OT: US University Shootings

[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...s/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.

 

[apollo_creed]

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

well said

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.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

A nutter armed with guns is a recipe for disaster.

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces...

 

[macca23]

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces...

I rest my case!!

 

[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?

 

[Mego Red]

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.

 

[Mego Red]

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.