The right to bear arms

[prendrelemick]

Will someone please explain to me why this is so important.

[E.A Rumfield]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

[OrphanPip]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

That's a pretty 20th century interpretation of it though. Generally, as in all former British colonies, the right to bear arms comes out of the generally recognized common law principle that people have a right to weapons for the purposes of defence or sport. I don't think many people will disagree that people have the right to weapons (given they are mentally sound adults). I think many reasonable people could argue that the availability of certain weapons is harmful to the public good. Thus, why you can not legally own certain very dangerous weapons, like nuclear bombs. The US could probably benefit from more gun regulation and further negotiation of what constitutes reasonable access to weapons.

[prendrelemick]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

For shooting policemen then.

[E.A Rumfield]

For shooting policemen then.

Clearly you are no revolutionist. As the saying goes "Who will guard the guards themselves?".

[billl]

In the U.S., when was the last time citizens successfully used weapons to keep U.S. Armed Forces or local law enforcement from treating them unfairly?

The amendment came from out of a situation of occupation, a long time ago--and I think it still stands as an excellent example of the primacy of the rights of the individual, in a society--this powerful right itself being explicitly sanctioned by the society's founding documents. Next to guns, for example, it gets pretty hard to argue against alcohol, marijuana, gay marriage, and so on. Hooray for gun rights, I say.

I think the real reason for it, though, to the often extreme-seeming extent that it exists in a great many areas here is that there's a sort of culture around it, and people don't want to let it go. And many times, it can be a culture they absolutely shouldn't let go. So, in a lot of cases, they end up picking a side, even when they shouldn't be worried about their personal traditions, and letting those go. It's a big political issue now, and so there's a tribal mindset operating at a pretty large scale, and many people are ready to believe that any particular regulation under consideration at one time or another would just be a wavering step down a slippery slope. Tighter bans on assault rifles and/or the expansion of government oversight of purchases, or whatever the latest measure might be, are easily spun (to perfectly normal and good people--and their politicians) as signs that shotguns and hunting rifles and the colt revolver just like your dad's dad had are all going to soon be taken away by Liberal Security Forces.

But if the question is, "Why have guns at all?" or "Why not have severe regulation, and make it so only a few percent in the country-side have hunting rifles?" or whatever, then I think the answer is something like this: For the vast majority of individuals, while the need to possess weapons explicitly designed to kill large numbers during combat is not really present (in my opinion), the possession of a firearm isn't so impossibly dangerous that people can't be trusted to have them. And so people think they should be able to have them. (And the right to buy liquor, for example, even though drunk-driving, etc.)

I'm for some more regulation than we have most places, probably, and some limits and so on. (I've never owned a gun myself, despite sometimes living in areas where other people I know felt they needed a gun "for protection"--one area where I regularly heard gunshots at night, in fact, back in the 90's). The real story, to me, is that there's a big mess of political machinery, lobbyists, media blow-hard king-makers, and no room for compromise. I think a lot of people who don't own an assault rifle, for example, and who aren't shopping for one, end up defending the right to buy one as if it represented the sort of gun ownership they've grown up with.

Anybody who thinks they can buy enough weapons to keep the U.S. Army or the ATF off of their backs is a fool. And a person who just wants to collect the exotic and more mega-killer and military stuff really ought to make a bit of a concession to the concerned and agree to spend a bit more time on paperwork, at the very least--it'd only make their collections more special.

[E.A Rumfield]

In the U.S., when was the last time citizens successfully used weapons to keep U.S. Armed Forces or local law enforcement from treating them unfairly?
.

And that is why we are being trampled on now. This may be off topic but until the recent past America's military was largely made up of volunteer militia groups.

[prendrelemick]

I am Not a violent Revolutionist - because violent revolutions don't work - they usually leave the country f-----d and the Elite (old or new) in firmer control. Has the Arab Spring made any Arab better off?

"Who will guard the guards themselves?".

A better question is "who decides what's fair?" Some punk with an assult rifle usually.

[billl]

And that is why we are being trampled on now. This may be off topic but until the recent past America's military was largely made up of volunteer militia groups.

Trampled on by who? Local law enforcement? We should have a militia to fight the sheriff or the county police? Or, without a U.S. military to back them up, the State Police would have to back down to citizens banding together with assault rifles?

[Varenne Rodin]

I hate guns. I would rather be killed than kill. <3

[Volya]

I would say that it's there so that
A: The weak can defend themselves against the strong (For example, if some men broke into an old mans house, he would be helpless unless he had a means to defend himself)
and B: Like Rumfield said, in the case that the government tries to overstep it's authority or it gains too much power, the people can fight back.

However I do agree that in some places the laws are too relaxed. The fact that there are lunatics that can easily legally get hold of a gun is quite disturbing.

[Emil Miller]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

The operative word here is 'intelligent' and how one defines it. There will always be some who are likely to crack under certain circumstances and go on a rampage and in an ideal society it might be argued that a ban on publicly held weapons would go some way to preventing such killings.
However, in ultra-liberal societies, where the mindset is that criminals deserve sympathy, the question of the right to bear arms becomes somewhat rhetorical.

[cafolini]

Most militia leaders were FBI agents who did not believe for a minute that the "right to bear arms" fools were ever going to protect anything with a few stupid grenades and elephant and grizzly killing rifles. The FBI was there for several purposes. Another one was to infiltrate synthetic drug laboratories and the planting of maryjuana.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Hi Mick,
I have three guns inherited from my now deceased father. Two of them are vintage American WW II rifles the other is later model of a pistol developed for WW I.
As I was growing up, my father and older brother would take me out periodically for target shooting at the gun range or sometimes venture to a nearby trash dump and shoot refrigerators, cars, etc. The time spent target shooting with my father and brother were special to me, leaving fond memories that I will always cherish. A humorous event I recall was my first time to shoot a 12 gauge shotgun. I was about 10 years old, sitting on the ground with no back support. The recoil sent me rolling backwards, my brother saw it coming and casually grabbed the gun as I rolled past.

Today, my brother, sister, brother in law, niece’s, wife and son keep the barrels warm on those old guns taking down beer cans, pumpkins, watermelons, and of course shredding paper targets. To many reading this, particularly those outside the U.S., I realize it is difficult to grasp the concept of owning a gun much less finding enjoyment in shooting one, but it is. (I have difficulty understanding how one would enjoy leaping into a mosh pit or riding a skateboard down a handrail busting the family jewels.)
It should be mentioned, that beyond target shooting, whether for recreation or competition, hunting with firearms is also popular in the U.S.

I can’t honestly recall a time that the right to bear arms was ever discussed growing up or even today among the family. The guns were there legally, treated with utmost safety and we enjoyed them from a historical perspective and for shooting. For what it’s worth, I’m thankful we have the right to bear arms if for no other reason than the fond memories it has allowed from my youth, a means with which to bond with my son and the positive memories he will carry.


Sadly, if not with guns, then that which truly needs to be controlled will find other methods for killing:

Sarin Gas on a train - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Bombs in Norway, London, Indonesia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

Bombs were used in 1927 that, to date, still stands as the deadliest mass killing at a school in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Knives in Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre


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

Regardless of how they were killed, yesterday’s event was horrible. I’m still in a funk like so many others and I pray /hope that peace may soon come to the families impacted by this tragic event.

Kyrie Eleison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aah_ITLw3R8

[prendrelemick]

The "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is entirely true, but evades the fact that guns make it easier, they bring the possibility of random killing to the ordinary man in the street. Guns are the problem.

I have 3 shotguns (my father's), but I don't have a right to own them, I possess them at the sufference of the licencing authority. This is fine by me. Every 5 years I have a police interview and inspection to renew my licence at a cost of around £100. To own a rifle I'd need a firearms certificate, a good reason to have one, several referees, a place to use it safely, a secure place to keep it, a record of any ammo and would have to comply with much more stringent checks. Hand guns are banned completely.

The result of all these rules has not been so much to prevent gun crime or murders, but I think has helped to establish a different culture. Our society barely tolerates them any more. People have more or less handed in all their Grandads' WW1 revolvers and their childhood .22s

[Varenne Rodin]

I feel unfortunate to live in a country where guns are idolized play things. If this were a civilized place, my elected representatives would handle the security of the nation, not Joe-Bob neighbor jackass. Do I not have the right to avoid arms?

Three of my family members, and two kids I went to school with, were shot to death because of the ease of access to guns. If someone had approached them with knives, their odds of survival would have been much better. Knives aren't typically more dangerous than guns, people. That's quite a fantasy.

I saw posts all over facebook yesterday about some mass knife stabbing in China. "22 children injured in knife attack in China" vs. "20 children shot to death at a school in America." Let's see...which is a better phone call for a parent to get? Injured child? Dead child? O_o

My opinion is still and always that it is stupid to allow citizens to be armed against other citizens. Of course people are going to kill people with guns. A gun has one function.


The "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is entirely true, but evades the fact that guns make it easier, they bring the possibility of random killing to the ordinary man in the street. Guns are the problem.

I have 3 shotguns (my father's), but I don't have a right to own them, I possess them at the sufference of the licencing authority. This is fine by me. Every 5 years I have a police interview and inspection to renew my licence at a cost of around £100. To own a rifle I'd need a firearms certificate, a good reason to have one, several referees, a place to use it safely, a secure place to keep it, a record of any ammo and would have to comply with much more stringent checks. Hand guns are banned completely.

The result of all these rules has not been so much to prevent gun crime or murders, but I think has helped to establish a different culture. Our society barely tolerates them any more. People have more or less handed in all their Grandads' WW1 revolvers and their childhood .22s

These are the types of controls I would be comfortable with, but the states are full of crazy rednecks. Try speaking to them about this and they'll jam their fingers into their ears while screaming.

[prendrelemick]

61 mass shootings in USA since Columbine.

They have occurred in other countries, but other countries have responded by tightening the gun laws and it has generally worked.

[Delta40]

For shooting policemen then.


For shooting kindergarten children then

[prendrelemick]

Hi Delta, Australia had 13 mass shootings in 16 years. Until 1998 when Semi automatics were banned - none since.

[Delta40]

Lucky number 13. I'm thankful for the ban. Just out of interest, where did you get those figures from?

