OT: US University Shootings

[WakeUpPies]

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?

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?

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.

as informed as usual I guess.

carry on cletus.

 

[Crow-mo]

Well it certainly proved an effective deterrent yesterday

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

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.


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

 

[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 (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 (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

 

[jo172]

I guess we just can't agree on the issue

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 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?

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.