OT: US University Shootings

[Super Goalie]

A lone gunman is dead after police said he killed at least 21 people Monday during twin shootings on the Virginia Tech campus -- the worst school shooting incident in U.S. history.
"Some victims were shot in a classroom," university police Chief Wendell Flinchum said during a news conference in Blacksburg.
Police believe there was only one gunman, Flinchum said.
"Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions," said university President Charles Steger. "The university is shocked and indeed horrified."

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html

[NSWCROW]

Lotta confusion over the suspect.
Was reportedly killed but then a photo of a bloke being cuffed surfaced.!!!

[NikkiNoo]

It's now up to 33 people dead and they think the shooter is dead but they are also still unsure if the two incidents are related - the earlier shooting and the larger one at Norris Hall :(

[Markthirtytwo]

Remember folks only humans kill, guns don't.

That's the NRA line.

If only that was true, most of these people would still be alive. :(

[Coopers]

Yeah, but how you gonna defend yourself from the milkman without your AK-47, with depleted-uranium, cyanide-tipped, hollow-pointed, explosive rounds?



Apparently the shooter killed himself after.

[Arsene Wenger]

Heard this early this morning. It is just horrifying to think that one (or 2) people can go on such a rampage and end the lives of so many people. If you have not seen it check out the video on ninemsn.com of someone's phone camera. It is absolutely chilling.

[noddy]

Heard this early this morning. It is just horrifying to think that one (or 2) people can go on such a rampage and end the lives of so many people. If you have not seen it check out the video on ninemsn.com of someone's phone camera. It is absolutely chilling.

Happens far to regularly

The worst ones in my opinion are the massacre in a Scottish primary school some years back & the Port Phillip one.

[jo172]

Guns don't kill people, People kill people:rolleyes:

Americans are a bunch of stupid psychos

[Markthirtytwo]

Guns don't kill people, People kill people:rolleyes:

Americans are a bunch of stupid psychos

This is the biggest piece of codswallop that the yanks try to sell.

Sure they don't have a brain and get up and walk over and shoot someone but if people couldn't get their hands on them just imagine the millions of lives saved.

[jenny61_99]

It's not just the Americans who believe that guns don't kill people! :mad: The small, but reasonably powerful gun lobby here in Australia will tell you the same thing.... until Port Arthur that was.

Nobody could tell me that a man armed with a knife (rather than an automatic weapon armed with more ammo than he could carry) is going to kill that many people before being overwhelmed and apprehended.

If this incident doesn't make the US change their gun laws, nothing will.

[jo172]

The fact that 2 members of the NSW Legislative Council are members of the shooters rights party freaks the hell out of me.

The problem is the second you liberalize gun laws, even for a second it makes it easier for the nutcases to get their hands on them and then you get events like this one happening.

[Markthirtytwo]

It's not just the Americans who believe that guns don't kill people! :mad: The small, but reasonably powerful gun lobby here in Australia will tell you the same thing.... until Port Arthur that was.

Nobody could tell me that a man armed with a knife (rather than an automatic weapon armed with more ammo than he could carry) is going to kill that many people before being overwhelmed and apprehended.

If this incident doesn't make the US change their gun laws, nothing will.

It's their god given right damn it. :thumbsd:

[Crow-mo]

This is the biggest piece of codswallop that the yanks try to sell.

Sure they don't have a brain and get up and walk over and shoot someone but if people couldn't get their hands on them just imagine the millions of lives saved.

you're entitled to your opinion but at least inform yourself of the other view.

The idea is that it is a deterrent and if you banned gun ownership, then only the criminals would have them. there would still be a trade, and gun smuggling would become an even bigger issue.

as it is, Jo is entirely correct. this idea that guns kills people, what next, knives kill people, forks kill people, pesky fish bones kill people too? ;)

[Crow-mo]

It's not just the Americans who believe that guns don't kill people! :mad: The small, but reasonably powerful gun lobby here in Australia will tell you the same thing.... until Port Arthur that was.

Nobody could tell me that a man armed with a knife (rather than an automatic weapon armed with more ammo than he could carry) is going to kill that many people before being overwhelmed and apprehended.

If this incident doesn't make the US change their gun laws, nothing will.

exactly how many guns were used in the terrorist attacks in Bali, London and in New York?

[crows98]

Imbecilic people kill other people, not guns. Guns are just the easiest weapon that they can get there hands on and easiest to use. Take the guns away and they will just find something else to use like a plastic explosive or a bomb or a plane or some shit that will do damage.

If the government were serious, they would put more money into mental health issues and try and help the people who are in danger of doing theses crimes. The guy who did this shooting today could have had a mental health issue like bi polar or depression.

[Carl Spackler]

Remember McVeigh's brother's line from Bowling For Columbine? "I believe that the pen is mightier than the sword... but you must always have a sword handy, in case the pen fails."

[Markthirtytwo]

you're entitled to your opinion but at least inform yourself of the other view.

The idea is that it is a deterrent and if you banned gun ownership, then only the criminals would have them. there would still be a trade, and gun smuggling would become an even bigger issue.

as it is, Jo is entirely correct. this idea that guns kills people, what next, knives kill people, forks kill people, pesky fish bones kill people too? ;)

I have been informed snowball. The hard way. I have seen first hand what all weapons can do and it is not a pretty sight. That is why I have the opinions I do and no stupid self righeous nung is going to change it ok?

Just let me say that if this guy had a knife or a friggen fish bone, then how many people would have he killed before someone over powered him?

And if as you say it is a deterent, then why wasn't all the weapons that the college police force had at their disposal act as a deterent to this guy? That is a piss weak excuse.

It is the manufacturers, gutless polititians and corrupt states that have ****ed up society.

And for the record, read jo's thread again, there is something you have missed. :rolleyes:

[Coopers]

The problem is more the culture - that they have the right to a gun, and they'll gosh darn use it too.

A lot of TV shows depict violence and crime, yet they ban nudity and sexual themese.

The us culture glorifies solving problems spectacularly, and individually. (i.e. you're a popular hero, or you're nothing).

That all said, I don't see why anyone who is not say a farmer or a licensed sporting shooter should be allowed to get a gun. It doesn't make sense.

[jo172]

The idea is that it is a deterrent and if you banned gun ownership, then only the criminals would have them. there would still be a trade, and gun smuggling would become an even bigger issue.

Well it certainly proved an effective deterrent yesterday:rolleyes:


as it is, Jo is entirely correct. this idea that guns kills people, what next, knives kill people, forks kill people, pesky fish bones kill people too? ;)

Most murders are crimes of passion not cold blooded killings, having guns avaliable allows the murderer an impersonal contact free way of killing people. Having less guns makes murders rare. For an example compare Australia's murder rate to America's.

[jo172]

exactly how many guns were used in the terrorist attacks in Bali, London and in New York?

How many more people die after being shot each year then died in those terrorist attacks?

[Adam BK]

Imbecilic people kill other people, not guns. Guns are just the easiest weapon that they can get there hands on and easiest to use. Take the guns away and they will just find something else to use like a plastic explosive or a bomb or a plane or some shit that will do damage.

If the government were serious, they would put more money into mental health issues and try and help the people who are in danger of doing theses crimes. The guy who did this shooting today could have had a mental health issue like bi polar or depression.