[cafolini]

In many places in USA people hunt to eat. I know because I lived in places like that where the nearest supermarket is one hundred miles away. I used a 267 for my purposes. A well placed one of those bullets is enough. There should be gun control. Certified collectors should have a special license and some related degree implying responsibility. Of course you wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 267. But I never cared much for it, although a 30-06 should be enough for those who like the sausage. I think this gun control will not stop the killing, but at least will make it much more difficult and will promote a lot more sense.

[YesNo]

I would be in favor of a license fee of about $100,000 per year per gun to compensate communities that have to pay for security at schools and malls because of the presence of guns. That might resolve the issue, but if it doesn't, one could also require each gun owner to purchase $500 million in liability insurance in case their gun is used improperly. Maybe $500 million is not enough.

[prendrelemick]

Lucky number 13. I'm thankful for the ban. Just out of interest, where did you get those figures from?

Michael Moore on Twitter, I think I got them right. He also lists each of the USA 61 events


In many places in USA people hunt to eat. I know because I lived in places like that where the nearest supermarket is one hundred miles away. I used a 267 for my purposes. A well placed one of those bullets is enough. There should be gun control. Certified collectors should have a special license and some related degree implying responsibility. Of course you wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 267. But I never cared much for it, although a 30-06 should be enough for those who like the sausage. I think this gun control will not stop the killing, but at least will make it much more difficult and will promote a lot more sense.

Exactly, why does anyone need a semi-automatic?

[Delta40]

That's not the figures I have. 9 gun massacres since 1971. Port Arthur trumping the world in 1996. I remember the Hoddle St and Queen St massacres. Michael Moore's credibility is questionable.

[prendrelemick]

I would be in favor of a license fee of about $100,000 per year per gun to compensate communities that have to pay for security at schools and malls because of the presence of guns. That might resolve the issue, but if it doesn't, one could also require each gun owner to purchase $500 million in liability insurance in case their gun is used improperly. Maybe $500 million is not enough.

I like the insurance idea. But ligitimate guns need to stay ligitimate and in the open. The licence fee should be affordable.


That's not the figures I have. 9 gun massacres since 1971. Port Arthur trumping the world in 1996. I remember the Hoddle St and Queen St massacres. Michael Moore's credibility is questionable.


To be fair to him he is re-tweeting someone else. That's the trouble with social media, things get repeated without being checked. (I'm guilty) I think this is the original source.

http://jeffsachs.org/2012/12/time-to-stop-the-massacres/

[Emil Miller]

Michael Moore's credibility is questionable.

:lol: That has got to be the understatement of all time.

[Delta40]

Mmmm that link took me nowhere. I looked up the history of massacres in Australia only because given the small population of this nation, 13 massacres in 16 years just doesn't add up. Prior to 1996 we were a relaxed nation in terms of gun laws - a naive one even but the killing of 35 people at Port Arthur changed all of that. The government not only banned semi's and tightened gun laws, they also spent $350m on a buy back program and as a result, over 640,000 guns were handed in.

[prendrelemick]

Mmmm that link took me nowhere. I looked up the history of massacres in Australia only because given the small population of this nation, 13 massacres in 16 years just doesn't add up. Prior to 1996 we were a relaxed nation in terms of gun laws - a naive one even but the killing of 35 people at Port Arthur changed all of that. The government not only banned semi's and tightened gun laws, they also spent $350m on a buy back program and as a result, over 640,000 guns were handed in.


Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in
the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the
reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but
not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution
effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm
homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws


This is the gist^ of the article I found.

640,000 that's amazing. In our country a gun amnesty had about 150,000 guns handed in.

[Delta40]

Lol. Somebody has to shoot those bloody kangaroos! There's alot of ground to cover here.

[miyako73]

I wish the right to bear arms is about mounting arms of bears on walls.

[ennison]

Americans are frightened of each other. Are they so nasty? Guess their own answer's yes

[Delta40]

I wish the right to bear arms is about mounting arms of bears on walls.

At this time of year in Oz we have the right to bare arms

[AuntShecky]

The right to bear arms is fundamental, part of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. However, citing that sacred document requires that we consider the historic background in which it was enacted.

The former American colonies had just fought and successfully won a war in which they achieved independence from the British crown. There remained a lingering fear that the British might soon try again to reclaim the country-- which turned out to be prophetic with the War of 1812. Hence, the right of the people to form a well-regulated militia was embedded in America's founding document, in case the nation would be placed in a position where it needed to defend itself.

Also, private citizens were assured that they'd be able to hunt
responsibly as well as defend the lives and property of their families. No one denied them this right then; no one really does now.

What's different is that somehow there is a misconception among some that the right to bear arms means ANY kind of
weapon, acquired by ANYONE. Somehow common sense and public safety has been forgotten.

The "right to bear arms" as envisioned by the founding fathers grew out of a knowledge of the kind of weaponry available during the late eighteenth century. The common firearm of the time was the musket,a single-shot weapon requiring a time consuming process between shots. There was no way the framers of the Constitution could have envisioned a world in which a person can easily obtain a type of assault weapon capable of firing rapid and successive deadly shots.

That is why we as a nation should take a look at the proliferation of high-tech weapons in the hands of people who have been so inured by a culture of violence, promulgated --unwittingly or deliberately-- by popular media, movies, music,video games-- that there has developed a deep-seated belief that the way to solve personal problems or even instantly perceived "threats" is with a gun, the bigger and more deadly the gun, the better.

For more information, "Google" wearebetterthanthis.org, or better yet, take a look at Ezra Klein's article in which he examines the facts about gun violence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states

[Delta40]

I'm biased. The American Constitution sounds as sacred as the Ten Commandments to me. While Australians have fought and died in a never ending war for them and never has the US gone to bat for another country under the same conditions, I'm apathetic on whether Americans kill each other over constitutional rights and freedoms in their own backyard.

[Emil Miller]

I'm biased. The American Constitution sounds as sacred as the Ten Commandments to me. While Australians have fought and died in a never ending war for them and never has the US gone to bat for another country under the same conditions, I'm apathetic on whether Americans kill each other over constitutional rights and freedoms in their own backyard.

The American Constitution is subject to amendment, but whether the right to bear arms is changed is a question for them to decide: outside interference should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

[Delta40]

The American Constitution is subject to amendment, but whether the right to bear arms is changed is a question for them to decide: outside interference should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

You're absolutely right Emil. I'll just throw another shrimp on the barbie....

[LaMaga]

Mostly rednecks defend gun laws because they are anti-social anyway, and they don't give a hoot about society, their neighbors, or the welfare of our kids or our future.. look how they raise their kids. I say we need gun control... any decent person with enough common sense would understand that, and I don't give a **** who I offend. I'm so tired of tip toeing around what's the honest truth here.


Let me also say that my husband is a retired police officer and detective, and we both agree there needs to be control. Point blank.


This is why we need a democrat in office, because this will never be resolved if our country was run by a republican.

[E.A Rumfield]

Mostly rednecks defend gun laws because they are anti-social anyway,(blatant ignorance posing as fact) and they don't give a hoot about society, their neighbors, or the welfare of our kids or our future..(you don't seem to care about grammar) look how they raise their kids(more ignorant generalizations). I say we need gun control... any decent person (so decent people believe exactly what you believe?) with enough common sense would understand that, and I don't give a **** who I offend(you sound like the stereotypical bible bumping redneck). I'm so tired of tip toeing around what's the honest truth here. (again stupidity posing as the truth)


Let me also say that my husband is a retired police officer and detective, and we both agree there needs to be control. Point blank.(What does that mean to me. Point Blank! Isn't that a bad movie?)


This is why we need a democrat in office, because this will never be resolved if our country was run by a republican.(It matters very little who is in office. Drink Pepsi or Coke, you get diabetes either way.)

Your opinion is not fact. Point blank!

[Delta40]

Mostly rednecks defend gun laws because they are anti-social anyway, and they don't give a hoot about society, their neighbors, or the welfare of our kids or our future.. look how they raise their kids. I say we need gun control... any decent person with enough common sense would understand that.

So what you're saying is there are currently more rednecks in America than decent people with common sense.

[LaMaga]

To be honest with you, it seems that way.

[LaMaga]

Your opinion is not fact. Point blank!


Oh God here we go. The grammar police! Do you want to discuss the topic at hand, or do you want to check my homework?

I speak three languages. How many do you speak?

[E.A Rumfield]

Oh God here we go. The grammar police! Do you want to discuss the topic at hand, or do you want to check my homework?

I speak three languages. How many do you speak?

The matter at hand is not your grammar. What does it matter how many languages, you don't need to prove anything to me. Your words in no matter what language tell the full story.

[prendrelemick]

Here's a fact. It will happen again and soon.

Ok not literally a fact, but these are;


153 Americans were shot that day, the Annual score is approaching 100,000. You are 42 times more likely to be shot in America, than Britain. Etc.. etc...etc..

[prendrelemick]

Your opinion is not fact. Point blank!



Point Blank!

[Volya]

Mmmm that link took me nowhere. I looked up the history of massacres in Australia only because given the small population of this nation, 13 massacres in 16 years just doesn't add up. Prior to 1996 we were a relaxed nation in terms of gun laws - a naive one even but the killing of 35 people at Port Arthur changed all of that. The government not only banned semi's and tightened gun laws, they also spent $350m on a buy back program and as a result, over 640,000 guns were handed in.

Gun related crime may have fell, but (off the top of my head, I don't have the facts right on hand) violent crime and theft in general has soared. In fact, ignore what I said about not having the facts on hand, I just googled it and it's easy enough to see.
Do you not find it strange that when the strict gun laws were added, violent crime rose in general? That's because an unarmed target is an easy target, and criminals have very little to fear.

Now, as heartless as this may sound, I really don't believe all these gun massacres are hugely important in the discussion. Sure, they're big and get all the media attention, but do they really make up the majority of gun murders in the world?

[prendrelemick]

I have a feeling America will be pretty high up the Violent crimes league as well. A good point though, its all about perception and fears. Its a vicious cycle, you fear guns so you arm yourself, and the next man arms himself because he fears you, and so on.

I think the massacres are significant because the victims are always random and innocent, They demonstrate that no one is safe.

