Many areas in Europe have seen an increase in gun-related crime waves over the past couple of decades as well.   America is regarded, rightly so, as the nation most prevalent for gun homicides, but guns themselves are not the problem.   Other cultural factors cause the problems that lead to gun homicides.   The perpetrators of most recent school shootings, including the two students at Columbine, suffered from adverse affects of anti-depressant medication.   There are a number of other factors: drug use, child abuse, the propencity towards an instant gratification expectation in today's television-addicted society, etc.

I don't see additional gun laws making a difference in the state of things.

[monster]

I feel I have something to say about this issue, cause I come from Norway,which is a country that has some of the lowest crime-statistics in the whole world.
You say that guncontrol and outlawing guns won't make the situation better, because the people who do these things will get a hold of one anyway. Well, I think that's a fairly one-minded way of discussing this.

In Norway, things like this doesn't happen, because only the police here has the right to bear firearms (unless you're a hunter, and want to buy a huntingrifle). We have built up a culture that has a distant relationship to guns. I think that distant relationship is very important, it's not something that is easily accessible to us, therefore we don't think of using such a device. In Norway there are a lot of suicides among the youth, and I will bet that had that been in America with guns everywhere, some of those youths would have taken others with them.

By outlawing guns, the people and the government take a very firm stand that guns are not OK. This would not make the problem stop immediatly, it will take generations to stop this problem. It's a society-issue really, and the acceptance of guns contribute and nurture this problem.

It's a long and complicated road to make this work, but the only thing that is logical to me as to how to stop these kind of things, is to take a stand against it. It isn't a human right to bear arms.

[Red Frog]

inspectorjason said:

I don't see additional gun laws making a difference in the state of things.

If all this is true, why the hell do half the people who have guns want/need them?  If you say for protection, than I say your argument is intrinsically flawed.

[Sweden]

inspectorjason said:

America doesn't have the monopoly on gun murders.  Manchester, England has been referred to as "Gunchester" because of the drug-related gun crimes within that city.  

So, a media nickname for a city proves that there is an increased in gun-related crimes in that city?
Is gun-related crime in Manchester even near the average US frequency of the same?

Quote

Many areas in Europe have seen an increase in gun-related crime waves over the past couple of decades as well.  

Do you have a source for this statement?

To some extent, it might be true in regions adjecent to or part of the former Soviet Union, from where arms flooded after the collapse in 1991. This however, only proves that an increased access to guns (as in more guns being around) increases the number of gun crimes. One would assume the same applies to a society where more lenient laws is the factor which provides increased access to guns.

Quote

Other cultural factors cause the problems that lead to gun homicides.   The perpetrators of most recent school shootings, including the two students at Columbine, suffered from adverse affects of anti-depressant medication.   There are a number of other factors: drug use, child abuse, the propencity towards an instant gratification expectation in today's television-addicted society, etc.

So, are these problems so much more common in the US than in other Western countries, that it provides the main explanation for the fact that for example about 3/4 of the school shootings over the last century took place in the US.

Quote

I don't see additional gun laws making a difference in the state of things.

In what state of things more exactly?

And...

monster said:

In Norway there are a lot of suicides among the youth, and I will bet that had that been in America with guns everywhere, some of those youths would have taken others with them.

I would say that this is probbably correct. This even though part of the problem, as maybe somhow implied by Jason, presumably comes from an obsession with guns rather than access to guns.

/David


EDIT: There are now others factors to consider as well, as the perpetrator in this specific case seems to have been identified as a South-Korean exchange student, who'd been in the US since August only.
- During this short time, had he the chance to be so affected by those other factors you mention Jason, that it triggered this type of behaviour and it would have happened with our without strict gun laws?
- Would he have tried to, and would he have been able to, carry out the same act if he had been an exchange student in France, Japan, Denmark or New Zealand?

[-kawada-]

In answer to the question, no.

In the UK, guns are present in the absolute fringe of society, most normal people will never be affected by them and I think it's a good thing that our police force don't carry guns at present too.

With regards to the US though, there's so many guns out there, plenty of illegal ones too, that changing laws wouldn't really make any difference. If guns were suddenly outlawed in the US, only the licensed guns could be accounted for and confiscated and I bet alot of people wouldn't want to part with them so authorities would have a hard time enforcing that law. Unlicensed guns however would be the real problem because they would remain in the hands of the people who are more likely to use them.

[inspectorjason]

Red Frog said:

If all this is true, why the hell do half the people who have guns want/need them?  If you say for protection, than I say your argument is intrinsically flawed.

- Hunting for food
- Target shooting for sport (competition shooting, shooting ranges, clay shooting, etc.)
- Gun collections
- Investment (It's true...guns don't often depreciate in value.)
- Historical artifact preservation (Civil war enthusiasts, WWII historians, etc.)
- Various hobbies/interests (enthusiasm for guns used in certain movies, etc.)