I found a AOL blog entry linked on The Age websites main page and have included some of the blog entry. Its quite chilling reading it, the fact that the thought of him being a school shooter went through his head. :eek: The two plays are quite disturbing as well.

--------------------

What happened yesterday:

When I first heard about the multiple shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday, my first thought was about my friends, and my second thought was "I bet it was Seung Cho."

Cho was in my playwriting class last fall, and nobody seemed to think much of him at first. He would sit by himself whenever possible, and didn't like talking to anyone. I don't think I've ever actually heard his voice before. He was just so quiet and kept to himself. Looking back, he fit the exact stereotype of what one would typically think of as a "school shooter" – a loner, obsessed with violence, and serious personal problems. Some of us in class tried to talk to him to be nice and get him out of his shell, but he refused talking to anyone. It was like he didn't want to be friends with anybody. One friend of mine tried to offer him some Halloween candy that she still had, but he slowly shook his head, refusing it. He just came to class every day and submitted his work on time, as I understand it.

A major part of the playwriting class was peer reviews. We would write one-act plays and submit them to an online repository called Blackboard for everyone in the class to read and comment about in class the next day. Typically, the students give their opinions about the plays and suggest ways to make it better, the professor gives his insights, then asks the author to comment about the play in class.

When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare. The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of. Before Cho got to class that day, we students were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter. I was even thinking of scenarios of what I would do in case he did come in with a gun, I was that freaked out about him. When the students gave reviews of his play in class, we were very careful with our words in case he decided to snap. Even the professor didn't pressure him to give closing comments.

While I "knew" Cho, I always wished there was something I could do for him, but I couldn't think of anything. As far as notifying authorities, there isn't (to my knowledge) any system set up that lets people say "Hey! This guy has some issues! Maybe you should look into this guy!" If there were, I definitely would have tried to get the kid some help. I think that could have had a good chance of averting yesterday's tragedy more than anything.

Source: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

[Stiffy_18]

Well it certainly proved an effective deterrent yesterday:rolleyes:




Most murders are crimes of passion not cold blooded killings, having guns avaliable allows the murderer an impersonal contact free way of killing people. Having less guns makes murders rare. For an example compare Australia's murder rate to America's.
But if you compare the population of one country to another its tells a vastly different story. By sheer numbers USA wins hands down. On ratio, I am not so sure.

I think people are missing the bigger picture here. Getting rod of guns doesn't neccessarily mean there would be less murderers out there. There are other means to kill someone. Guns are just one way.

[jo172]

But if you compare the population of one country to another its tells a vastly different story. By sheer numbers USA wins hands down. On ratio, I am not so sure.

I think people are missing the bigger picture here. Getting rod of guns doesn't neccessarily mean there would be less murderers out there. There are other means to kill someone. Guns are just one way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

The BBC seems pretty sure.

Homicide is a dreadful deed, and varies very significantly around the world. Australia's current rate at just under two per 10,000 is the same as it was at the start of this century.

The USA has a rate five times that of Australia,

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/980419_Ockham's_Razor.htm

That seems pretty sure too ...

Mate, all those cities in the top murder rates have easy to get guns. Sure people will still get murdered with out guns but many murderers find it harder to physically and emotionally commit the crime when using a knife for example it requires much more physical contact.

Also i'd like to see someone commit a crime of passion and sponatanaity kill so many people yesterday with only a knife:rolleyes:

[Markthirtytwo]

But if you compare the population of one country to another its tells a vastly different story. By sheer numbers USA wins hands down. On ratio, I am not so sure.

I think people are missing the bigger picture here. Getting rod of guns doesn't neccessarily mean there would be less murderers out there. There are other means to kill someone. Guns are just one way.

Just try and get out of the way of a bullet Stiff. At least you have a chance to either escape or defend yourself with anything else apart from explosives, and we all know who use them. :mad:


I'm just waiting for someone to bring up Jonestown. :(

[Stiffy_18]

Just try and get out of the way of a bullet Stiff. At least you have a chance to either escape or defend yourself with anything else apart from explosives, and we all know who use them. :mad:


I'm just waiting for someone to bring up Jonestown. :(
Listen chap, unlike you I have had the bullets in me since the age of 12. I also had to have a surgery a couple of years ago to remove bullet that was left in me and had resurfaced with time.

Banning guns is step one but its is NOT the solution. What people forget here is that there are other issues that lead to these things. Having guns available is NOT the key issue.

You and I could own a gun but are we ****ed up enough to go out there and kill someone?! The answer for me is certainly no.

Now if I was suffering from a mental disorder and I was to murder someone, I wouldn't need a gun to do it.

I think people are ignoring the very key issues here. Having guns available is not THE key issue.

All this boils down to one thing, if this chap didn't have some serious mental issues, this wouldn't have happened. How can someone possibly deny this?!

I will also give you an example that happened in Belgrade about a month ago. I read it in one of the serbian papers on line. A Chinese man who was suffering from bipolar disorder went on a rampage in the main mall in Belgrade one afternoon. He killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others. His weapon of choice was knife. All this happened in a space of 30 minutes.

These mass killings are not due to relaxed gun laws. These are due to lack of resources in mental health systems where people like these do not get the help they need and a LOT of them slip through the net so to speak.

If someone plans to go on and committ these massacers, they don't need the guns. They can go out and purchase some fertalizer and other bits and pieces and blow up the whole campus and I would assume it would cost them less than getting ther hands on a gun.

[WakeUpTaz]

guns dont kill?! humans do?!

im sure the guns play a big part in it

[jo172]

Banning guns is step one but its is NOT the solution. What people forget here is that there are other issues that lead to these things. Having guns available is NOT the key issue.

You and I could own a gun but are we ****ed up enough to go out there and kill someone?! The answer for me is certainly no.

Now if I was suffering from a mental disorder and I was to murder someone, I wouldn't need a gun to do it.

I think people are ignoring the very key issues here. Having guns available is not THE key issue.

All this boils down to one thing, if this chap didn't have some serious mental issues, this wouldn't have happened. How can someone possibly deny this?!

I will also give you an example that happened in Belgrade about a month ago. I read it in one of the serbian papers on line. A Chinese man who was suffering from bipolar disorder went on a rampage in the main mall in Belgrade one afternoon. He killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others. His weapon of choice was knife. All this happened in a space of 30 minutes.

These mass killings are not due to relaxed gun laws. These are due to lack of resources in mental health systems where people like these do not get the help they need and a LOT of them slip through the net so to speak.

If someone plans to go on and committ these massacers, they don't need the guns. They can go out and purchase some fertalizer and other bits and pieces and blow up the whole campus and I would assume it would cost them less than getting ther hands on a gun.

Stiffy18 you're absolutely correct in saying that defincencies in the Mental Health system are one of the primary causes of this and the major step is improving care and diagnosis BUT you have to agree that making guns as hard as possible to access (preferably just in the hands of military/law enforcement) does make it alot harder for these massacres to happen.

Before you had an incorrect go at me about murder rates. Now i'm assuming that mental health rates would be similar universally but some nations notably the USA and South Africa have disproportionately high murder rates. These are also the two western countries where it is easiest to gain access to guns. Taking away peoples guns leads to less deaths. Most of these killings are not pre-planned operations but are VT and Port Arthur style loony goes over the edge. When these people don't have guns it becomes so much harder to kill large sums of people.