[Delta40]

Do you not find it strange that when the strict gun laws were added, violent crime rose in general? That's because an unarmed target is an easy target, and criminals have very little to fear.

You make the statement as if in response to gun control, violent crime has risen which is incorrect and has no foundation. Googling the rising statistics of violent crime doesn't prove a correlation between the two, it only serves to reinforce your belief that society would be safer with guns.

[Dark Star]

Do you not find it strange that when the strict gun laws were added, violent crime rose in general? That's because an unarmed target is an easy target, and criminals have very little to fear.

You make the statement as if in response to gun control, violent crime has risen which is incorrect and has no foundation. Googling the rising statistics of violent crime doesn't prove a correlation between the two, it only serves to reinforce your belief that society would be safer with guns.

So, you respond by claiming he is incorrect even though your statement has no foundation and you provide no evidence to support it.

That said, in the US at least, there is a strong correlation between strict gun control laws and high crime. On the other hand, allowing civilian concealed carry has been shown to lower crime rates precisely because criminals are scared of targets that can defend themselves. And yes, in many countries (England as an example) violent crimes of all kinds have been on the rise ever since gun control laws were put into place and criminals make it quite clear when captured that they're taking advantage of people who are unable to defend themselves. Come to think of it, criminals in the US do the same when they've just shot up a gun-free zone.

[Emil Miller]

Do you not find it strange that when the strict gun laws were added, violent crime rose in general? That's because an unarmed target is an easy target, and criminals have very little to fear.

You make the statement as if in response to gun control, violent crime has risen which is incorrect and has no foundation. Googling the rising statistics of violent crime doesn't prove a correlation between the two, it only serves to reinforce your belief that society would be safer with guns.

Googling any statistics proves nothing except what the googler wants them to prove. However, while I don't think society would be safer with guns, I certainly would. In fact I have an air pistol that I bought to scare pigeons from the garden; it's within legal limits but it would do significant damage to an intruder if fired at close range to the head. That's why I keep it handy.

[Delta40]

So now the solution is to relax those laws we implemented after Port Arthur and we will see a sharp decline in general crime and less violence?

Great logic.

[prendrelemick]

Careful with stats. I was caught out by "shootings" rather than "killings" this morning. However according to three different sites, violent crime is down by about 9% in Britain , but the perception is that it is up.

[TheFifthElement]

And yes, in many countries (England as an example) violent crimes of all kinds have been on the rise ever since gun control laws were put into place and criminals make it quite clear when captured that they're taking advantage of people who are unable to defend themselves. Come to think of it, criminals in the US do the same when they've just shot up a gun-free zone.

That sounds like the kind of *BS* the NRA puts out. Gun control of some form or other has existed in the UK since 1870. Has there been an increase in violent crime in UK during that period? I don't have access to crime statistics that go that far back but more recent statistics suggest that violent crime is decreasing (there was a peak period in 1995). See the BCS report here: http://www.usak.org.tr/istanbul/files/bcs25.pdf and the Home Office report here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
Notable extracts:


The BCS shows that the number of violent incidents increased gradually through the 1980s and then increased sharply after 1991 to reach a peak in the mid 1990s. The number of incidents then showed steep decreases in the late 1990s. Since then, despite non-statistically significant year-on year changes, there has been an overall decline. Comparing 2010/11 with 1995, the number of violent incidents has fallen by around one half (47%) and is at a similar level to 1981. In the 2010/11 BCS, there were nearly two million fewer incidents and around 750,000 fewer victims compared with the 1995 BCS (Figure 3.1 and Table 2.01).

Also, when you're referring to 'violent crime' what exactly do you include in that spectrum? The BCS statistics referred to include 'pushing and shoving' as a 'violent crime' and will include crimes which do not result in an injury to the person. For example, assault in the law of England & Wales is a 'violent crime' and would be recorded as such, but for a person to be assaulted they only need to be put in fear, they do not need to have been physically touched. Around half of violent crime resulted in injury (so around half didn't). From the report:


According to the 2010/11 BCS, there were an estimated 1,211,000 incidents of violence with injury, accounting for just over one half (55%) of all violent incidents. There have been no statistically significant changes in levels of violence with injury estimated by the BCS in recent years (Table 2.01). Within this category, there was a 38 per cent increase in assault with minor injury, though this was preceded by small fluctuations in recent years with levels of these offences returning to those seen in 2006/07 (Figure 3.2).5 This seems to go against the general downward trend seen since levels of these offences peaked in 1995, and the current trend is uncertain.
Offences with injury accounted for nearly one half (45%) of all police recorded violence against the person offences in 2010/11.6 The police recorded 368,647 violence against the
person offences that involved injury in 2010/11, eight per cent less than in 2009/10, and the lowest figure since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)7 in April 2002 (Table 2.04).

On the subject of firearms:

Provisional statistics for 2010/11 are available for police recorded crimes involving the use of firearms other than air weapons (referred to as ‘firearm offences’ in the remainder of this section). Firearms are taken to be involved in an incident if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used in a threat. Finalised figures are planned for publication in January 2012.
Provisional figures show that 7,006 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11, a 13 per cent decrease from 2009/10 (8,052). Of the firearm offences recorded in 2010/11, 55 resulted in fatal injury, compared with 40 recorded in 2009/10. The 55 fatal injuries recorded in 2010/11 includes the 12 people killed by Derrick Bird in June 2010 (Table 3.05).
Following the introduction of the NCRS in April 2002, there were small increases in the number of firearm offences recorded by the police until they peaked at 11,088 in 2005/06. Since the peak, there has been a 37 per cent decrease (Figure 3.3 and Tables 3.05 and 3.06). This mirrors the trend in overall police recorded violence against the person.

The last gun control law passed in UK banned private ownership of handguns, following the tragedy of the Dunblane massacre. This law was passed in 1997. From both sources of crime data (BCS & Home Office) there are no indications that following the implementation of this particular gun control measure there has been an increase in other forms of violent crime. In fact the opposite appears to be true. And I think that trying to correlate other types of violent crime to gun control is a bit flawed in any event as the picture is always more complex than that (for example economics can play a large factor). Measuring the effect that gun control has had on gun related crime is probably as far as you can really take it.

[Volya]

Delta as odd as it may seem to you, yes it could.

The stricter gun laws were a knee-jerk reaction in response to the shooting, and as a result violent crime has on the whole increased - there is more rape, assault and robbery. Murder rates have gone down by 31.9% though, that proves the gun ban worked, right? Well, murder rates have also gone down by 31.7% in the USA, so stricter gun laws can't be the reason for this (well, I admit they could, but it proves it is also possible without a gun ban).

Main Source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Here's a fact. It will happen again and soon....



...Now, as heartless as this may sound, I really don't believe all these gun massacres are hugely important in the discussion. Sure, they're big and get all the media attention, but do they really make up the majority of gun murders in the world?


Agreed to both^
Suffice it to say, we are a species capable of great violence by any means.
A few random recent examples:

Fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma 1994 168 killed
Vehicle in China 2010 17 killed
Guns in Britain 2010 12 killed
Guns and bomb in Switzerland 2001 14 killed
Bombs and guns in Norway 2011 77 killed
Guns in Germany 2009 15 killed
Knives in Japan 2001 8 killed
Gas on train in Japan 1995 13 killed
Setting fire to a train in Korea 2003 198 killed
Etc., etc., …

This helps put the bigger picture in perspective - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

“Where there’s a will, there’s a way”

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


Lol. Somebody has to shoot those bloody kangaroos! There's alot of ground to cover here.


In many places in USA people hunt to eat. I know because I lived in places like that where the nearest supermarket is one hundred miles away...
... although a 30-06 should be enough for those who like the sausage. I think this gun control will not stop the killing, but at least will make it much more difficult and will promote a lot more sense.

Or feral hogs down here.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/oaonline/feralhogs09.cfm

The feral hogs have wreaked much havoc on the agricultural industry and therefore have become a popular game for hunters and they do make a decent sausage. I haven’t hunted them myself, but I do have a standing invitation at my sister’s place to help out if I care to. I understand they are tough brutes requiring a higher caliber with more punch.
I have my doubts that a .22 will do much other than make them angry, but a 1943 Smith Corona 03-A3 will do the trick.

.

[Emil Miller]

As the last few posts on this subject has shown, different sets of statistics show opposite results. One of the main, but not the only, reasons that statistics cannot be relied upon is that they obviously only record reported crimes. Therefore it cannot be known, at any given time, how many people have been the subject of a criminal act. It is a known fact that many crimes go unreported as witness this extract from a BBC report on the subject dated 2006:

The independent review, commissioned by former home secretary Charles Clarke, says recorded crime data - police crime figures - ignore the 60% of offences that go unreported.

The reason for the public 'perception' of criminality that contradicts the official version is clearly illustrated in this observation from the review:

Review chairman Professor Adrian Smith said: "It's very important that the public trusts crime statistics."

He said if you had statistics the public perceived to be in conflict with their experiences or that left out whole areas of criminal activity, then their confidence and trust were undermined.

[prendrelemick]

"I have my doubts that a .22 will do much other than make them angry, but a 1943 Smith Corona 03-A3 will do the trick."


What? I know those typewriters are heavy, but..

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

...What? I know those typewriters are heavy, but..

haha- No; throwing a typewriter wouldn't do much good either.
Out of respect for this thread, I'll swing by the Dreary Beery and share a couple of pics.

[LaMaga]

The matter at hand is not your grammar. What does it matter how many languages, you don't need to prove anything to me. Your words in no matter what language tell the full story.

Nice way to back peddle... Perhaps next time instead of attacking someone's grammar, which is clearly a form of insecurity, you should stick to the topic at hand.

[Varenne Rodin]

How 'bout metal detectors, coded gates, video surveillance and guards at schools? AND tighter gun control. The people fighting so hard against better tests, licensing regulations and fees are the most terrifying to me. If you want easy access guns at all times, and if you want psychos to be able to access guns just as easily, there might be something severely wrong with you.

[Volya]

Now there is something I do agree with Varenne. Better tests, more security, that I would support. But not the outright ban of certain weapons.

[prendrelemick]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.


