All killing is on the decline, and has been since the mid-1990's. Freakonomics famously wrote about the phenomenon, but it has coincided with a dramatic increase in police power (thanks, War on Drugs), forensic techniques boom, and what can be called an over-indulgence in equipping police with toys rather than man-hours (like spending more money on giving officers stun guns and tasers than training them on when it's safe, advisable or legal for them to use on a civilian). You guys discussing the assault weapon ban clearly forgot the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter used only handguns and killed/injured more people. The technology the shooter uses is a moot point, because they will use whatever they can find: assault rifles, handguns, hunting rifles, etc. My question: if this was done with bombs, not bullets, we would all be crying, "Don't let the terrorists win!". Imagine a scenario that this kid acted rationally, and chose his weapons and target specifically to create a hysteria around guns that would lead to laws his mother, a survivalist/doomsday prepper, would have viewed as persecution. We all seem quick to blame the guns, or mental illness, but I am far more afraid of the possibility that this was caused by neither. He knew he would be famous, he knew his life would become the subject of all sorts of scrutiny, from studies to tv movies, and he knew the targets and weapons to use with maximum effect. In short, if this attack was done by a Muslim, we would be renewing our efforts to turn the Middle East into a parking lot, one country at a time. Because it was done by a white guy, we assume he was "crazy, mentally unstable, deranged", etc., but that's an assumption that is very dangerous to make.
Ok but isn't it true almost definitionally? If you are willing to shoot a bunch of innocent children, that seems a pretty solid indication that there is something wrong.
I don't think he wanted to be famous. I think he was pissed off. I said this on an earlier page: Now, he had Aspergers? Where are you, Scootah? You're one of the most respected people on this board. I've been wondering when you might speak your mind. I'm hoping you haven't because your waiting for more information. Could you at least check in and say you're still here?
His mom wasn't a teacher. That was one of the early mistakes made in this journalistic shit-show. She was a stock broker and his dad was a GE executive. So, why attack an elementary school? Pissed off at...first graders he's never met? Doesn't add up. MC, of course there's something wrong. But we didn't claim the 9/11 terrorists were crazy, even though their actions resulted in the same outcome. My point: how is this different from terrorism?
It's been reported that she was a volunteer at the school, which may explain why they had no record of her as an employee. Which would still explain this;
Here's how awesome 24/7 cycle news punditry is: Bill O'Reilly used the guns "AR47" and "AK15" as examples of assault rifles the other night.(Even though technically an AR47 is a rifle, that's not what he meant.) Rachel Maddow uses "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" interchangeably as if they're the same thing. Not to mention all the arm chair psychology of all they're guests. Psychoanalysts are going to spend weeks if not months hypothesizing about what was wrong with this kid, if they can ever figure it out. But throwing out blanket diagnoses like Aspergers syndrome, bipolar disorder, etc really is a disservice to people who are actually affected by these illnesses and simply makes the stigma of mental illness worse. It's possible that this kid was just a fucking jerk.
All of you do yourselves a favour and stop watching news about this. ALL of the news. I think we can all come to a safe conclusion that NONE of them care about "facts" and "rationality", and they ALL care about shoving microphones in the faces of the most traumatized people they can find. They've managed to take an incident that could not possibly get any sicker....and made it sicker.
Just to play devils advocate there are plenty of people who do the most horrific atrocities and are far from mentally ill. The Milgram experiment was at least a glimpse into our nature. As much as I hate seeing guns demonized it's sad that the media has also turned this into the demonization of mental illness as well. I stomached about 5 minutes of Nancy Grace last night and she had wall to wall pysch "advisors" or "professionals" just bashing the hell out of different condition the shooter MIGHT have had. Demonizing the problem is not helping the problem.
This is sad: Utah boy charged with bringing gun to school, cites fears of Newtown attack I hope they use common sense when dealing with this situation. Unfortunately it looks like they're going to try to throw the book at this poor kid and ruin his life.
Waving it around at 3 classmates on the playground didn't do much to support his "protection motive" for bringing it in the first place.
An 18 year old kid down here was arrested for making statements he was going to shoot up the school and cut a teacher's wrists because she didn't like him. He said he was joking.
I guess the ultimate question is: is your right to own, use, and hunt with a gun more important than keeping innocent people safe from them? I really don't know the answer to this. Its hard to look at other countries that don't allow their citizens acess to firearms, or at least hand guns, that have much fewer shootings than we do and not think that's the ideal. But on the same token, this is America. We are supposed to he all about personal liberty, and that is going to come with costs. My knee jerk reaction is to say ban guns. I don't like them. They do enable violence. I have had three of them pointed at me and and been shot at once. (Granted the time I was shot at my dad was just prooving a point but I digress. ) However, I get really anxious when people want to infringe on personal freedoms "for the good of everyone. " If you want to drink understand that stupid fucks are going to get drunk and drive, or abuse their families. Do you want the ability to openly express your opinion that comes with the caveat that those fucks from Westboro or the KKK get that same ability. And even with rights that have no personal impact, as American citizens we should all take great care before we are calling for the removal of rights from any portion of our population. Because it could easily be something that does have immediate relevance some day. I mean people in this thread were all kinds of up in arms when video games were just being discussed, yet some of those same people are happy to have a blanket ban on weapons. I mean if I had any use for guns whatsoever I would probably come off as a "gun nut" too because someone was trying to take something from me that I use responsibly, and enjoy in an adult manner. I don't think the people of this board that use guns are out of line in their indignation. I just think we need to be a lot more careful as a country with how we are willing to infringe on personal freedom. I remember the thread we had about smoking bans. I recall the tone felt that since most people don't smoke and find it repulsive then its more than ok to tell a bar owner they can't allow smoking in their bar. I really don't get that attitude. Shouldnt all freedoms matter? Shouldnt they also be tempered by personal responsibility? If you purchase/own/use guns do so responsibly, or face the penalties. If you drink don't drive, or you get to go to jail. If you don't like smoke, don't go to bars that allow smoking. With the flip side of if you smoke don't get pissy when individual business owners choose to not allow you to do so in their establishment. At the end of the day that kids actions came down to him. I don't know what was the impetus for what he did, but he is no longer a concern. He can never hurt another kid. So instead of focussing on a past event, and trying to take freedoms from a large chunk of the population, maybe we should look forward to how we have a healthier population that feels it can look for help and get it. I don't know but maybe if this kid felt there was a place he could go and talk or work out this boiling aggression without fear of judgment or reprisal we would have 27 more people walking this earth. Because I don't know shit about his mind frame, but to get to that place I have to believe in some way that young man was scared and lonely.