With your story about the dude in Belgrade, granted you can cause some damage with a knife, but imagine if this bloke had an assault rifle, how much damage would he of done then?

[Stiffy_18]

Stiffy18 you're absolutely correct in saying that defincencies in the Mental Health system are one of the primary causes of this and the major step is improving care and diagnosis BUT you have to agree that making guns as hard as possible to access (preferably just in the hands of military/law enforcement) does make it alot harder for these massacres to happen.I don't think it makes is a lot harder. It does make it a bit harder but not a hell of a lot harder. As I said, its easier to go out and get some fertaliser and other bits and pieces and make the outcome even more horrifying than using a gun.

What I am saying is simply that people carry on as if the guns issues is a MAJOR reason why these things happen. No one is going to convince me that is the case. The issues lie much deeper than simply availability of guns.

Before you had an incorrect go at me about murder rates. Now i'm assuming that mental health rates would be similar universally but some nations notably the USA and South Africa have disproportionately high murder rates. These are also the two western countries where it is easiest to gain access to guns. Taking away peoples guns leads to less deaths. Most of these killings are not pre-planned operations but are VT and Port Arthur style loony goes over the edge. When these people don't have guns it becomes so much harder to kill large sums of people.
OK, I admit I was wrong on the figures and was making assumptions which are mother of all **** ups. However, where your argument falls down is that in a lot of european countries a citizen can get a gun licence and carry is around if they wish. Sure there are strict guidelines that are followed in determining eligibility but many people without criminal record can get a licenced gun in these countries. Back when we lived in Former Yugoslavia, my dad had a licence for a magnum and he had a gun which he purchased through the right channels and registered with the police that gave him the licence. He never used it but he got it just for the sake of protection if it was needed. Once we came here he went to the cop shop and sold them back the gun. No dramas what so ever.

With your story about the dude in Belgrade, granted you can cause some damage with a knife, but imagine if this bloke had an assault rifle, how much damage would he of done then?

But as I said, guns can be readily and legitimately purchased in Belgrade and there are gun licences for citizens. Also just like any big city that was once ruled by corruption, guns are easily accessed on black market for next to nothing. This dude had the means to get one if he wanted to.

What you are also ignoring here is a human will under these conditions. The Chinese man in question thought that there was a bounty out on his head and the only way he could stop it is if he went out anf killed first. In police reports he said that he has known for a while that someone is out to get him. For long enough to go out and get a firearm if he wanted to.

As I said human will and power then they believed they are pushed to the limit is something that a person in normal circumstances cannot achieve. He had a pocket knife and with it he killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others in a space of half an hour. It took special force police squad to get the man down with tear gas and other methods.

What I am getting at here is that people think that guns are major reason these things happen. Making it difficult to get guns is a band aid solution and doesn't really address the heart of the issue. In these cases thing happen due to perpetrator's health. If it was a mentally healthy human being the massacre doesn't occur regardless of whether or not he had access to guns or not.

As I said, you and I can have guns but are we going to go out on the rampage and murder people? I know I wouldn't. Now meet Joe Bloggs who has a genuine mental illness. For some time he has a strong belief that someone is out to get him and the only way he can stop it is he gets in first. There are many ways he can go about it. Shooting is one way. Stabbing is another. Blowing them up is another way.

As I said a lot of countries in Europe have laws where a normal citizen, without a criminal record can have a personal gun and a gun licence for it that is issued by the federal goverment and federal police. I would be interested it see the figures in these sort of things in those countries compared to say USA. I think it would be safe to assume that the figures and percentages wouldn't be anywhere near as prolific as those in the USA.

[jenny61_99]

exactly how many guns were used in the terrorist attacks in Bali, London and in New York?

What does that have to do with anything???? I didn't say guns were the only weapons that killed, however it is clear that if the man did NOT have a semi-automatic pistol, he would not have killed as many people. Same in Tasmania.

Stiffy - I agree that there are a whole gamut of issues that need to be addressed with the types of people who commit these crimes and their mental state. However, if they did not have easy access to weapons that can kill these sorts of numbers of people, then their crimes would a) not be as severe and b), as Mark says, may not even happen because of the close physical contact and courage needed to kill with a weapon like a knife. The bloke in Belgrade only killed 3 people.... I hate to think how many would have died if he had access to a gun. Guns make killing easier for madmen... it impersonalises it... with a knife or cleaver or whatever, the killer has to gain close access to the victim and then has to do the deed. With a gun, all they have to do is point and spray the entire area, inflicting maximum impact with little effort.

Without guns, these sorts of tragic massacres would not happen.

Terrorist acts are another thing entirely.

[Stiffy_18]

What does that have to do with anything???? I didn't say guns were the only weapons that killed, however it is clear that if the man did NOT have a semi-automatic pistol, he would not have killed as many people. Same in Tasmania.

Stiffy - I agree that there are a whole gamut of issues that need to be addressed with the types of people who commit these crimes and their mental state. However, if they did not have easy access to weapons that can kill these sorts of numbers of people, then their crimes would a) not be as severe and b), as Mark says, may not even happen because of the close physical contact and courage needed to kill with a weapon like a knife. The bloke in Belgrade only killed 3 people.... I hate to think how many would have died if he had access to a gun. Guns make killing easier for madmen... it impersonalises it... with a knife or cleaver or whatever, the killer has to gain close access to the victim and then has to do the deed. With a gun, all they have to do is point and spray the entire area, inflicting maximum impact with little effort.

Without guns, these sorts of tragic massacres would not happen.

Terrorist acts are another thing entirely.
How can you say that? :confused:

And the thing about the man in Belgrade, well the weapons are easily accessible in Belgrade. Either through appropriate channels or through balc market. A person can get a semi automatic gun in Belgrade for next to nothing.

I also think that people underetimate just how resourceful and brave desperate people can be in these situations. A Pocket knife can do a lot of damage. Granted not as much as a loaded gun but banning guns is NOT the answer to this issue. Its just a band aid solution and nothing more.

[jenny61_99]

How can you say that? :confused:

And the thing about the man in Belgrade, well the weapons are easily accessible in Belgrade. Either through appropriate channels or through balc market. A person can get a semi automatic gun in Belgrade for next to nothing.

I also think that people underetimate just how resourceful and brave desperate people can be in these situations. A Pocket knife can do a lot of damage. Granted not as much as a loaded gun but banning guns is NOT the answer to this issue. Its just a band aid solution and nothing more.

These crimes are "generally" crimes of passion. A disgruntled worker wants to kill a boss or workmates who pissed him off. A jilted lover. A taunted student. These are not people who will systematically sit down and build a bomb to blow up a building. It is often not a planned crime, rather something becomes the final straw and they snap - a gun is a quick and easily obtained weapon with which they can enact their rage. (The man in Belgrade snapped - he used the only weapon he could QUICKLY access ie. a gun was not easily available to him or surely he would have used it). Without access to guns, maybe they wouldn't do anything? Maybe they would suicide? Maybe they'd get a car and run someone over. The plain and simple statement must be that without access to weapons that can kill a lot of people with very little effort on their part, these types of massacres probably would not occur. Stop the access to these weapons, you wont hear these headlines nearly as often as we do today.

[Crow-mo]

I have been informed snowball. The hard way. I have seen first hand what all weapons can do and it is not a pretty sight. That is why I have the opinions I do and no stupid self righeous nung is going to change it ok?