There are a number of reasons not related directly to personal protection.   Sometimes, it's just fun to go out into the woods and shoot at beer cans or old car tires for target practice (Some friends and I used to do this back in high school on occasion.).   Some people want to own the same gun that Clint Eastwood had in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly or the Walter PPK used by Sean Connery in the early James Bond movies.   There's no telling and I'd never deny these people their right to own a gun.

Just for the record, I personally do not own a gun and don't intend to in the near future.   I grew up around guns, though, and consider them to be just another object that can be used responsibly or irresponsibly in the same way that cars, ballpoint pens, alcohol, staplers, chemical fertilizers, box cutters, airplanes, and various other objects can be used responsibly or irresponsibly.

[bizaleth]

wagtail said:

I haven't heard too much about this issue yet, but I think ease of access to guns might be more of an issue in regards to crimes relating to domestic violence and the like [where the assailant is known to the victim].  I'm less convinced that strict gun control can stop an incident like this.  To me, this incident raises more issues about peoples ability to access mental health resources/facilities, than their ability to get hold of a gun.

I agree. I don't think that strict gun control will stop incidents like that at Va tech or Columbine, etc. I do think that ease of access to guns contributes to these incidents, but I don't think it is the only cause--there are other bigger things that contribute to killings like this.

Having said that, I am still all for gun control. I have no problem with hunting, hunting rifles, etc. But automatic weapons are not needed. They are not a protected right. they are not a necessity for life. and anyone who thinks so is just plain wrong.

[SavoShadow]

monster said:

In Norway, things like this doesn't happen, because only the police here has the right to bear firearms (unless you're a hunter, and want to buy a huntingrifle). We have built up a culture that has a distant relationship to guns. I think that distant relationship is very important

I think that this is a very relevent point to make. The America I see from Europe is a country fascinated with gun culture and 'the right to bear arms'. To me its seems like a kind of antiquated yearning for the good old days of the wild west.

I agree that simply outlawing guns will not change a persons intent to commit violence against other people, but surely it will limit the extent of the violence....

[inspectorjason]

Sweden said:

So, a media nickname for a city proves that there is an increased in gun-related crimes in that city?

Well, the media probably didn't make up the "Gunchester" nickname for Manchester because of the increasing amount of cute bunny rabbits or kittens in the city.   They would have just nicknamed it "Bunnychester" or "Kittenchester" if these were the cases.  

Sweden said:

In what state of things more exactly?

More specifically, the state of things in our society that is often plagued by socio-economic problems due to irresponsibility (drug use, deadbeat fathers, lack of positive family/role-model influence on younger generations, etc.).   America is primarily a nation born of risk-takers: those who made the perilous journey to this continent to avoid persecution in other countries or to prosper in a way that they couldn't prosper in their home countries, those who settled in the western U.S. to capitalize on the Gold Rush, etc.   Our non-fatalistic mentality has been far more beneficial than detrimental over the centuries, but there is an occasional dark side to the "American character" determination to take our fate into our own hands.  

The past few generations in developed countries have never known life without the presence of television and our intrinsic values are often influenced by a lifetime of television commericals and quick resolution TV shows where problems are solved in 30 seconds (commercial) or less than an hour (shows).  Television images through commercials and such have indirectly instilled a value that, if you want something now, then you can have it now.   There's a clear difference in deep social values between those, for example, that grew up during the Great Depression and developed beliefs of saving money and goods so that their children would not be wanting and those who grew up in more prosperous times around the instant-gratification culture of television who have an inherent sense of entitlement.   The effect of television and other technologies is not exclusive to America, of course, as you've pointed out in your post, but the effects of these changed values are often magnified here because America has always been a culture of risk-takers throughout the centuries.  Capitalism does far more good in the world than bad, but the system is often misintepreted here by those with a sociopathic frame of mind who don't have a problem interfering with the rights of others in order to achieve their own short term desires (guns used in the drug trade, etc.).  

America's centuries-long fascination with outlaws may be one reason for the prevalence of gun violence here.   Generations before us used to pretend to have Wild West gunfights and model themselves after outlaws like Jesse James.  Today, the same fascination exists, except kids may be compelled to model themselves after gangsta rap stars and such.   It all goes back to the risk-taker mentality here in our country and people who did not grow up with a strong sense of positive values from family/school/religion/etc. can take the outlaw fascination a step further.

There's also an increase in narcissistic attitudes here in the U.S. where fame is treated as an attribute in its own right and people become famous for the sake of becoming famous instead of becoming famous for actually creating something.   If someone can become a "celebrity" by going on a killing spree, then this person may be compelled to do so if he or she is especially of a sociopathic frame of mind.

At any rate, if a person exhibits sociopathic tendencies that would lead him or her to commit murder, then this person will not be deterred by increased gun control.

The sociopathic tendencies that directly lead to violence, whether it be by guns or something else, are going to be a problem in society whether guns are present or not.   Guns are merely tools.   Guns are not a symptom or a cause of the skewed values that lead to random violence.

[AgainstAllOdds]

inspectorjason said:

Manchester, England has been referred to as "Gunchester" because of the drug-related gun crimes within that city.