I think I owe Mr Rumfield an apology. He is exactly right, that is one of the main reasons why the 2nd amendment exists. For insurrection against a tyrannical Government. To have that written into your constitution must be very effecting.

[Delta40]

Careful with stats. I was caught out by "shootings" rather than "killings" this morning. However according to three different sites, violent crime is down by about 9% in Britain , but the perception is that it is up.

Good point Pren. Couple stats with perception and who knows what the truth is. Under these circumstances, it's best to stick to one's own.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is what I get for talking about this stuff. My google ads are now for things like "Concealed weapons courses." Sigh.

Flowers, music, art, love, pandas, tigers, lions, invention, science, discovery, magic, beauty, feeling, books, peace, wisdom, words. Process that, action software.

[prendrelemick]

Just heard President's speech, Will anything change? Politicians are only effective when going with the flow.

I can't deny that the case for cause and effect is not watertight, you can't say that guns cause massacres, but you can say they facilitate them. Perhaps a small start is needed, something within the terms of the second ammendment. Perhaps on the type of weapon, like they did in Australia. People need to realise that owning a gun is a great responsibility.

[Varenne Rodin]

All I know is that I don't want to live here anymore. The response among my friends and family has been to proclaim passionately that they are going out to buy more guns.

The gunman's mother was a gun enthusiast who made him go shooting with her. He didn't want to. She bragged about it. The reaction from the US community has been shocking. This is grotesque. All of it.

[Sancho]

From The Onion (El Sancho’s favorite news source)


WASHINGTON—In the wake of yesterday’s gruesome mass shooting that claimed the lives of 27 people, including 20 schoolchildren, the United States ratified a new constitutional amendment this afternoon guaranteeing American citizens the right to live life in a perpetual state of abject horror. “The provisions of the 28th Amendment will fully protect the right of all individuals to spend every waking moment utterly terrified at the thought of a deranged stranger with a semiautomatic combat rifle gunning them down,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), explaining that the measure also permits Americans to suffer panic attacks anytime their loved ones go to work, school, malls, or virtually any other public location. “In addition, the new amendment prevents the government from ever infringing on a citizen’s inalienable right to lie awake at night visualizing the images of crying children being ushered out of a school and wondering where it could happen next.” The new amendment comes on the heels of numerous other proposed changes to U.S. law, including a highly contested bill that would protect the right of Americans to ignore a widespread, deadly problem until it is far too late.

Sometimes, it seems to me, satire gets at social issues better than serious news, just as good fiction gets at history better than, well, history.

I think this shooting may be a debate changer in the United States. And, in my humble opinion, it’s been a long time coming. (Don’t give up on us yet, Varenne. We need your voice)

[LaMaga]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.


"Let’s see, what else… oh, then there’s the “rebellion” argument. You know, how we need guns in case the government ever becomes tyrannical (or because it apparently is, in the eyes of alarmists). Because clearly, if the government ever did actually become tyrannical (as opposed to providing healthcare), you would surely be able to fend off stealth bombers dropping bombs on you from 40,000 feet with handguns, and your assault rifle is really going to chip the paint off their tanks."

[Alexander III]

"Let’s see, what else… oh, then there’s the “rebellion” argument. You know, how we need guns in case the government ever becomes tyrannical (or because it apparently is, in the eyes of alarmists). Because clearly, if the government ever did actually become tyrannical (as opposed to providing healthcare), you would surely be able to fend off stealth bombers dropping bombs on you from 40,000 feet with handguns, and your assault rifle is really going to chip the paint off their tanks."

Sure we may laugh now, but during the second world war my great-uncle was a partigiano and with a few pistols rifles and improvised explosives they managed to do a hell of a job despite all of Mussolini's Fiat made Bomber and Fighter planes and all those Armored cars and tanks. Remarkable how difficult it is for a government to suppress violent revolutionaries with its great technologically advanced weapons, particularly because if that tank or that bomber accidentally hits a family home instead of a partigiano, the next day the Partigiani had a whole neighborhood of new young men as recruits.

Most of the technological advanced made by armies are effective when fighting wars on soldiers, for fighting against civillian rebels, as we have seen in Iraqe and Afganistan those great weapons of mass destruction are rendered useless exactly because they are weapons of mass destruction rather than accurate destruction. Killing more civillians then rebels has historically never suppressed a revolution.

[Emil Miller]

"Let’s see, what else… oh, then there’s the “rebellion” argument. You know, how we need guns in case the government ever becomes tyrannical (or because it apparently is, in the eyes of alarmists). Because clearly, if the government ever did actually become tyrannical (as opposed to providing healthcare), you would surely be able to fend off stealth bombers dropping bombs on you from 40,000 feet with handguns, and your assault rifle is really going to chip the paint off their tanks."

An interesting comment because it mirrors what is happening in Syria now. The government has been perceived as tyrannical by a section of the Syrian public and despite the fact that the government has a modern arsenal of planes tanks and heavy weapons, the rebels are fighting them to a standstill. I have no interest in who's victorious but it does demonstrate that it isn't necessarily those with the biggest guns who win. Another consideration, if a similar situation were to prevail in the USA, is the reliability of the military: for although the President is the commander in chief, it's a constitutional requirement that could be ignored if a sufficient number of the armed forces felt it necessary to do so.

[Volya]

"Let’s see, what else… oh, then there’s the “rebellion” argument. You know, how we need guns in case the government ever becomes tyrannical (or because it apparently is, in the eyes of alarmists). Because clearly, if the government ever did actually become tyrannical (as opposed to providing healthcare), you would surely be able to fend off stealth bombers dropping bombs on you from 40,000 feet with handguns, and your assault rifle is really going to chip the paint off their tanks."

I'm just gonna point out that all those bombs and advanced weaponry have in the past been proved to be ineffective in fighting a guerilla force. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, damn near every war the US has been in recently.

And Varenne, the point about his mother being a gun enthusiast is really the stupidest thing I've heard. His mother liked shooting guns, which is why he snapped and butchered a bunch of kids? Yeah, right.

EDIT: Oh, looks like two other people got there before me...

[Alexander III]

An interesting comment because it mirrors what is happening in Syria now. The government has been perceived as tyrannical by a section of the Syrian public and despite the fact that the government has a modern arsenal of planes tanks and heavy weapons, the rebels are fighting them to a standstill. I have no interest in who's victorious but it does demonstrate that it isn't necessarily those with the biggest guns who win. Another consideration, if a similar situation were to prevail in the USA, is the reliability of the military: for although the President is the commander in chief, it's a constitutional requirement that could be ignored if a sufficient number of the armed forces felt it necessary to do so.


I'm just gonna point out that all those bombs and advanced weaponry have in the past been proved to be ineffective in fighting a guerilla force. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, damn near every war the US has been in recently.

And Varenne, the point about his mother being a gun enthusiast is really the stupidest thing I've heard. His mother liked shooting guns, which is why he snapped and butchered a bunch of kids? Yeah, right.

I appreciate how Lamaga's post sparked the same and instantaneous train of thought in all of us.

[Varenne Rodin]

Volya, that is not what I said at all, but I don't think the answer to the gun problem is for everyone to go out and buy more guns. My friends are talking about arming and training their kids with firearms ASAP. This is my personal experience with the reaction to this tragedy. If you don't like it, the mob might be who you want to talk to.

People have been saying we should look at the shooter's mental health and his upbringing instead of just talking about gun control. I do think it's pertinent information that he was a straight A student, a nerdy guy who liked sci-fi and video games, and in the last five or six months of his life, his mother made him go shoot things when he didn't want to. He shot her to death before he left the house to kill those kids. He wasn't connected to the school. All of the adults he killed were women. These are huge points of interest to me in trying to determine motive. If you want to dismiss or discard any of it, you're free to do so. I will not be training my children to blow people away. Keep directing your anger at me if you want to. I won't be angry back. :)

[Lokasenna]

I wonder whether it is more of a mental thing than a legal thing? I'll admit I am to some extent making suppositions, given my status as an observer from across the pond, but it seems to me that the gun culture in America is too celebratory generally. There seems to be a trend, certainly in the American media that makes it over here, that guns are cool and macho - and ownership of them seems so blazé as to make a Brit seem shocked. One of my dearest friends is a bubbly, happy, sweet-natured, very Catholic Texan girl, who nevertheless frequently claims to miss the revolver she habitually carried in her handbag over there, and loves telling the story of the time her sweet old mother machinegunned a rattlesnake in the back yard. It scares the hell out of me.

I own a .22 air rifle, just about the most powerful thing you can own without a licence here in Britain - and I'm a damn good marksman with it. But I treat it with care and respect, and use it only for the purpose for which it was purchased, which is shooting vermin. I would never, never shoot a fellow human being with it.

Ultimately, I don't think legal action is the solution, or perhaps not the complete solution - the strict gun-control measures brought in over here following the Dunblane massacre did nothing to stop, say, Raoul Moat or Derrick Bird. I think first and foremost there needs to be a change in the way guns are percieved. Only then will the situation improve.

[Varenne Rodin]

Oh, and the guns he used were registered to his mother. All of them obtained legally. She was described as "an avid gun collector and enthusiast."

To the people claiming criminals are the ones we need to watch out for if we impose stricter gun rules; most mass shootings are carried out with legally procured and registered weapons. I'm not going to be intimidated into becoming a thug to defend myself against other thugs in a thug world. Please yourselves.

[Varenne Rodin]

I wonder whether it is more of a mental thing than a legal thing? I'll admit I am to some extent making suppositions, given my status as an observer from across the pond, but it seems to me that the gun culture in America is too celebratory generally. There seems to be a trend, certainly in the American media that makes it over here, that guns are cool and macho - and ownership of them seems so blazé as to make a Brit seem shocked. One of my dearest friends is a bubbly, happy, sweet-natured, very Catholic Texan girl, who nevertheless frequently claims to miss the revolver she habitually carried in her handbag over there, and loves telling the story of the time her sweet old mother machinegunned a rattlesnake in the back yard. It scares the hell out of me.

I own a .22 air rifle, just about the most powerful thing you can own without a licence here in Britain - and I'm a damn good marksman with it. But I treat it with care and respect, and use it only for the purpose for which it was purchased, which is shooting vermin. I would never, never shoot a fellow human being with it.