Just let me say that if this guy had a knife or a friggen fish bone, then how many people would have he killed before someone over powered him?

And if as you say it is a deterent, then why wasn't all the weapons that the college police force had at their disposal act as a deterent to this guy? That is a piss weak excuse.

It is the manufacturers, gutless polititians and corrupt states that have ****ed up society.

And for the record, read jo's thread again, there is something you have missed. :rolleyes:

as informed as usual I guess.

carry on cletus.

[Crow-mo]

Well it certainly proved an effective deterrent yesterday:rolleyes:


actually it had no effect at all. The argument goes that he still could have accessed the weapons... not sure there is any evidence that he couldn't have. sure seemed motivated enough to want to do so.



Most murders are crimes of passion not cold blooded killings, having guns avaliable allows the murderer an impersonal contact free way of killing people. Having less guns makes murders rare.

whoa, steady now. who said anything about banning guns making them less rare? that's a myth, and one of the strong counter arguments to a banning platform.


For an example compare Australia's murder rate to America's.

please. on a per capita basis, I'd be interested.

[Crow-mo]

How many more people die after being shot each year then died in those terrorist attacks?

1. that wasn't the point
2. don't know. do tell

[Southerntakeover]

as it is, Jo is entirely correct. this idea that guns kills people, what next, knives kill people, forks kill people, pesky fish bones kill people too? ;)

Yet somehow i think it would be far harder to kill 32 people in the one rampage with any of the above weapons...

[Crow-mo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

The BBC seems pretty sure.



http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/980419_Ockham's_Razor.htm

That seems pretty sure too ...

Mate, all those cities in the top murder rates have easy to get guns. Sure people will still get murdered with out guns but many murderers find it harder to physically and emotionally commit the crime when using a knife for example it requires much more physical contact.

Also i'd like to see someone commit a crime of passion and sponatanaity kill so many people yesterday with only a knife:rolleyes:

you need to focus more on this idea that banning guns equals less access to guns for non-law abiding people.

[Crow-mo]

Just try and get out of the way of a bullet Stiff. At least you have a chance to either escape or defend yourself with anything else apart from explosives, and we all know who use them. :mad:


I'm just waiting for someone to bring up Jonestown. :(

why?

Haifa is much more relevant example.

wanna kill yourself, and a heap of people? just strap something under your jacket and kaboom!

[Crow-mo]

Listen chap, unlike you I have had the bullets in me since the age of 12. I also had to have a surgery a couple of years ago to remove bullet that was left in me and had resurfaced with time.

Banning guns is step one but its is NOT the solution. What people forget here is that there are other issues that lead to these things. Having guns available is NOT the key issue.

You and I could own a gun but are we ****ed up enough to go out there and kill someone?! The answer for me is certainly no.

Now if I was suffering from a mental disorder and I was to murder someone, I wouldn't need a gun to do it.

I think people are ignoring the very key issues here. Having guns available is not THE key issue.

All this boils down to one thing, if this chap didn't have some serious mental issues, this wouldn't have happened. How can someone possibly deny this?!

I will also give you an example that happened in Belgrade about a month ago. I read it in one of the serbian papers on line. A Chinese man who was suffering from bipolar disorder went on a rampage in the main mall in Belgrade one afternoon. He killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others. His weapon of choice was knife. All this happened in a space of 30 minutes.

These mass killings are not due to relaxed gun laws. These are due to lack of resources in mental health systems where people like these do not get the help they need and a LOT of them slip through the net so to speak.

If someone plans to go on and committ these massacers, they don't need the guns. They can go out and purchase some fertalizer and other bits and pieces and blow up the whole campus and I would assume it would cost them less than getting ther hands on a gun.

nice to see someone actually devote some thought to the issue.

well said :thumbsu:

[Crow-mo]

Pretty certain Switzerland has the highest per-capita gun ownership in Europe, and one of the lowest murder rates.

they must have tame, civilised guns. the ones from a good family, and a good education.

[Stiffy_18]

Pretty certain Switzerland has the highest per-capita gun ownership in Europe, and one of the lowest murder rates.

they must have tame, civilised guns. the ones from a good family, and a good education.
Thats my point though. A lot of european countries make guns accessible to people that want them. The gun ownership is legalised and people need to pass the certain criteria to be given the licence for a gun. Plenty of people in europe own guns but I would suggest that the death rates due to fire arms would be right down the bottom in terms of world wide ranking.

Relaxed gun laws are not going to stop this or minimize it a hell of a lot.

[Ford Fairlane]

Actually guns are a very personal way of dispatching someone. Why do you think these mass killers use them? Don't confuse ease with impersonality. They want to see people suffer, feel the fear and make them pay for all the hurt and torment that they feel has been inflicted on them, and they want their victims to know this. Most of all they want power over their tormentors. And they also want to do as much damage as they can as quickly as possible.

And planning? Some of these crimes are meticulously, brutally planned. Read up on Columbine, the level of planning Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went to, the lengths they were prepared to go to, and the arsenal of weapons - guns and explosives that they collected. And the details of planning emerging in the Virginia Tech shootings. And the brutal personalisation of the shootings.

Sure we all want simple solutions to horribly complex problems. Gun control is one and to some extent it might work - not that you'll ever find out in the US. From what I've read a one minute background check with a no criminal history result will get you a Glock in Virginia. But yeah, as Stiffy said, if people want to commit the crimes badly enough they will find a way. Klebold and Harris had both been through psychiatric intervention. They had an intermediary buy some weapons for them, while they bought others off a friend. I'm not saying there isn't room for gun control, especially wrt semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles, the sole purpose of which is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. But don't expect it to be the solution to this type of tragedy.

[Crow-mo]

Award winning economist Steven Levitt pretty much proved that the massive reduction in murder & gun crime in New York was the result of legalised abortion and not tougher policing.

[jo172]

Ok first i'll deal with Stiffy18 -

Your general gist seems to be yeah guns are part of the problem, but the major problem is that humans are willing to go to such extreme lengths to kill each other.

_________________________________________

Well we seem to agree but i believe that we should aim to begin to fix the whole problem by making guns, especially handguns and assault weapons impossible to get for civillians and also pump alot more money into mental health care.

As for Crow-Mo

You're gist seems to be if the US of A initiated a gun buy back there would be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and plenty of guns in the hands of criminals.
__________________________________________________

While you maybe right this doesn't explain the low rates of gun crimes in Australia. We had a gun buy back but presumably thugs like bikie gangs didn't want to return their guns. Whenever there is a murder by gun in Adelaide it is front page news because they are exceptionally rare. Why on Earth do citizens need to protect themselves anyway? Isn't that why we have cops? Also i fail to see how the attacked having a gun also makes the situation any safer. If i'm pointing a gun at you trying to steal your watch and you pull out a gun that seems more of an incentive to shoot you right there and then then to wait for you to point it at me.

[jo172]

Sure we all want simple solutions to horribly complex problems. Gun control is one and to some extent it might work - not that you'll ever find out in the US. From what I've read a one minute background check with a no criminal history result will get you a Glock in Virginia. But yeah, as Stiffy said, if people want to commit the crimes badly enough they will find a way. Klebold and Harris had both been through psychiatric intervention. They had an intermediary buy some weapons for them, while they bought others off a friend. I'm not saying there isn't room for gun control, especially wrt semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles, the sole purpose of which is to kill as many people as quickly as possible. But don't expect it to be the solution to this type of tragedy.