With a son at University in Manchester I was rather alarmed to read this. I have visited the City a number of times, and yes there are areas you wouldn't go to at night - but I would never have thought of it as Gunchester.

A quick search on the internet revealed the following from the BBC website.

Gunchester was a name Manchester got in the mid 90's
A gun amnesty in Manchester in September 2006 saw more than 400 weapons handed in.
Gun crime in Manchester has been falling since 2005.

[Kelly A]

In the case of Virginia Tech, I would question whether the second amendment right actually extends to foreign nationals.  Depends on the interpretation of "the people" I suppose.

[Antti]

I think when comparing The United States and other countries, it is highly important to take a look at how the firearms laws have developed and changed over time. So, can anyone give a quick peek to U.S. law?

[Sweden]

inspectorjason said:

Well, the media probably didn't make up the "Gunchester" nickname for Manchester because of the increasing amount of cute bunny rabbits or kittens in the city.   They would have just nicknamed it "Bunnychester" or "Kittenchester" if these were the cases.  

Well, my point was obviously what scientifical importance you gave to such as nickname, as you used it as a way to prove your point. As proved by piglet above, the nickname didn't have much connection with the current situation in the city though, so I guess we can disregard that.

Did you have any sources for the statement that many parts of Europe had an increasing gun crime rate, and would you argue that that alledged development had little to do with the increase in gun availability?

inspectorjason said:

[cut most of Jason's long and well-worded arguments on more social factors to the US gun crime rate]

I appreciate your arguments regarding this Jason, and to some extent I believe you have a good point. The arguing regarding social factors also somewhat echoes the conclusions of the US' "society of fear" made in Bowling for Columbine.

Still though, there are some factors I'd argue with. I'm not sure whether you connect events in your nation's past, in terms of adventure-seekers and risk-takers (a century or more ago) to the fascination of guns in your society, or with the supposed "need" for the current lenient laws. If it is the latter, I would surely disagree, if it is the former, I presume you have a point.

Further, the view that "socio-economic problems due to irresponsibility" would be any more frequent in the US than elsewhere, I can't really support. Whether we like it or not, many of the perils and problems of today's Western civlisations are rather similar in most countries.

I also do wonder about your view on the last questions in my post:
Was this specific young student so influenced by US society during his eight months there that it can even in part be blamed for the actions?
Is it less likely that he would have been able to carry out his plan in a country with more strict gun laws?

Quote

There's also an increase in narcissistic attitudes here in the U.S. where fame is treated as an attribute in its own right and people become famous for the sake of becoming famous instead of becoming famous for actually creating something.   If someone can become a "celebrity" by going on a killing spree, then this person may be compelled to do so if he or she is especially of a sociopathic frame of mind.

Correct. But as stated above, easy access to guns faciliaties the acting out such plans.

Conslusively, I think you are correct in that the social factors have some sort of influence on why break-downs of this type happens, and also why the perpretators chose guns as the mean of acting out their violence (or for that matter killing themselves and taking numerous others with them).

I would still argue though, that decreased access to guns would prevent (or at least lessen he chance of) these types of events from occuring, or at least lessen the deadly effects.

/David

[Red Frog]

inspectorjason said:

- Hunting for food
- Target shooting for sport (competition shooting, shooting ranges, clay shooting, etc.)
- Gun collections
- Investment (It's true...guns don't often depreciate in value.)
- Historical artifact preservation (Civil war enthusiasts, WWII historians, etc.)
- Various hobbies/interests (enthusiasm for guns used in certain movies, etc.)

Ok, so people who get any reasonable portion of their food from hunting: .001% of the population.
Target shooting: hand guns, semi automatics, assault rifles are hardly useful here.
Gun collection: Stamps don't kill people.
Investment:  Any one who invests in a gun doesn't understand economics.  And if they were outlawed, then they would certainly drop in value.
Historical artifact: But this is only period pieces, which are rarely if ever fired.  Although every summer in Gettysburg there is a massive slaughter of people, maybe because they're wearing ridiculous costumes.  We should put a stop to this blatant historicalism.
"Various hobbies": If you can name me more than one person who has ever fallen into this category, who is not a lunatic, I will concede.

I think most of the things you listed refer to an absolutely minuscule portion of society.  I grew up in Western PA where guns abound, and my father owns probably 5 or so.  But at the same time, they were still treated with a lot of respect because he knew what he was doing...many people with guns have no regard for this (and shoot their friends in the face) and act like guns are normal and everyone should have one.  They aren't and they shouldn't.

[Kelly A]

My parents use a gun to protect themselves from rattlesnakes.

[Red Frog]

Kelly A said:

My parents use a gun to protect themselves from rattlesnakes.

We should outlaw rattlesnakes.

[-kawada-]

Red Frog said:

We should outlaw rattlesnakes.

Or give them a pet mongoose.

[In the Corner]

Red Frog said:

We should outlaw rattlesnakes.

But if we outlaw rattlesnakes, only outlaws will have rattlesnakes.