Ultimately, I don't think legal action is the solution, or perhaps not the complete solution - the strict gun-control measures brought in over here following the Dunblane massacre did nothing to stop, say, Raoul Moat or Derrick Bird. I think first and foremost there needs to be a change in the way guns are percieved. Only then will the situation improve.

I agree. The people here get into frenzies. I've heard several say that they wish the gunman was still alive so that they could torture him to death. They say they wish he could have been given to the families to be torn apart. The pack mentality is horrendous.

[Varenne Rodin]

From The Onion (El Sancho’s favorite news source)



Sometimes, it seems to me, satire gets at social issues better than serious news, just as good fiction gets at history better than, well, history.

I think this shooting may be a debate changer in the United States. And, in my humble opinion, it’s been a long time coming. (Don’t give up on us yet, Varenne. We need your voice)

Thank you, Sancho.

[stlukesguild]

I'm just gonna point out that all those bombs and advanced weaponry have in the past been proved to be ineffective in fighting a guerilla force. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, damn near every war the US has been in recently.

Unfortunately this... and similar comments reveal an absolute ignorance of history and warfare. The only reason the US forces didn't obliterate the Vietnamese or the Iraqis is because the goal was to win the hearts and minds of the enemy... or so the theory goes. In reality, the aim was to defeat the enemy with the least possible casualties in order not to outrage the international community... and especially our allies. There was no such thinking involved in WWII... or in the American Civil War where Sherman unleashed the concept of "total war" upon American Confederate civilians and military alike. You might want to examine just how well the passionate and motivated Confederate forces did... even with the help of brilliant generals... against the vastly superior technological/industrial might of the American north. And please tell me just how well the Germans eventually held out against the allied dominance of the air. Or just look more recently at Waco, Texas. A couple bumpkins from Idaho and Colorado armed with semi-automatics are not going to last against a division of attack helicopters, heavy armor, and the highly trained troops of the US military if they are given the go ahead to use whatever force necessary. How long do you imagine the Vietnam War would have lasted had the US employed the same sort of carpet bombing used during WWII?

The idea that we need weapons in order to protect ourselves against our own government is unrealistic in this current age... but I guess there are more than a few who feel that any number of children murdered each year is a small price to pay in order to still their personal paranoia concerning the statistically insignificant chance that they may be the victim of some violent attack in their quiet suburban home on the open range... or that the government might decide to begin rounding up all those who who voted the wrong way.

[Volya]

Luke; That being said, do you really think the government would employ such measures on their own people? After all, there's no point ruling a country if your populace is dead/can't work.

I agree with Varenne and others that the real issue here is a mental one. If we seek to stop any kind of evil, the root cause we should be looking at is WHY these people do it, not just taking away the tools they use, especially when said tools can in fact be used for good (and in this I mean everything, not just guns). If we can work out why these things happen, we can try and single out the people who are going to do it, predict when an attack could occur, and work out a way to prevent people from becoming like this.

[Delta40]

You're living in la la land Volya. Prevention is better than cure so what is the problem with gun control, including banning of some weaponry? It is going to be far more effective than trying to gaze into a crystal ball and predict who out of millions of people is going to blow away a bunch of innocent people. You're speaking in all or nothing terms Volya. People are proposing more responsible laws and a social change in attitude toward guns. They're not saying the US should be a gun free country.

[Sancho]

Thank you, Sancho.

You’re Welcome, and Thank You.

And just so everybody knows exactly what’s being debated - it's the 2nd amendment to the U.S Constitution. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It’s a simple statement, also a maddeningly ambiguous one.

The first ten amendments are known as The Bill of Rights, designed to guarantee the natural rights of the citizens, and were a condition for the ratification of the Constitution by the States, way back then.

[qimissung]

I live in Texas. Our governor has some thoughts on how to make schools safer:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Perry-says-school-districts-should-decide-on-arming-teachers-183885461.html

[prendrelemick]

A USA gunshop owner interviewed on BBC said yesterday was his busiest day ever. Americans really believe in the gun, it functions as a talisman, giving off a mystic aura of protection. This confidence isn't bourne out statistically (sorry, more Michael Moore stats). Gun carryers are 4 times more likely to be shot .



Meanwhile the NRA and other lobbists are switching from "Now is not the time to debate gun laws" to diverting attention on to Mental Health, and the Whitehouse are becomeing more vague in their statements. Expect video games to be blamed soon!

Talking of Videos, Utube has one of the last three Presidents saying the same thing as Obama after assorted massacres of innocents - "change must happen". It didn't.

[Lokasenna]

I live in Texas. Our governor has some thoughts on how to make schools safer:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Perry-says-school-districts-should-decide-on-arming-teachers-183885461.html

Ye gods. Teachers carrying guns at all times? On what level is this not cretinous?

[TheFifthElement]

If we seek to stop any kind of evil, the root cause we should be looking at is WHY these people do it, not just taking away the tools they use, especially when said tools can in fact be used for good (and in this I mean everything, not just guns). If we can work out why these things happen, we can try and single out the people who are going to do it, predict when an attack could occur, and work out a way to prevent people from becoming like this.

Volya, your comment on guns having a 'use for good' aside (I'm struggling to understand how something which is designed purely to kill has a use for good?), it's a nice idea but I think you may have an overly optimistic view of how much you can really know about someone and why they do things and our ability to implement preventative measures. In amongst all the millions of people in the US, how are you possibly supposed to know the mind of every person who may or may not be disaffected who may or may not have mental illness (which is poorly understood in itself) who may or may not simply lose control? Look at the case of Anders Brevik - he has explained exactly why he did what he did but does it really make any sense to you? In Brevik's case the attack was pre-planned, but in the case of these mass massacres it's impossible to know whether the perpetrator has acted on plan or impulse. In fact unless they have left an explanatory note (which there may be in this case, but the authorities seem to be awfully quiet on that point) it's impossible to know anything about it at all. Even when you do know why someone has acted in the way they have, it doesn't mean that their action was justifiable or preventable. Guns enable people to react on an angry impulse in a fatally destructive manner and people can behave strangely (or out of character) when placed in situations of extreme stress. Take this example of a recent shooting in Alabama where a man shot 3 people (and was then, himself, killed) because he was angry about the care his wife was receiving at the hospital. Take the gun out of the equation and what might have happened? He may well have been angry. Perhaps he'd have thrown a chair or punched someone. Perhaps he'd still be alive, receiving care and support and his wife would be getting the treatment he felt she needed? In any event, there would be one more person still alive. Report here: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121215/alabama-hospital-shooter-wanted-better-care-wife

Of course you need a two fold approach. You cannot ignore the mentality that leads to these events but the challenge of understanding it, pre-empting it and preventing it is far more insurmountable than simply removing the kind of weapons which enable people, at a distance, to obliterate the lives of so many people so easily in one fell hit. It's easy to throw out the tired old cliche 'guns don't kill, people do' but the fact is that armed with only a biro and a Swiss Army knife I'm not likely to be able to murder 27 people and terrorise hundreds of others. Take the guns away, and the instances of mass shootings will reduce. You don't even need to remove all weapons, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But in all honesty, who actually needs an assault rifle in day to day life? And it is just as 'true' to say that 'guns don't kill people, people with guns do', and more honest, I think.

I find it very hard to reconcile myself to the idea that the right to possess an automatic weapon is of more value, is more important, than those 27 lives, and all the other lives which have been (and will continue to be) sacrificed at the alter of the gun.

This article from Charlie Brooker pretty much sums up how I feel about this whole dreadful state of events: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/newtown-shooting-helpless-charlie-brooker


Twenty children shot at close range with an assault rifle. You could argue that the choice of weapon is irrelevant; that a truly unhinged individual would still find the means to kill. Maybe that's true; I don't know. All I know is that 20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and that only a lunatic nation wouldn't try everything it could think of to make that less likely to happen again.

America, don't be helpless. Look at the faces. Feel how much it hurts. Try to stop it happening again.

[Delta40]

Obama's own words:

"Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year is somehow the price of our freedom? No single law, no set of laws, can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction."

[qimissung]

Obama's own words:

"Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year is somehow the price of our freedom? No single law, no set of laws, can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction."

And that is why I like Obama.

[Delta40]

I so hope he can stand by this sentiment.

[tonywalt]

Guns will decrease in popularity in the US when:

Tea goes down in poularity in UK, Football in Brazil, and la bella figura in Italy. The pilgrims jumped off the boat with guns it's part of the fabric of the culture- maybe not so much with this demographic(Onlit) - but believe we are not in the Main. From accross the other pond it looks crazy.

Do we have any regular onlitters born Texans on here? Or Louisiana born and raised? Mississippi ? I only point those three out as I lived down there and pretty familiar with the entrenched gun culture that is ever present there. Would be interested in their perspective.

[Lokasenna]

Qimi said she was from Texas earlier on, and she clearly has pretty strong views on this subject - I only know one Texan in the real world, and she is most definitely of the 'God, guns, and babies' variety.

[Volya]

As I believe I pointed out earlier, these massacres do not make up the majority of crime in the world. What they are is shocking and makes the head-lines, but mass shootings like these really should not be the main issue when deciding on gun law, or any law for that matter. What is more important, saving twenty lives in one event, or saving hundreds over time.

And if we are trying to use these events as the reason for change in law, surely we must look at the Bath School massacre, the deadliest school massacre in the US. The killer did not use guns, he used bombs. Bombs are very easy to make at home (all it takes is a google search to find out how), do you suggest we ban the sale of all products that can be used to make them?

[tonywalt]

As I believe I pointed out earlier, these massacres do not make up the majority of crime in the world. What they are is shocking and makes the head-lines, but mass shootings like these really should not be the main issue when deciding on gun law, or any law for that matter. What is more important, saving twenty lives in one event, or saving hundreds over time.

And if we are trying to use these events as the reason for change in law, surely we must look at the Bath School massacre, the deadliest school massacre in the US. The killer did not use guns, he used bombs. Bombs are very easy to make at home (all it takes is a google search to find out how), do you suggest we ban the sale of all products that can be used to make them?

Well, at least there is no 'right to bear bombs'!- but knowing some states.....

[Varenne Rodin]

I loved what TheFifthElement had to say about this.