What i don't understand about this thesis is that in countries with gun control like Australia/England/France/New Zealand these mass murders are rare. However in countries like the United States where guns are easy to acquire they are frequent. Guns make massacres like this way too easy for the psychos. What you're assuming when you say it's not guns that causes these incidents is that Americans are racially more prediposed to mass homicide. I do not agree.

Fixing the mental health system would take years and i wholeheartedly agree that they should do it but why not immediatley begin to fix the problem by removing all guns that don't have a practical (hunting) purpose from their owners especially handguns and assault weapons.

[Stiffy_18]

Ok first i'll deal with Stiffy18 -

Your general gist seems to be yeah guns are part of the problem, but the major problem is that humans are willing to go to such extreme lengths to kill each other.

_________________________________________

Well we seem to agree but i believe that we should aim to fix the whole problem by making guns especially handguns and assault weapons impossible to get for civillians and also pump alot more money into mental health care.

But that doesn't solve the whole problem though. You take USA as an example of where easily accessible guns to civilians lead to these massacres. I disgaree with that view because you only have to have a look at some of the European countries to dispute that claim. As Crow-mo said, Switzerland, one of the best run countries in the world, with strong economy and all the other key factors being up there with the best in the world, has the highest gun ownership per capita in europe. Yet their murder rates are one of the lowest.

Its the other factors that lead to these massacres and relaxed gun laws are not really a key issue here. It probably adds up to the very very small piece of the pie graph.

It is no surprise that these things are mainly linked with people with mental illnesses. In the case that we are currently discussing, the dude wrote the whole play on this very thing. You can't tell me that wasn't planned and premeditated. This could have happened right here in Australia and he just would have gone about it the different way.

People assume that relaxed gun laws are THE reason these things are happening. They are not. As I said there are many examples out there where a country has relaxed gun laws and has low murder rates. That would suggest that gun laws aren't exactly the reason these things are happening.

[jo172]

But that doesn't solve the whole problem though.

Whoops you caught me, that's meant to read but we can start to fix the problem:o (it's late)

You take USA as an example of where easily accessible guns to civilians lead to these massacres. I disgaree with that view because you only have to have a look at some of the European countries to dispute that claim. As Crow-mo said, Switzerland, one of the best run countries in the world, with strong economy and all the other key factors being up there with the best in the world, has the highest gun ownership per capita in europe. Yet their murder rates are one of the lowest.

Its the other factors that lead to these massacres and relaxed gun laws are not really a key issue here. It probably adds up to the very very small piece of the pie graph.

It is no surprise that these things are mainly linked with people with mental illnesses. In the case that we are currently discussing, the dude wrote the whole play on this very thing. You can't tell me that wasn't planned and premeditated. This could have happened right here in Australia and he just would have gone about it the different way.


You seem to be asserting that there are more mentally ill people in Switzerland then there are in America which i disagree with.

And these things don't happen in Australia since guns were made difficult to get! And we have a similar mentally ill rate as anywhere else in the world. Knives/Axes/Bow and Arrows cannot kill 32 people. Sure bombs can but generally it is your organized angry at the government/infidels/crusaders who prefers that method of murder, not your borderline psychopaths, they like to see the pain. Taking away guns makes it alot harder for one person to be murdered along with your general group massacres.

[Stiffy_18]

Whoops you caught me, that's meant to read but we can start to fix the problem:o (it's late)



You seem to be asserting that there are more mentally ill people in Switzerland then there are in America which i disagree with.

And these things don't happen in Australia since guns were made difficult to get! And we have a similar mentally ill rate as anywhere else in the world. Knives/Axes/Bow and Arrows cannot kill 32 people. Sure bombs can but generally it is your organized angry at the government/infidels/crusaders who prefers that method of murder, not your borderline psychopaths, they like to see the pain. Taking away guns makes it alot harder for one person to be murdered along with your general group massacres.
No Actually, I am claiming that there would be lot less mentally ill people in Switzerland than there would be in USA because IMHO, the Swiss have a much better system to deal with these issues than the yanks.

I guess all of this comes back to one thing. The system. The yanks have the highest murder rates, highest crime rates etc in the world and many people draw this to their relaxed gun laws. OTOH, you have countries like Switzerland who have a great system in place. They have relaxed gun laws, highest ownership of gund per capita in europe and yet they have one of the lowest murder rates and crime rates in the world. That would suggest the gun laws are not really a huge issue here. The problems in the USA run MUCH MUCH deeper than people being able to get their hands on a gun easily.

I guess we just can't agree on the issue :D :p

[jo172]

I guess we just can't agree on the issue :D :p

Actually i think we agree on a fair bit.

I do think mental illness is the chief reason for crime. I also acknowledge getting rid of guns will not stop all crime.

The only place where we differ is how much crime we think would be stopped when guns are removed from the equation.

Anywho, i'm bored with this now:D Good night!

[Ford Fairlane]

What i don't understand about this thesis is that in countries with gun control like Australia/England/France/New Zealand these mass murders are rare. However in countries like the United States where guns are easy to acquire they are frequent. Guns make massacres like this way too easy for the psychos. What you're assuming when you say it's not guns that causes these incidents is that Americans are racially more prediposed to mass homicide. I do not agree.

Guns aren't the cause, they are the means to an end. I don't disagree with the impact they have on these massacres. And I said there is room for gun control but people with this murderous intent will get access to guns, or other weapons, if they want to badly enough, just as Klebold and Harris did. As far as racial profiling goes, that's a fairly simple generalisation. We've had single gunman mass shootings here in Australia. Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Port Arthur, the guy in NSW, might've been Paddington. We are not a haven from this kind of crime. So no, I'm not saying Americans are racially more predisposed to mass homicide. We've had our own who have found a way.

Fixing the mental health system would take years and i wholeheartedly agree that they should do it but why not immediatley begin to fix the problem by removing all guns that don't have a practical (hunting) purpose from their owners especially handguns and assault weapons.

The problem is, it simply isn't going to happen. And even if it did, you come back again to the issue that people will find a way to get weapons. The US has Canada to the north, and in the south Central America routing through to how many lawless gangs in South America. And don't forget the internet.

[Crow-mo]

You seem to be asserting that there are more mentally ill people in Switzerland then there are in America which i disagree with.


have you been to either place? :D



And these things don't happen in Australia since guns were made difficult to get!

to be fair they didn't happen before did they? Port Arthur was an anomaly, which gave the government enough political capital push through something it generally was in favour of anyway.


And we have a similar mentally ill rate as anywhere else in the world. Knives/Axes/Bow and Arrows cannot kill 32 people. Sure bombs can but generally it is your organized angry at the government/infidels/crusaders who prefers that method of murder, not your borderline psychopaths, they like to see the pain. Taking away guns makes it alot harder for one person to be murdered along with your general group massacres.

you're making that up now. lets stick to the topic.

1. Levitt's works cover this perfectly

2. it is a bit too simplistic to think you can just take away guns, make them impossible to obtain. that is fantasy land stuff.

