67 replies to this topic

[welliwonder]

Ok, so it seems for some on here it is worth it, and I'm sure thats the case for many, if not most, Americans,and hence the lax gun laws, but to list 'for food', as a reason gun ownership gives just a tiny insight into why it'll never change. I think you're getting your drive-thru's mixed up with your drive-by's  Jason.

And as for the 'Gunchester' comment;

The Assistant Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Force said that his force were "currently projecting a reduction of 40 per cent in the number of murders involving firearms in 2003/4 compared to 2000/1 - and a 44 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms"

These were the results of a campaign of stronger enforcement of gun control laws.

I concede Rebekah, that it wouldnt necessarily stop the incident that just happened (although it quite possibly could have) but the 80 gun killings a day in the U.S are as you say, in the vast majority domestic killings and the like that would not, and simply dont, happen on that kind of scale in countries with stricter gun control.

Anyway, perhaps its not for us foreigners to say, its up to Americans, they're the people who are far more likely to be the victim of a gun crime after all.

[pebbles]

Kelly A said:

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.

I thought the protections of the constitution applied to all people within the borders of the country.  As do all the laws.

[Kelly A]

pebbles said:

I thought the protections of the constitution applied to all people within the borders of the country.  As do all the laws.

You could be right, although I would question the wisdom of selling arms to terrorists just because they're within our borders. Maybe that's not a big security concern.

[Kelly A]

welliwonder said:

Anyway, perhaps its not for us foreigners to say, its up to Americans, they're the people who are far more likely to be the victim of a gun crime after all.

Hey we're trying. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. We're number one!

(Of course, many of those are probably just in there for possession of more than a pound of rattlesnakes)

[pebbles]

Kelly A said:

You could be right, although I would question the wisdom of selling arms to terrorists just because they're within our borders. Maybe that's not a big security concern.

That's an argument for better gun control, imo.  People who commit acts of terror or acts of violence aren't always going to be non-american.  

Many of these types of shootings are caused by people who are isolated and alienated from their peers for a variety of reasons.  The people who don't fit in, and aren't part of anyone's group at all.  It must have just made it that much worse to have culture shock and probably language barrier isolation on top of whatever else was going on with this person.  

We had a kid move to winnipeg from Hong Kong in grade seven.  He had a lot of problems adjusting, and basically learning English by immersion, and being expected to learn all the other school work.  He had a LOT of frustration and anger management problems as we went through jr high and high school.  He wanted to fit in and be friends with everyone, but he had a hard time figuring out how to do that.  Mostly that he didn't "get" teenage culture in Canada.  Every once in a while, the tension would just explode. He once punched a window out in a classroom door.  Every time I hear the story of the virginia shooter, I think of that kid I grew up with.

[Antti]

The U.S. has probably the most liberal gun laws in the western world and as I searched for the answer to my question a page earlier, it seems they've progressively restricted gun ownership since 1934.

So basically, progress is being made. Well, if the gun laws were changed how should it be done? What would be the next move, and is the progress fast enough? And most importantly, what would be the middle ground that would satisfy (or at least come closest to satisfying both) both the pro-gun rights and the pro-gun control sides?

[Bastian]

He bought the Glock 19 pistol, 50 rounds of ammo and 6-8 mags perfectly legal in this local gun shop in less than 10 minutes. He then waited 1 month and did the same in a different shop.

[Bastian]

Other weapons for sale in the Roanoke Firearms shop:

A Barrett 50.cal sniper rifle:


A Barrett m468 assault rifle:

[welliwonder]

How can you argue with that? Jason, as an established defender of the indefensible i.e. Guantanamo Bay etc, I'm sure you'll have a go.

The killer, or 'shooter' as the american media are describing him, couldnt have done that (obtained effortlessly, the weapons that killed all those people)anywhere else and so it wouldnt have happened anywhere else.He probably couldnt have done it in his own country for instance.

I hear in Virginia you can buy a semi automatic assault rifle without any record of sale, without even giving a name,completely regardless of a criminal or psychotic history.What useful purpose does that serve ?

Can someone explain why that sort of attitude to guns, when combined with the kind of denial expressed by Jason, has nothing to do with the highest gun crime figures in the Western world?

[welliwonder]

I just noticed the sign on the door of those pics,so you only need be 18 yrs old too? So you can buy a semi automatic weapon 3 years before you can legally buy a beer?

[inspectorjason]

Sweden said:

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?