A personal note about Texas: It stinks. It's a cattle factory place. I have never seen anything like it anywhere else. Cows jammed in with other cows spanning for miles in either direction off the interstate. Cow cities. It's like Texans want to advertise it. More cows than people, by a lot. There is no grass. No green. Packed on yellow musty dusty mud (I didn't know mud could be wet and dusty at the same time until Texas) in metal cubes in obscene heat, the cows scream and bash into each other. There are stacks of dead and dying cows all over the place. The stench is heavy. My nose's scent adaptation skills were no match for it. This isn't about the cows, although I did pity their terrible existences. Texas is a wasteland. It's HUGE, so one could argue that there are nice areas, but there are enormous stretches of nothing.

A person wouldn't want to drive through it at its widest point. I drove through as little of it as I could, but I couldn't avoid it entirely when I drove from Florida to California. I was stuck in it for a full day. It's the kind of place that makes movies about dirty, hillbilly serial killers seem very believable. I believe a person should not get lost in the Texas wastes. After so much nothing, horizon following horizon of identical yellow dirt slopes or flat land, there are towns peppered in. I had heard a lot about Amarillo. I assumed it was a substantial town of bustling activity to have gained the amount of note that it had. Instead, it seemed to be one mini mall running horizontal to the one main road I saw. If it had more than two roads, they were miles and miles from the town's(?) center. There were a few women dressed ridiculously, entering a Walmart. Women like Loka mentioned. God, guns, babies. Their hair was large and full of hairspray. They had spray tans and matching outfits and smug looks on their faces. I couldn't imagine what they did there, in that barren nothing of a place. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of Texas women become obsessed with the sport of catching a man.

My aunt and cousins lived there for most of their lives. They saw George W. Bush as some kind of deity. In the more densely populated areas, my cousins complained of severe gang activity in the schools, nothing to do, widespread poverty and squalor. A day of fun included drinking, mudding(?), and I don't know...mate seeking? Evolution may have come to a near stop in Texas. Austin and Huston are somewhat impressive insofar as they draw a lot of big business. There's a lot of crime, but they'll say please and thank you and they drive oh, so politely in traffic, and they are bat**** insane.

I have known some great people from Texas. A lot of smart people. The point I'm trying to make is that Texas should not be used as an example or a standard for anything outside of Texas. Texas is not indicative of life in greater America. They'll arm their teachers. They want to secede. They want to do away with critical thought. Whatever they're doing, it hasn't been working. Certainly, no one should adopt their suggestions for gun control. I feel bad for trashing it this way, but it's a marvel. Its charm is false. Stinky, puke inducing Texas.

[Babyguile]

I don't think many people will disagree that people have the right to weapons (given they are mentally sound adults).

Let me introduce you to the entire population of the United Kingdom. Giving any twat from the public a weapon that can kill a man in a split second is absolutely terrifying. I have the right not to live in an area where my neighbour can kill me if they've had a bad day.

Nineteen children killed is nineteen children too many. But for pro-gun people (most Americans) nineteen isn't a big enough number for them to give a damn. France, Britain, Germany, etc. manage to hold their government to account without using guns. Funny that. Tell me what is so special about America that the public needs to own guns.

[qimissung]

Yes, I live in Texas,but I'm from Oklahoma, although the point is moot concerning how people feel about gun control in either place. And if we're talking about feelings, you've also got Arkansas, and the whole west, Colorado, Wyoming, etc., where people also feel passionately about their guns. If you came here, it's entirely possible that you would like these people.As TonyWalt pointed out it is part of our national character, woven into it from the beginning.

Part of the problem is that they will not consider any compromise. We run into the same problem where women's rights are being eroded by passionate people on the right. I have lived in this part of the country all of my life. I never see guns nor have I ever seen anyone carrying them, nor have I ever been in a situation where a gun was needed. I have seen their negative impact in a secondary way. I work in a school, and while no one has ever brought one there, guns have impacted the lives of my students outside of school. A former student of mine was shot and killed last spring; another student was shot, but survived-this about five years ago; and one student lost a brother and three friends when a gang member leapt on top of the convertible they were in and shot them through the sun roof. None survived. Another man in Dallas, apparently he was on drugs, tried to break into a neighbor's house. The neighbor tried to shoot to scare him, but killed him. I'm sure there are many more stories, but those are the ones I know.

And there are other issues at stake here. Most of these school shootings are committed by young men, often with mental illnesses. I feel this is an area we neglect in the United States which has ramifications above and beyond this incident. We are not a terribly inclusive society. If you are different we are very glad to exclude you. One girl was quoted as saying that Adam Lanza didn't connect with the kids in her school. She didn't say that they tried to include him anyway. I think he was terribly, vastly lonely; the same seems to be true for the Aurora shooter. I do have sympathy for what brought these men to their breaking point. I would really like to see my country begin to address these issues,too.

And please don't forget, that there are already many laws in place concerning guns. And that someone who has a murderous impulse is not going to feel constrained by those laws.

Varenne and Babyguile, I understand you have strong opinions on this subject, but please remember to phrase these in a way that is not full of name calling or disrespect. Americans-and Texans-may be deeply misguided-but they are not evil.

[Lokasenna]

Let me introduce you to the entire population of the United Kingdom. Giving any twat from the public a weapon that can kill a man in a split second is absolutely terrifying. I have the right not to live in an area where my neighbour can kill me if they've had a bad day.

Agreed. Most people in the UK would not see it as a right to own guns. Following the Dunblane massacre, legislation was passed that essentially made the ownership of handguns illegal - a move that had a great deal of popular support at the time and since. Nor has there been any serious attempt since to decriminalise them.

If anyone, particularly in America, has never heard of the Dunblane massacre, and its following reforms, then I urge you to at least have a look at the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre - if nothing else, it shows that these terrible events can bring about change.

[tonywalt]

I loved what TheFifthElement had to say about this.

A personal note about Texas: It stinks. It's a cattle factory place. I have never seen anything like it anywhere else. Cows jammed in with other cows spanning for miles in either direction off the interstate. Cow cities. It's like Texans want to advertise it. More cows than people, by a lot. There is no grass. No green. Packed on yellow musty dusty mud (I didn't know mud could be wet and dusty at the same time until Texas) in metal cubes in obscene heat, the cows scream and bash into each other. There are stacks of dead and dying cows all over the place. The stench is heavy. My nose's scent adaptation skills were no match for it. This isn't about the cows, although I did pity their terrible existences. Texas is a wasteland. It's HUGE, so one could argue that there are nice areas, but there are enormous stretches of nothing.

A person wouldn't want to drive through it at its widest point. I drove through as little of it as I could, but I couldn't avoid it entirely when I drove from Florida to California. I was stuck in it for a full day. It's the kind of place that makes movies about dirty, hillbilly serial killers seem very believable. I believe a person should not get lost in the Texas wastes. After so much nothing, horizon following horizon of identical yellow dirt slopes or flat land, there are towns peppered in. I had heard a lot about Amarillo. I assumed it was a substantial town of bustling activity to have gained the amount of note that it had. Instead, it seemed to be one mini mall running horizontal to the one main road I saw. If it had more than two roads, they were miles and miles from the town's(?) center. There were a few women dressed ridiculously, entering a Walmart. Women like Loka mentioned. God, guns, babies. Their hair was large and full of hairspray. They had spray tans and matching outfits and smug looks on their faces. I couldn't imagine what they did there, in that barren nothing of a place. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of Texas women become obsessed with the sport of catching a man.

My aunt and cousins lived there for most of their lives. They saw George W. Bush as some kind of deity. In the more densely populated areas, my cousins complained of severe gang activity in the schools, nothing to do, widespread poverty and squalor. A day of fun included drinking, mudding(?), and I don't know...mate seeking? Evolution may have come to a near stop in Texas. Austin and Huston are somewhat impressive insofar as they draw a lot of big business. There's a lot of crime, but they'll say please and thank you and they drive oh, so politely in traffic, and they are bat**** insane.

I have known some great people from Texas. A lot of smart people. The point I'm trying to make is that Texas should not be used as an example or a standard for anything outside of Texas. Texas is not indicative of life in greater America. They'll arm their teachers. They want to secede. They want to do away with critical thought. Whatever they're doing, it hasn't been working. Certainly, no one should adopt their suggestions for gun control. I feel bad for trashing it this way, but it's a marvel. Its charm is false. Stinky, puke inducing Texas.

What about the Dallas Cowboy football cheerleaders?- SEE! - there's culture there.

(Austin has pockets of culture too - i've seen some good rock bands there)

[qimissung]

What about the Dallas Cowboy football cheerleaders?- SEE! - there's culture there.

(Austin has pockets of culture too - i've seen some good rock bands there)

Yes, hot pockets of culture. :D

I thought this was a thoughtful piece that explores the isolation of Nancy Lanza and her son.


http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/imagining_nancy_lanza/

[tonywalt]

Agreed. Most people in the UK would not see it as a right to own guns. Following the Dunblane massacre, legislation was passed that essentially made the ownership of handguns illegal - a move that had a great deal of popular support at the time and since. Nor has there been any serious attempt since to decriminalise them.

If anyone, particularly in America, has never heard of the Dunblane massacre, and its following reforms, then I urge you to at least have a look at the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre - if nothing else, it shows that these terrible events can bring about change.

It's all true, but Americans are not British. Dunblane tightened up something that was relatively tight.

[cafolini]

This is my weapon.
This is my gun.
This is for fighting.
This is for fun.

We need more gun control and more fun.

Gearge Bush proposed that having insurance for terrorism would end with it. It was one of the things that made sense.

Insurance for guns will probably do the same thing.

Not to have can be made profitable. And the profits will encourage better behavior and control. It was always that way.

[tonywalt]

This is my weapon.
This is my gun.
This is for fighting.
This is for fun.

We need more gun control and more fun.

Gearge Bush proposed that having insurance for terrorism would end with it. It was one of the things that made sense.

Insurance for guns will probably do the same thing.

Not to have can be made profitable. And the profits will encourage better behavior and control. It was always that way.

My favourite Public Service Commerical was the one of a person lighting up a joint then a voiceover "You are helping terrorism". It's fairly incredible what a large segment of the population can be sold.