3. read more carefully, I've never said what my personal side of this argument is. the reason why a gun ban won't happen in the US is because of the powerful and influential argument about the prolification of weapons only amongst the criminal element. this is the argument, whether you agree or not - that is the debate on the subject.

4. you're talking a lot about these things without engaging meaningfully on any of the issues. great that you're passionate about it, but you need to address the actual point of the debate. for example, you talk about the impact of making hand guns impossible to come by, without acknowledging or addressing the difficulty of doing so... if it were that simple it would have been done long ago.

[Crow-mo]

I do think mental illness is the chief reason for crime.

i think you'd find that a very difficult proposition to uphold.

[Crow-mo]

Jo,

was just thinking a good way of illustration, might be to substitute the word "guns" for "drugs". that might give an example of how hard it is to keep something out of the hands of someone motivated to get it.

[Southerntakeover]

Jo,

was just thinking a good way of illustration, might be to substitute the word "guns" for "drugs". that might give an example of how hard it is to keep something out of the hands of someone motivated to get it.

Of course, theres the added variable that most illicit drugs are addictive.

[Markthirtytwo]

Listen chap, unlike you I have had the bullets in me since the age of 12. I also had to have a surgery a couple of years ago to remove bullet that was left in me and had resurfaced with time.

Banning guns is step one but its is NOT the solution. What people forget here is that there are other issues that lead to these things. Having guns available is NOT the key issue.

You and I could own a gun but are we ****ed up enough to go out there and kill someone?! The answer for me is certainly no.

Now if I was suffering from a mental disorder and I was to murder someone, I wouldn't need a gun to do it.

I think people are ignoring the very key issues here. Having guns available is not THE key issue.

All this boils down to one thing, if this chap didn't have some serious mental issues, this wouldn't have happened. How can someone possibly deny this?!

I will also give you an example that happened in Belgrade about a month ago. I read it in one of the serbian papers on line. A Chinese man who was suffering from bipolar disorder went on a rampage in the main mall in Belgrade one afternoon. He killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others. His weapon of choice was knife. All this happened in a space of 30 minutes.

These mass killings are not due to relaxed gun laws. These are due to lack of resources in mental health systems where people like these do not get the help they need and a LOT of them slip through the net so to speak.

If someone plans to go on and committ these massacers, they don't need the guns. They can go out and purchase some fertalizer and other bits and pieces and blow up the whole campus and I would assume it would cost them less than getting ther hands on a gun.


PM on the way.

[Ford Fairlane]

There's an interesting article in today's Australian that argues that the right to carry concealed weapons is a greater deterrent to crime, in particular multiple-victim public shootings, than any other gun control measure. It also highlights multiple-victim public shootings in some European countries such as Germany (17 deaths in 1 instance) and Switzerland (14 deaths in 1 instance) and the lack of a deterrent effect of law enforcement on these types of killings.

Intuitively it makes sense but it also creates the impression of a society out of control returning to a wild west type of mentality. The more we progress ...

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/gun_laws_disarm_the_vulnerable_not_killers/

[Markthirtytwo]

as informed as usual I guess.

carry on cletus.

Self opinionated as usual.

Go get 'em Maximus. :rolleyes:

[apollo_creed]

nice to see someone actually devote some thought to the issue.

well said :thumbsu:
If someone agrees with you they're 'devoting thought to the issue'?

ok.

[Markthirtytwo]

Guns aren't the cause, they are the means to an end. I don't disagree with the impact they have on these massacres. And I said there is room for gun control but people with this murderous intent will get access to guns, or other weapons, if they want to badly enough, just as Klebold and Harris did. As far as racial profiling goes, that's a fairly simple generalisation. We've had single gunman mass shootings here in Australia. Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Port Arthur, the guy in NSW, might've been Paddington. We are not a haven from this kind of crime. So no, I'm not saying Americans are racially more predisposed to mass homicide. We've had our own who have found a way.



The problem is, it simply isn't going to happen. And even if it did, you come back again to the issue that people will find a way to get weapons. The US has Canada to the north, and in the south Central America routing through to how many lawless gangs in South America. And don't forget the internet.


My sentiments exactly.

[apollo_creed]

Let me start by saying, I'm not one of those 'anti-America everything' people but it's quite astounding that some on here deem it necessary to condone their gun laws.

As Crow-mo said, Switzerland, one of the best run countries in the world, with strong economy and all the other key factors being up there with the best in the world, has the highest gun ownership per capita in europe. Yet their murder rates are one of the lowest.

So it reflects on American culture?

Its the other factors that lead to these massacres and relaxed gun laws are not really a key issue here.

You don't think it's a key issue that the criminally insane have ridiculously easy access to such deadly weapons?

It is no surprise that these things are mainly linked with people with mental illnesses.

no kidding?

someone shoots 32 people dead and they're mentally insane?

There's such people in every country/culture, having gun trucks coming around the neighbourhood every weekend does nothing for prevention. Not all mentally ill can be reached unfortunately.

The easier the access these people have, the greater the oppurtunity. Which obviously provides a direct, easy source for the insane to act as they do. Not everybody knows how to construct a complex bomb (believe it or not) yet I'm sure they all know how to pull the trigger of a deadly weapon.

In the case that we are currently discussing, the dude wrote the whole play on this very thing. You can't tell me that wasn't planned and premeditated. This could have happened right here in Australia and he just would have gone about it the different way.

Possibly, you summed it up with 'could have'.

Would've been much more difficult. Any means of preventing such should be seen to. Tightening gun laws is obvious.

People assume that relaxed gun laws are THE reason these things are happening. They are not.

The reason these things are happening are because of people.

People are dead. A person shot them.

then we ask how....?

How did he kill so many people? with a gun.

Obviously the person is the issue but questions such as 'how' and 'why' need to be asked.

There's no justification for their 'all in' gun laws.

As I said there are many examples out there where a country has relaxed gun laws and has low murder rates. That would suggest that gun laws aren't exactly the reason these things are happening.

They serve no purpose. They kill things.

Restricted access doesn't solve anything, it doesn't prevent everything but it certainly saves lives. (however many is irrelevant)

[jo172]

2. it is a bit too simplistic to think you can just take away guns, make them impossible to obtain. that is fantasy land stuff.

Agree compeltely, but i think that should be the principal objective no matter how gradual the steps which have to be taken to get there i think they should begun to be taken.

3. read more carefully, I've never said what my personal side of this argument is. the reason why a gun ban won't happen in the US is because of the powerful and influential argument about the prolification of weapons only amongst the criminal element. this is the argument, whether you agree or not - that is the debate on the subject.

I agree that odds are it will never happen but i'm talking through idealism rather then realism. I also wonder if America has a breaking point when it comes to these mass wastes of human life and whether they will have something as shocking to America as Port Arthur was to us to act as a catalyst to begin gun control.

4. you're talking a lot about these things without engaging meaningfully on any of the issues. great that you're passionate about it, but you need to address the actual point of the debate. for example, you talk about the impact of making hand guns impossible to come by, without acknowledging or addressing the difficulty of doing so... if it were that simple it would have been done long ago.

I agree that there are no easy solutions. But just because no one cannot think of a simple solution to what we all agree is a problem at the present does not mean that we should give up on an objective. We should stick to the principals while trying to find a solution. Giving up because it's too hard when so much human life goes to waste is not an option IMHO.