A recent British reaction to the Virginia tragedy and an acknowledgement to the crime problem in Britain as comparison: http://www.guardian....2059701,00.html
A few random stories since 2000:http://www.iht.com/a...un-Violence.php
http://www.nytimes.c...=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.drudgerep...92835_flash.htm
http://news.bbc.co.u...rts/2131318.stm
http://www.time.com/...guns/story.html
http://www.opinionjo...a/?id=105002026

One article that drew my attention a few years back about hidden guns in Europe:
http://www.prnewswir...lease?id=104814
This basically drives home my point that guns laws only affect those who don't have an intent to break the law in the first place.   There's not much that increased gun legislation would do about gun owners who illegally own firearms in the first place.  

I won't argue that increased gun crime doesn't have anything to do with the increased availability of guns and I'll be the first to say that there are certain instances (student suicides, etc.) that are more potentially deadly for others when guns are more readily available.  The bottom line, though, is that someone with murderous intent will not be deterred by increased gun laws and will likely be able to utilize loopholes in the legal system.   I don't see increased gun control legislation being the answer to these problems, though.   Definitely not at this point in time when guns are illegally owned by so many in the first place.

[inspectorjason]

welliwonder said:

but to list 'for food', as a reason gun ownership gives just a tiny insight into why it'll never change. I think you're getting your drive-thru's mixed up with your drive-by's  Jason.

I appreciate your humor here.   More people benefit from hunting for food here in the U.S. than you would think, though.  I have several friends, relatives, and co-workers who hunt for deer every year and are able to eat the venison for months afterward.   Hunting for food is a considerable financial benefit to a huge number of people in rural areas throughout the country.

I'll concede that there is no need whatsoever for automatic rifles or handguns when hunting for food.  Many friends of mine use bows when hunting for deer as well.  

The banning of certain firearms (assault rifles, handguns, etc.) will only affect those who are inclined to obey the laws in the first place.   It's not denial to say that increased gun control here in the U.S. at this point will not contain shooting homicides, as someone who has the intent to commit such terrible crimes will find a way to have a gun regardless of the laws.

[welliwonder]

I can see where you're coming from Inspectorheston:D , but  you're avoiding some important points.

I agree, if someone is intent on killing someone they'll not be stopped by gun laws, plenty of people are killed without guns at all.Of course that goes for terrorists too but it doesnt mean you dont try and stop them.

But of course the vast majority of the 80 a day gun killings in the U.S are not the premeditated kind you speak of at all, they are spur of the moment arguments, domestics, drugs etc,killings that  simply would not happen if guns werent to hand .Please answer that point .

I should also stress yet again, that I'm really not anti american, I spend much of my time there by choice, I would certainly rather live there than most places,and I genuinely think that the ridiculously relaxed U.S gun laws show just what a peaceful bunch most Americans are.

Jesus, if we had gun laws like that in the ever so uptight UK, I really dread to think what would happen.

[Sweden]

inspectorjason said:

This basically drives home my point that guns laws only affect those who don't have an intent to break the law in the first place.

I would argue that the person walking into a school and gunnign down 50 people don't really consider the issue of whether they're breaking the law or not. Legality is not a concept there. Wherefore legality of the gun acquisition isn't really an issue either, which makes decreased accessability an effective measure.

Anyway, in terms of someone who has a well-thoughout plan to rob a bank, or carry out a planned murder, I believe you are somewhat correct. Someone who is determined enough to carry out such an act is likely to actually also get himself a gun, even though I maintain that it is harder in a society with strict gun laws. (Which just might prevent a small percentage of such acts, and which makes it worth it already there, in my mind.)

I am most conviced that you are dead wrong though, if we're talking about un-planned, spontaneous killings.

It's hell of a lot easier to grab a gun snd shot someone if there is indeed a gun legally and readily available in your glove department if you car.

It's hell of a lot easier to grab a gun and shot someone if there is indeed a
gun legally and readily available for you at home, when you're blinded by rage, drunkenness, anger, jealousy or what have you.

When it comes to events such as the numerous shooting at schools, workplaces etc., I would argue, as before, that the fascination and focus on guns makes the pepetrators more likely to take others with them when they are committing suicide. And that they are more likely to even think up the concept of bringing a gun to school/work and gun down people, if they know that actually getting the gun isn't gonna be the hard part of it all.

/D

EDIT: Just realised I pretty much echoed welliwonders views above. Didn't see that post before I actually posted my reply.

[monster]

This is insane. Who buys these lethal weapons? Sniper--rifle? Assault rifle? I'm glad I don't live in the US with a stoneage view of weapons and human rights. It's actually very frightening.

The views on guns have to change, and to make that change the government must take a firm stand against weapons.

[AgainstAllOdds]

welliwonder said:

I just noticed the sign on the door of those pics,so you only need be 18 yrs old too? So you can buy a semi automatic weapon 3 years before you can legally buy a beer?

Surely thats not right. How could that be justified?