[YesNo]

It seems that the most these teachers, even if armed, could have done was become a target for the killer giving their students a chance to escape and for others out of range to act. That is what I imagine they did.

We need to remove weapons that allow someone to rapidly target a group of children. This would give their caretakers a better chance to defend them.

[Emil Miller]

What about the Dallas Cowboy football cheerleaders?- SEE! - there's culture there.

(Austin has pockets of culture too - i've seen some good rock bands there)

You've just destroyed your own argument.

[Volya]

It seems that the most these teachers, even if armed, could have done was become a target for the killer giving their students a chance to escape and for others out of range to act. That is what I imagine they did.


Or they could've fired at the killer, thus delaying him and possibly scaring him off, if not outright killing him?

[Varenne Rodin]

I tried to say that Austin and Huston were the bright spots. The intent of my post was not to insult. Texans have some weird stuff to deal with; harsh environment, limited activities, poor educational system, old fashioned ways. Texas the PLACE is disgusting to me. This is not a remark about the people who have to live there, aside from saying that their views on gun control and women don't fully jive with the views of literate America. I don't want to be seen by the outside world the way people see Texans.

There is talk of implementing the armed teacher idea here in California, after Texas decided that was their solution. We can't take things happening in Texas and apply them to places outside of Texas. I don't want the state I live in to be influenced by that state, except maybe as an example of what not to do.

[qimissung]

Thanks for clarifying, Varenne. I think the idea of arming teachers is just an idea-at the moment anyway. :D

[Delta40]

I get that I'm not living in a nation as deeply entrenched in gun culture. When Port Arthur happened, we were aghast but there was still some dissent and they rallied the support of the NRA to go to loggerheads with our government. Fortunately, the outright ban on semi-automatic weapons went through. Since last Friday, state Premiers have come under tremendous pressure here if they are even seen to be supporting gun groups cut through the redtape of gun ownership and the sort of weaponry allowed. Australia has reacted in great sympathy to this tragedy and revisited its own horror. It would be political suicide for any politician right now to help out these groups. I guess that is the difference between the nations but it is also a reminder to remain ever vigil about our government and the favours they are trying to curry without thinking about the consequences.

[Emil Miller]

This is from The Guardian newspaper in the UK and if the 88% of the gun owning population decide not to give up their weapons, the US Government is going to have a hard time forcing them to. That's a lot of firepower there.

The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people

• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

[tonywalt]

You've just destroyed your own argument.

Destroyed with irony, which is very rare in Texas.

[LaMaga]

Juarez had 5K murders in one year. I don't see how PR is worse than Juarez. Where did you get that info from, Emil?

[tonywalt]

Thanks for clarifying, Varenne. I think the idea of arming teachers is just an idea-at the moment anyway. :D

I suppose the mere fact that arming teachers is Texas's first publically available idea speaks volumes. And believe me, THAT is exactly how they think in the main.

[LaMaga]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

That's excluding Mexico.

[YesNo]

Or they could've fired at the killer, thus delaying him and possibly scaring him off, if not outright killing him?

They would not have known he was a killer until he fired first. The teachers would be the first targets whether they carried guns or not. Then the rapid shooting of the children could commence. It is the rapid targeting that should justify banning these types of weapons.

We will see what happens in Texas whether arming teachers reduces the number of deaths or increases it through accidental killings. However, I don't think Texas should be singled out. Texans are no worse than anyone else here.

There is also no point in scaring off someone who is intent on committing suicide.

[LaMaga]

They would not have known he was a killer until he fired first. The teachers would be the first targets whether they carried guns or not. Then the rapid shooting of the children could commence.


Exactly.

[Emil Miller]

Juarez had 5K murders in one year. I don't see how PR is worse than Juarez. Where did you get that info from, Emil?


Well, it's from the Guardian, a left-wing British newspaper.

Today they printed a substantial article and interviewed a US gun dealer called Mr. Durkheimer; this is part of the article:

But Durkheimer, who counts elephant hunting in Africa among his pastimes, has not seen anything like the past weekend.

"There are two kinds of Americans. People who want to take care of themselves and those who want to be taken care of. The ones who want to take care of themselves are the ones who come into my shop," he said.

The buyers regard the Newtown killings as a tragedy, but view any connection to their right to own weapons as a political ploy aimed at depriving them of their guns.

"It's terrible what happened. It's just plain evil," said Richard Merritt on the steps of the gun shop after browsing assault rifles with a thought to buying himself one for Christmas to supplement the handguns and hunting rifle he owns.

"But there's people trying to use that to say I'm responsible because I own a gun. Where's the connection? The only people making one are doing it for political ends because there's not one of these massacres would ever have been stopped by a law that takes my gun away. But now they're talking about doing that again, I think this may be the time to buy."

You can see that there's likely to be tough times ahead for those who try to disarm the American public.

[Delta40]

We could arm our children.

[mortalterror]

Agreed. Most people in the UK would not see it as a right to own guns. Following the Dunblane massacre, legislation was passed that essentially made the ownership of handguns illegal - a move that had a great deal of popular support at the time and since. Nor has there been any serious attempt since to decriminalise them.

If anyone, particularly in America, has never heard of the Dunblane massacre, and its following reforms, then I urge you to at least have a look at the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre - if nothing else, it shows that these terrible events can bring about change.

Our guns are for keeping the Queen of England out of our face. You blokes might have broke free centuries ago if you'd had them. I bet the Irish were happy they kept theirs when the English came a knockin'.

[stlukesguild]

And if we are trying to use these events as the reason for change in law, surely we must look at the Bath School massacre, the deadliest school massacre in the US. The killer did not use guns, he used bombs. Bombs are very easy to make at home (all it takes is a google search to find out how), do you suggest we ban the sale of all products that can be used to make them?

What is sad is just how predictable all the arguments against any form of gun control are... as if the individuals lack any ability to think for themselves, but only repeat the NRA handbook: "Guns don't kill people..." "More people are killed by cars..." Yes, a bomb was used in the deadliest school massacre in the US. How many total deaths from bombs in US schools have their been vs total deaths from guns? How many kids have been killed each year from guns? I personally know of 4 of my own former students killed by guns. And once again... the products used in the creation of a bomb... and the automobile... do they perhaps have a practical purpose beyond killing? How about guns?

[Delta40]

Our guns are for keeping the Queen of England out of our face.

Lol. 88 per 100 people? It's heartening to know that you're still afraid - very afraid

[stlukesguild]

It seems that the most these teachers, even if armed, could have done was become a target for the killer...

Or they could've fired at the killer, thus delaying him and possibly scaring him off, if not outright killing him?

Oh please. I remember Charlton Heston speaking on behalf of the NRA immediately after the Columbine killings suggesting that teachers should carry handguns. I cannot even begin to fathom the number of deaths that would result from such. In any given year in any American urban school district students have succeeded in stealing the teacher's cell-phones, i-pods, i-pads, laptops, watches, keys, and any number of other expensive toys from under the teacher's noses. Can you even begin to imagine the number of guns that would end up stolen... in student hands?

It's heartening to know that you're still afraid

And that's the problem. Calming the fear of those paranoid individuals by allowing them to purchase automatic weapons more easily than they can get a license to drive is more important than the thousands of lives of innocent men, women... and children lost every year.

[Calidore]

It seems that the most these teachers, even if armed, could have done was become a target for the killer...

Or they could've fired at the killer, thus delaying him and possibly scaring him off, if not outright killing him?

Oh please. I remember Charlton Heston speaking on behalf of the NRA immediately after the Columbine killings suggesting that teachers should carry handguns. I cannot even begin to fathom the number of deaths that would result from such. In any given year in any American urban school district students have succeeded in stealing the teacher's cell-phones, i-pods, i-pads, laptops, watches, keys, and any number of other expensive toys from under the teacher's noses. Can you even begin to imagine the number of guns that would end up stolen... in student hands?

Or found by a snoopy or curious kid when the teacher walks out for "just a second" and forgets to lock her desk. When I was working at a local social service agency, a little kid once got hold of her social worker's mace and started cheerfully spraying it around. Luckily, nobody was hurt.

[miyako73]

Okay, I want to add something to the conversation. As far as school shooting is concerned, the reduction of services to take care of the mentally ill is the problem first before the easy access to guns. I think it's time America has to deal with mental illness seriously. Wherever you go here in California, you will see mentally ill people abandoned, hurt, bullied, forgotten. Of course, they will think of something to get back at the society that makes their already hellish life an inferno. Killing children is one of the things that make a society stop and listen. Unless we tackle mental illness seriously, school shootings will continue to shock us.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've always thought that allowing psychos easy access to guns was a bad idea, but what do I know?

I could never understand the US obsession with guns in general. I know it's a cultural thing but still I find it bizarre.

...

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to block out learning details of the shooting because it's too disturbing. Some of the things I have heard people talking about has made me sick.

[Delta40]

Okay I want to add something to the conversation. As far as school shooting is concerned, the reduction of services to take care of the mentally ill is the problem first before the easy access to guns. I think it's time America has to deal with mental illness seriously. Wherever you go here in California, you will see mentally ill people abandoned, hurt, bullied, forgotten. Of course, they will think of something to get back at the society that makes their already hellish life an inferno. Killing children is one of the things that make a society stop and listen. Unless we tackle mental illness seriously, school shootings will continue to shock us.

Is that the confirmed motive of Adam Lanzo? Was he a victim of the mental health system? What are your proposals for tackling mental health seriously?

[qimissung]

I suppose the mere fact that arming teachers is Texas's first publically available idea speaks volumes. And believe me, THAT is exactly how they think in the main.

Yes, it does speak volumes, but who are "they" Tony? Most of the people I'm acquainted with would disagree with Gov. Perry. Possibly most citizens think it's a great idea, but honestly people are not running around, frothing at the mouth here, truly.


Okay, I want to add something to the conversation. As far as school shooting is concerned, the reduction of services to take care of the mentally ill is the problem first before the easy access to guns. I think it's time America has to deal with mental illness seriously. Wherever you go here in California, you will see mentally ill people abandoned, hurt, bullied, forgotten. Of course, they will think of something to get back at the society that makes their already hellish life an inferno. Killing children is one of the things that make a society stop and listen. Unless we tackle mental illness seriously, school shootings will continue to shock us.