[jo172]

Jo,

was just thinking a good way of illustration, might be to substitute the word "guns" for "drugs". that might give an example of how hard it is to keep something out of the hands of someone motivated to get it.

I understand your point of prohibition being practically impossible in a free society but lets face it there are numerous differences between drugs and guns. For a start any coke head in his back shed can make ice wheras your Assualt weapons presumably take more epertise.

But that does raise the question of whether a ban is what is necassary or whether there just needs to be a wider cultural shift amongst Americans as to their attitude towards firearms?

[cro_Magnum]

The Swiss argument is often raised but fails on 2 points.

Switzerland has a large semi-civilian militia who are required to keep a firearm at home under lock and key and are by and large responsible trained people, and this boosts the overall gun ownership rate enormously.

It's a totally different culture not based on the Wild West mentality. If all Americans in the US today were Swiss with Swiss culture and values, its unlikely their death by guns rate would be the highest in the world. The Swiss can largely be trusted with guns, the Americans can't.

Added to this is the the saying that guns don't kill, people do. That's true, but it's a lot easier to kill with a gun than a knife, and a lot lot easier to perform multiple massacres.

This student in the US didn't have an illegal gun, he bought in a shop with a credit card. Hello.

[apollo_creed]

I understand your point of prohibition being practically impossible in a free society but lets face it there are numerous differences between drugs and guns. For a start any coke head in his back shed can make ice wheras your Assualt weapons presumably take more epertise.

But that does raise the question of whether a ban is what is necassary or whether there just needs to be a wider cultural shift amongst Americans as to their attitude towards firearms?
It's not just that, his drugs 'illustration' fails on another, more obvious point.

If all drugs were legalised and made easy available, would they not be more frequent?

the answer's obvious.

you can never stop people doing them but such laws and practices inevitably reduce the number of people who do.

[NikkiNoo]

and then you have people like Ivan Milat and those involved in the Bodies in the Barrels serial killings whose personal choice for weapons was pretty much not guns. If people are going to do it, they are going to do it and will find a way regardless of ease of access in some cases to guns.

The switzerland v USA is an interesting comparision - better health care and better assistance / recognition of those with mental health issues is I think quite a large factor but it also comes back to society and culture. You can also compare Canadian gun ownership with USA and it is much higher gun ownership rate in Canada they have a much lower murder rate than the USA.

[jenny61_99]

I think bottom line of all this is, if you make these weapons difficult to access (ie. you can't go into a gun shop and buy it with a credit card), then these types of massacres will probably not occur. I agree that banning guns is not the ONLY answer, but it surely it is one of the many solutions.

The comparison between Switzerland and America is like comparing oranges and apples.. just can't be done. Different culture, different reason for owning fire-arms in the first place, better social support, smaller population etc etc.

[apollo_creed]

I think bottom line of all this is, if you make these weapons difficult to access (ie. you can't go into a gun shop and buy it with a credit card),

precisely the point I can't fathom why people are choosing to argue.

there's no acceptable reason why their gun laws allow such weaponary to have the accessibility it does.

I agree that banning guns is not the ONLY answer, but it surely it is one of the many solutions.

Of course it's not, all the main issues ie; mental health treatment have been raised here but all avenues of prevention must be explored.

one of the more obvious ones is as discussed. one which can't be denied.

[CrowMagnum]

and then you have people like Ivan Milat and those involved in the Bodies in the Barrels serial killings whose personal choice for weapons was pretty much not guns. If people are going to do it, they are going to do it and will find a way regardless of ease of access in some cases to guns.

The switzerland v USA is an interesting comparision - better health care and better assistance / recognition of those with mental health issues is I think quite a large factor but it also comes back to society and culture. You can also compare Canadian gun ownership with USA and it is much higher gun ownership rate in Canada they have a much lower murder rate than the USA.
can't quote figures but I'm pretty sure the US has a much higher gun ownership than Canada, even allowing for all the moose hunters in the Yukon.

Ivan Milat and the Barrel guys did a lot of people in but even they didn't kill 30 plus people in a couple of hours

[macca23]

can't quote figures but I'm pretty sure the US has a much higher gun ownership than Canada, even allowing for all the moose hunters in the Yukon.

Ivan Milat and the Barrel guys did a lot of people in but even they didn't kill 30 plus people in a couple of hours

You're right on the money. Mass murders generally involve guns.

Read the article below where it clearly states that "the US has the highest rates of gun ownership in the developed world and the highest rates of gun homicide. Compare that to the much-vilified French. Guns are nearly impossible to procure in France and, according to David Rieff's recent article in the New York Times Magazine "homicide rates are far, far lower than in American cities."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070418/cm_thenation/15187279


A nutter armed with guns is a recipe for disaster. :( :thumbsd:

[Ford Fairlane]

A nutter armed with guns is a recipe for disaster. :( :thumbsd:

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces...

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/international/photosvideos/photos/george-bush-leads-the-us-towar.jpg

[macca23]

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces...

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/international/photosvideos/photos/george-bush-leads-the-us-towar.jpg


I rest my case!! ;) :D

[DaveW]

you need to focus more on this idea that banning guns equals less access to guns for non-law abiding people.
Crow-mo - from what we know, this university stupid doesn't sound like a guy with sophisticated criminal connections.

It's not too much of a stretch to argue that tighter gun laws could have prevented this tragedy.

[DaveW]

I will also give you an example that happened in Belgrade about a month ago. I read it in one of the serbian papers on line. A Chinese man who was suffering from bipolar disorder went on a rampage in the main mall in Belgrade one afternoon. He killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others. His weapon of choice was knife. All this happened in a space of 30 minutes.
Three. As opposed to Virginia Tech's, what, thirty plus?

[Kristof]

Pretty certain Switzerland has the highest per-capita gun ownership in Europe, and one of the lowest murder rates.

they must have tame, civilised guns. the ones from a good family, and a good education.

Even for someone notorious for turning numbers around to suit their argument, this is a pretty ridiculous point to use.

Switzerland - population 7,523,934. Almost no standing army, and compulsory gun ownership for military age males. So - the percentage of folks owning guns is unusually high - and, equally, it manages a low murder rate by having some of the world's strongest gun regulations.

Maybe it might be better to compare the US to Canada, considering they share a land mass.

In 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population - triple the Canadian rate of 1.8. About two-thirds of homicides in the United States involved a firearm, compared with one-third in Canada.

[Kristof]

I also think that people underetimate just how resourceful and brave desperate people can be in these situations. A Pocket knife can do a lot of damage. Granted not as much as a loaded gun but banning guns is NOT the answer to this issue. Its just a band aid solution and nothing more.

I respect what you say, Stiffy - but, c'mon man. Read the sentence "a pocket knife can do a lot of damage" again. It is actually kinda bad taste to make a statement like that in the context of the last couple of days. As desperate as he might have been - a lot more people would be alive today if he walked into a lecture hall with a pocket knife instead of a handgun.

[Markthirtytwo]

I will end my case by saying that no matter what has happened or will happen again, it will not get away from the fact that someone has to clean up after an incident, even if it is self inflicted.

No one and I repeat no one ever takes them into account.


It can certainly take it's toll on those people.

[cro_Magnum]

I will also give you an example that happened in Belgrade about a month ago. I read it in one of the serbian papers on line. A Chinese man who was suffering from bipolar disorder went on a rampage in the main mall in Belgrade one afternoon. He killed 3 people and seriously injured 12 others. His weapon of choice was knife. All this happened in a space of 30 minutes.