[inspectorjason]

welliwonder said:

But of course the vast majority of the 80 a day gun killings in the U.S are not the premeditated kind you speak of at all, they are spur of the moment arguments, domestics, drugs etc,killings that  simply would not happen if guns werent to hand .Please answer that point.

Sweden said:

I am most conviced that you are dead wrong though, if we're talking about un-planned, spontaneous killings.

Actually, violent crime statistics (FBI statistics, juvenile crime statistics, etc.) repeatedly show that the majority of homicides in the U.S. are committed by people who have a past record of violent crimes.  Even domestic homicides are, more often than not, preceded by a history of violence in that home.   Laws already exist, for the most part, to deny handgun ownership to persons with felony arrest records and to juveniles.   These laws need to be enforced, instead of having new gun laws, and other legal issues related to histories of violence (lenient criminal probation periods, etc.) should also be addressed before blaming guns.

There are instances of alcohol-related brawls resulting in homicides, spontaneous drug-related homicides, and instances of people suddenly blowing their top, but, in the majority of even these instances, the warning signs are there (case in point = the developing information on the history of intimidation of other students by the shooter in Virginia).  

welliwonder said:

I should also stress yet again, that I'm really not anti american, I spend much of my time there by choice, I would certainly rather live there than most places,and I genuinely think that the ridiculously relaxed U.S gun laws show just what a peaceful bunch most Americans are.

I know that you aren't.  There are definitely a good many things about America that warrant criticism, of course.   Our current society has a trend of underappreciating the value of life (abortion, drug use, etc.).  This trend is conducive, unfortunately, to potentially violent behavior.   It's not a problem that is insurmountable, as major cities like New York City have shown with their decreases in violent crime due to increased police patrols and improved resources for education, etc., but problems with violent crime remain and they will likely never cease to be an issue.   The overwhelming majority of gun owners here in the U.S. pose no threat to others.

[Sweden]

inspectorjason said:

Our current society has a trend of underappreciating the value of life (abortion, drug use, etc.).

I don't even want to go into what similarities you see between drug use and abortion, but I assume you might as well throw in the death penalty there as well.

[Red Frog]

pebbles said:

I thought the protections of the constitution applied to all people within the borders of the country.  As do all the laws.

This made me laugh and then cry.

If you're gay, a gun is a lot easier to get than a marriage.

And I would hazard a guess that most illgotten guns were at one time bought legally.  Just because the last step in the travel that brings the gun to the psycho can't be tracked, the chain can be stopped earlier on.

[inspectorjason]

For your reading enjoyment, here's the latest Bill O'Reilly column:

Politics and Mass Murder
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
By Bill O'Reilly
Fox News

Within minutes of the terrible killings at Virginia Tech, liberal activists were bringing up gun control and America haters were gloating about the decline of the USA.

Listen to this e-mail I received from Pam in who lives in Canada. I'm with holding her last name because I don't want her to be hassled. Says Pam, "The U.S. doesn't need to worry about terrorists. Your country will destroy itself from the inside out, and you will have no one to blame but yourself."

Now this is typical anti-American stuff. We're bad and everything that happens is our fault.

Mass murder in America is rare. And the murder rate in this country has been steadily dropping for 15 years. There are 300 million Americans and 90 percent of us are law abiding, good people. The other 10 percent cause harm. The ratio is the same for every other country on this earth.

The Virginia Tech killer was Korean, not American. I haven't seen any anti-Korean stuff around. I haven't seen much condemnation of the Muslim world either, which is where unbelievable violence takes place every day. No, it's the USA that's bad. And much of this anti-American stuff comes from within.

The anti gun crowd has hopped up today. Elements at NBC News, The New York Times, Rosie O'Donnell, the British press all screaming about how terrible the Second Amendment is. Funny, when Katrina hit, and armed bands of thugs terrorized innocent people in New Orleans who did not have guns, we heard nothing from the ban firearms crowd.

If ever there was an event that clarified why Americans are entitled to protect themselves, it was Hurricane Katrina. That being said, Virginia's gun laws are too lenient. Almost anyone can go to the Commonwealth and buy a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol. This Cho Seung-Hui maniac bought his guns legally.

But a crazy person bent on killing will find a way to get those weapons. No law in the world can guarantee public safety.

Sensible gun laws are needed throughout the USA. And authorities should know who's buying, who's carrying and should place limits on firepower.

But the Second Amendment is there for a reason. In times of disaster, no government will be able to protect you. So you have a right to protect yourself.

If you think NBC News, The New York Times or Rosie O'Donnell care a fig about your safety, you're nuts.

Sensible gun laws? Absolutely. Assaulting the Second Amendment? Nonsense.

And that's "The Memo."