Just to throw a wrinkle into the whole gun ban and show how useless these laws really are and are just based on fear of what "looks" like an evil weapon: Under the 1994 AWB anything with 2 or more of the following was banned: Folding or telescoping stock, Pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor, Grenade launcher. With these guidelines this is illegal images by Jacam2002, on Flickr While this is perfectly legal to own i.php by Jacam2002, on Flickr For everyone here that has said they "don't know much about guns, but who needs military grade weapons?", I have a question. Which one of these should I be allowed to own? I'll let you in on a secret, they are pretty much the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, have the same magazine capacity and have roughly the same rate of fire. But the one on the bottom doesn't look like a big bad modern military gun. J
I get your point about the similarity of the guns, but is there any rational reason anyone should own a grenade launcher? I get that it has to be cool as shit to shoot one and you can claim pretty much every gun has a legitimate sporting purpose, but what kind of legitimate purpose is served by having a grenade launcher? (I'm on my knees begging for an answer other than "to protect myself from corrupt police forces".)
You can own all the grenade launchers you want. The grenades themselves require a NFA tax stamp to the tune of $200 apiece and all sorts of government red tape. If I recall correctly, the 37mm launcher is more readily available and can also shoot smoke signals, flares, and things like that- all nonlethal and less dangerous than a homemade potato gun. It would be akin to a nuclear warhead attachment. Sure, you could put a nuclear warhead on the end of your rifle with one easy step. Now all you need is the warhead.
I'll give you grenade launcher, personally I think that's a little over the top. With that being said, I have a friend with one that shoots flares and is pretty cool on the 4th of July. J
I just cant buy this fake defeatist attitude so many of you seem to have, like this is some intractable problem that just can't be solved...even though pretty much every western country that isn't you has already done so. You know you shoot and kill each other more than terrorists shoot and kill your soldiers, right? Actually, you shoot and kill more American citizens than terrorists could ever dream of shooting and killing. You basically 9/11 yourselves ever couple months or so -- why doesn't this embarrass you? Of all the boner stroking and bragging about how much more you guys know about guns, you don't seem quick to offer solutions to lessen the number of American bodies with bullet holes, instead choosing to sit back and shoot down (ha!) basically any hypothetical solution that is presented. Everyone agrees that the attitude towards mental health needs improvement, but is there anything you guys are willing to budge on when it comes to gun control? Cuz these shootings, rightly or wrongly, they kind of make all of you look bad, and you don't seem anxious to clean up the reputation of responsible gun owners. Seems eerily similar to moderate religious folk giving cover to extremists/crazies. What if all guns were banned in public? You could have one in your home/private property, for hunting, or at the shooting range, but if anyone carries in public, you call the police. Other countries do similar things. Other countires also have a fraction of your gun deaths. You guys only want them for home protection, hunting and to shoot at the range, right? So how would this hamper your beloved hobby? I've only been to one U.S. gun show when I was a kid, but I remember my dad -- who grew up hunting and taught me gun safety/basics until I turned 16 and thought guns were stupid -- being utterly appalled at the unbelievably slack conduct in terms of gun purchasing at a show in Houston. Not sure if things have become stricter since then, but maybe people should have to show more than their drivers license to buy a gun at these shows? (I'm sure different states/shows have different standards -- maybe that should change too?). Since your country is flooded with guns and clearly no one would actually turn theirs in, what about restictions on ammo? A yearly limit? A large price increase? Like Chris Rock said, that would nearly eliminate "innocent bystander". Some countries have a lifetime limit on ammo and they almost never 9/11 themselves. If home protection is such a big deal, how about you get one clip's worth of bullets, and that's it? If god forbid you have to use it, you fill out the police report and can refill. You already need a license for hunting (maybe make it more intensive?), and if you go to the gun range, how about they supply the bullets? Would this really be such an infringement on your rights?
I've offered plenty of solutions and I haven't heard a whole lot in response. Sadly, most anti firearms enthusiasts on this thread can't keep up because they don't know what laws are currently on the books. They don't know which firearms are more dangerous. They don't know what disqualifies individuals from purchasing a firearm. They certainly don't know, or care to know, what the Supreme Court has to say about the second amendment. I'm not talking about the legalities of importing a couple of pallets of Soviet AKs. I'm talking about the very basics of gun buying and gun ownership. So, what do you do? Do you keep trying to have intelligent discourse with folks who have no idea of what they're talking about or do you at least entertain yourself trying to explain to a video game enthusiast that the musket he's so comfortable with will blow right the fuck through TWO car doors and keep traveling, which is something that he thinks he's pretty sure only the highest caliber and most advanced weaponry is capable of? You know what else is great? This is our problem and we have the liberty to do something about it or we can do nothing. You can talk aboot it until hell freezes over.