Knives:3 Guns:33

[Ford Fairlane]

Sadly, this type of tragedy has become topical again. And In Finland (not a country I'd associate with a murderous school rampage).

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22722667-2,00.html

Eight dead after Jokela High School Massacre YouTube post
By staff writers and wires
November 08, 2007 08:50am
Article from: Reuters

SEVEN students and a school principal have been killed by a pupil who opened fire with a handgun in a school in a small town in southern Finland hours after posting a video on YouTube predicting a massacre.

The gunman, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen, later died in a Helsinki hospital. He had been taken there with a gunshot wound to the head after turning his weapon on himself during the shooting in Tuusula, 50km south of the capital.

Witnesses described chaos and panic as Auvinen shot dead his headmistress, five boys, two girls, and wounded a dozen others as they tried to flee the carnage.

"When we heard the shots we started breaking the windows and jumping," Franz Andersin, a 14-year-old student, said.

"I saw injured people lying in the corridor. We started to run and followed (the crowd) in panic. Everyone was trying to squeeze through a narrow door," another student, Miro Lukinmaa, told the Iltalehti newspaper.

article continues ...

[Dogga79]

One can only wonder at what was going through his head. Very sad indeed.

What I find interesting is that the first thing some people said when they were told of the school shootings wasnt one of remorse but to soapbox their opinions on guns.

I tend to agree that gun ownership should be made as hard as possible. I own a couple of rifles and i would be mortified if anyone was given a licence or had access to guns, who would be deemed unfit to do so. I was in favour of the buyback and am in support of the tough laws we have in Australia.

Just as a matter of interest where did this kid get the guns?

[KingsCrow]

One can only wonder at what was going through his head. Very sad indeed.

What I find interesting is that the first thing some people said when they were told of the school shootings wasnt one of remorse but to soapbox their opinions on guns.

I tend to agree that gun ownership should be made as hard as possible. I own a couple of rifles and i would be mortified if anyone was given a licence or had access to guns, who would be deemed unfit to do so. I was in favour of the buyback and am in support of the tough laws we have in Australia.

Just as a matter of interest where did this kid get the guns?


Apparently Finland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world. So most likely he got it from his parents, if not bought it himself.

The thing with banning guns is it makes lunatic people, or people in a sudden fit of rage alot harder to have access to a weapon which can kill alot of people very fast. If they don't have access then they might calm down or do alot less damage with something else rather then a gun.

[NikkiNoo]

For those advocating restrictions on gun ownership and things like weapon amnesties etc read Night Watch by Terry Pratchett. Specifically this section;

Swing, though, started in the wrong place. He didn't look around, and watch and learn, and then say. This is how people are, how do we deal with it?' No, he sat and thought: This is how the people ought to be, how do we change them?' And that was a good enough thought for a priest but not for a copper because Swing's patient, pedantic way of operating had turned policing on its head.

There had been that Weapons Law, for a start. Weapons were involved in so many crimes that. Swing reasoned, reducing the number of weapons had to reduce the crime rate.

Vimes wondered if he'd sat up in bed in the middle of the night and hugged himself when he'd dreamed that one up. Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked, too, if only there had been enough coppers - say, three per citizen.

Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing' and it was this: criminals don't obey the law. It's more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn't believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.

Some citizens took the not unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers. The average copper, when he's been kicked in the nadgers once too often and has reason to believe that his bosses don't much care, has an understandable tendency to prefer to arrest those people who won't instantly try to stab him, especially if they act a bit snotty and more expensive clothes than he personally can afford. The rate of arrests shot right up, and Swing had been very pleased about that.

Admittedly some of the arrests had been for possessing weaponry after dark, but quite a few had been for assaults on the Watch by irate citizens. That was Assault on a City Official, a very heinous and despicable crime and, as such, far more important than all these thefts that were going on everywhere.

It wasn’t that the city was lawless. It had plenty of laws. It just didn’t offer many opportunities not to break them. Swing didn’t seem to have grasped the idea that the system was supposed to take criminals and, in some rough and ready fashion, force them into becoming honest men. Instead he’d taken honest men and turned them into criminals. And the Watch, by and large, into just another gang.

It's this part that really resonated with me "criminals don't obey the law" and how true is that?

Oh and just replace Hogswatch with Christmas and it may make sense. ;)

[KingsCrow]

There would be a hell of a lot less deaths/murders in America if they had tighter gun laws, and if it does stop a murder then its worth it. So thats my argument.

[Crow-mo]

The thing with banning guns is it makes lunatic people, or people in a sudden fit of rage alot harder to have access to a weapon which can kill alot of people very fast. If they don't have access then they might calm down or do alot less damage with something else rather then a gun.

that would be true, if there were any evidence that banning guns does actually restrict supply to those so motivated to acquire.

[Crow-mo]

The Swiss argument is often raised but fails on 2 points.

actually if you read your own points back, you'd see how they don't say what you think they do. the reason the swiss argument is often raised is that is a valid inconvenience for those who want to pretend incomplete and simple theories actually explain a complex issue


Switzerland has a large semi-civilian militia who are required to keep a firearm at home under lock and key and are by and large responsible trained people, and this boosts the overall gun ownership rate enormously.


so the largely responsible and trained people can safely handle the guns, and by extension those that aren't cannot - so tell me how this isn't a people issue again? ;)


It's a totally different culture not based on the Wild West mentality. If all Americans in the US today were Swiss with Swiss culture and values, its unlikely their death by guns rate would be the highest in the world. The Swiss can largely be trusted with guns, the Americans can't.

once again you hint at a very wealthy, educated and affluent society (which it is), which strikes at issues of environment and influence on human character, not the base, immutable nature of human character itself.


Added to this is the the saying that guns don't kill, people do. That's true, but it's a lot easier to kill with a gun than a knife, and a lot lot easier to perform multiple massacres.

indeed, seems you actually do agree that it is a people issue.


This student in the US didn't have an illegal gun, he bought in a shop with a credit card. Hello.

true, but there is zero evidence that he could not have procured a gun by other means if he wanted or needed to. A guardian journalist bought a semi-automatic, 9mm hand gun in brixton (london) in less than 20 minutes 2 weeks ago - and wrote about it. If he could've bought it with a credit card, it wouldn't be a story, but he couldn't and his access was in now way hampered.

if you build an affluent society, with central core values, where people are vested in it's prosperity and opportunities for others - then gun control is not a big issue; if you have one rife with limited prospects, poor economic opportunity, a disenfranchised political voice, and little hope for change in the future, then gun control is a very big thing. clearly in the swiss vs us examples, the guns themselves are pretty much irrelevant.

[Crow-mo]

Even for someone notorious for turning numbers around to suit their argument, this is a pretty ridiculous point to use.

Switzerland - population 7,523,934. Almost no standing army, and compulsory gun ownership for military age males. So - the percentage of folks owning guns is unusually high - and, equally, it manages a low murder rate by having some of the world's strongest gun regulations.

Maybe it might be better to compare the US to Canada, considering they share a land mass.

In 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population - triple the Canadian rate of 1.8. About two-thirds of homicides in the United States involved a firearm, compared with one-third in Canada.

I can see why my numbers confuse you so easily :p :D