I agree, Miyako.

[Delta40]

I believe you Qimi. I read the article and while its almost compelling, it's a knee jerk response. People want a quick fix powerful answer in the wake of such tragedy. Negotiating a longer term solution, which takes time and doesn't always yield visible results can feel less satisfactory but I believe gun control is the best place to start.

[miyako73]

I haven't heard of school shootings in Sweden Norway, Denmark. They must have good mental health systems that have long-term care services for every patient. Their services must be centered on a patient having a comfortable life he can lead openly.

School shootings are rampant in China, Russia, and USA. We should check the mental health services in these countries. In america the services are short-term and plagued with policy studies and paper works. The system wants every patient to be independent as soon as possible to minimize expenses. mental illness is a long-term disease that needs long-term hands-on not paper solutions.

[OrphanPip]

Let me introduce you to the entire population of the United Kingdom. Giving any twat from the public a weapon that can kill a man in a split second is absolutely terrifying. I have the right not to live in an area where my neighbour can kill me if they've had a bad day.

Perhaps you should be nicer to your neighbour if you fear they might chose to murder you on a bad day. I think reasonably licensed people should have a right to certain weapons for their own defence, and for sport. I grew up in a home with guns, responsible and well regulated gun ownership is an acceptable risk. I don't feel the need to own a gun, but I understand why others do.

I don't care about holding off the state, that's a silly invention of the modern conservative movement in the US. However, the right to protect oneself is fundamental, and a reasonable debate should concentrate on the reasonable boundaries of that right.


I haven't heard of school shootings in Sweden Norway, Denmark. They must have good mental health systems that have long-term care services for every patient. Their services must be centered on a patient having a comfortable life he can lead openly.

School shootings are rampant in China, Russia, and USA. We should check the mental health services in these countries. In america the services are short-term and plagued with policy studies and paper works. The system wants every patient to be independent as soon as possible to minimize expenses. mental illness is a long-term disease that needs long-term hands-on not paper solutions.

Well first of all, the combined population of all of Scandinavia is less than that of California alone. As to mass shootings, perhaps you missed the Breivik shooting that happened last year, where 77 children were shot.

Moreover, school stabbings seem to be the norm in china, guns are not available to the public there.

[qimissung]

I believe you Qimi. I read the article and while its almost compelling, it's a knee jerk response. People want a quick fix powerful answer in the wake of such tragedy. Negotiating a longer term solution, which takes time and doesn't always yield visible results can feel less satisfactory but I believe gun control is the best place to start.

Thanks, Delta. Actually "gun control," whatever that means, is the quick, powerful fix I think a lot of people think will work. You notice that I cleverly did not say that a lot of people want it. Dealing with our poor mental health safety net would be part of a many-pronged longer term solution, that might include banning assault weapons. The country already has "gun control" laws. One thing that might not be well-regulated are assault weapons. Apparently there is not even a clear-cut definition of what they are. And frankly, why does anyone need one? That is my question. I believe the answer is "no one."

[miyako73]

I don't know if the Breivik case can be considered a school shooting that primarily victimizes helpless children. I'm not so much into guns as the mode of killing but I'm interested anthropologically why killing children in school is rampant in China and US, for example, and the perpetrators are usually mentally ill. There must be an underlying reason. I wonder if this can be explained using evolutionary sociology--there are cases of adult primates (non-human) killing baby primates.

One more thing: most private psychiatrists here in the US only accept cash. Even if you have a health insurance, they won't see you. Just imagine that.

[Volya]

And if we are trying to use these events as the reason for change in law, surely we must look at the Bath School massacre, the deadliest school massacre in the US. The killer did not use guns, he used bombs. Bombs are very easy to make at home (all it takes is a google search to find out how), do you suggest we ban the sale of all products that can be used to make them?

What is sad is just how predictable all the arguments against any form of gun control are... as if the individuals lack any ability to think for themselves, but only repeat the NRA handbook: "Guns don't kill people..." "More people are killed by cars..." Yes, a bomb was used in the deadliest school massacre in the US. How many total deaths from bombs in US schools have their been vs total deaths from guns? How many kids have been killed each year from guns? I personally know of 4 of my own former students killed by guns. And once again... the products used in the creation of a bomb... and the automobile... do they perhaps have a practical purpose beyond killing? How about guns?

For a start, I've never even been on the bloody NRA website. Right now, bombs have killed less people. If you stop these killers accessing guns, they'll use bombs instead. Which will result in more death, don't you agree? Outright banning guns will do nothing but make the situation worse. What is needed is better checks on WHO can buy a gun, research to try and work out why these killers snap, and (in my opinion) a change in attitude towards childrens upbringing.

[OrphanPip]

I don't know if the Breivik case can be considered a school shooting that primarily victimizes helpless children. I'm not so much into guns as the mode of killing but I'm interested anthropologically why killing children in school is rampant in China and US, for example, and the perpetrators are usually mentally ill. There must be an underlying reason. I wonder if this can be explained using evolutionary sociology--there are cases of adult primates killing baby primates.

I think you use "rampant" rather loosely. Most school shootings are perpetrated by students. There have been 11 school shootings in canada, and 8 of them were perpetrated by students, 3 of which were probably gang related. And the 3 that did not involve students occurred at post-secondary institutions.

In the US from 2000 to 2010 there were 17 school shootings. 8 involved student shooters, 4 involved university students, 1 was unidentified, 4 involved attacks on staff. In the US, Adam Lanza is the first adult to attack school children at school since 1992.

Edit: I made an error, there was also the Amish shooting in 2008 as well. So, in the past 21 years, there have been 3 cases of adults shooting school children.

[Delta40]

It's a good point you make Miyako. I don't pay anything for outpatient services here. I see a psychiatrist once a month and a psychologist everyweek. Their offices are right next door to each other. It's all done through the medicare health care system for which I pay a tax levy on. I can choose private services if I wish and this is a great option for those people you mentioned.

[miyako73]

You have to forgive me, orphanpip. I'm not data-conscious as far as dates, places, and events are concerned. I look at a social problem as a general hypothesis. Social scientists should work around it to produce meaningful data and facts.

Instead of focusing much on guns why not on the killing and why it's the school that becomes the place of tragedy.

[Sancho]

Concerning the pistol-packing state of Texas, I've got to say that some of the kindest, gentlest, most open-minded people I've ever met were from Texas. And, bar none, the friendliest place I've ever lived was West Texas (San Angelo then later Lubbock). But then, as with any other place, they have some douche bags too, Rick Perry for instance. So, if you'd prefer not to think poorly of Texans and their governor, I'd encourage you to quit thinking about Dubya and his understudy and to think of Ann Richards instead. She had bigger balls than either of those other two yahoos anyway. Besides, the Bushes aren't from Texas anyway; they're from back east.

All that said, there seems to have been a shift in the general attitude in Texas since I lived there. As a group, they've swung to the right of their Dust-Bowl Democrat roots. They've also gotten closer to Jesus. And the pickup trucks have gotten bigger. This is all just my perception, and I'm thinly basing it on a trip I took to Dallas last year for a friend's wedding. My wife wanted a new pair of cowboy boots (there's nothing better in the world for squishing a cockroach in the corner than a pair of pointy-toed Tony Lamas), so we stopped at a Cavender's Western Wear store. I was not prepared for all the Jesus paraphernalia they were selling. Good lord! I'd remembered boot stores (Cavender's, Sheplers, Boot City) as being places to buy stuff like Wranglers, Stetsons, pearl-button shirts, dinner plate-sized belt buckles, and of course boots. But this place sold mainly crosses. Their favorite design for a T-shirt was of a cowboy and his horse genuflecting to a cross. It kinda gave me the creeps.

[BienvenuJDC]

There are more alcohol related violence and deaths than gun related deaths. I've never heard of anyone wanting to ban alcohol or have stricter alcohol control measures.

Why is that?

[prendrelemick]

The Link between the shootings and the mental health of the perpetrator is always noticed after the event. The gun lobby are turning the debate in that direction.

Americans want to "do something" but don't want to give up their guns, Mental Health could be just the patsy they need, as violent videos were in the past.


And yes, I'm an old cynic.


There are more alcohol related violence and deaths than gun related deaths. I've never heard of anyone wanting to ban alcohol or have stricter alcohol control measures.

Why is that?

Actually, there are many who want tighter alcohol controls.

[JuniperWoolf]

Two pertinent points to consider:

1. Most mass shooters, especially the more recent ones, wear bullet proof gear. The "if there were no gun-free zones we would be able to shoot psychos" argument should be seen in this context, for honesty's sake. I'm pretty sure the shooter in this instance was wearing a bullet proof vest, and that theater shooter who thought he was batman was practically wearing full body armor.

2. When assault rifles were banned by Clinton in 1994, it had no impact on gun crime.

Someone clever said this earlier today, until I hear a better argument I agree with him:


I'm interested why people need something to blame at all.

Ban assault rifles. Fine. The gun's he used were 'Military Style' (in looks) but they weren't assault rifles. If you want to look at legislation for guns that actually impact people, look at handguns (he was carrying two) but lets not pretend like a ban on "assault rifles", which are already banned in most states, would have had any impact on this tragedy.

Improve mental health? Another ghost argument. The school noticed his behavior in 07 and brought it up with his mother and a psychologist. As a result his mother pulled him out of school and taught him from home. The alimony she received in child care from his father was over $250,000 a year -more than enough than would be needed to find proper care for someone who was mentally ill.

Its an unfortunate circumstance, but the reality is this was 1 person, out of a country of 370 million, who just lost it. On average in the US we have 1.25 people who go bat-**** crazy each year and go on a rampage. The slashing last Friday in China, the same day as the events in CT, outline how even if we completely regulate guns, people will find a way to exhibit their chaos on the world. When we talk of broad sweeping changes that will affect everyone in America, what we should stop and ask is "Of the 11 people who have gone off the deep-end in the last year. Will making this change actually help one of 'Them' ?"

A net that covers 370 million people is a pretty big net, expecting eleven fish not to slip through is unreasonable. Other countries with high populations don't have as much of a problem, but I think the American gun obsession is cultural and you can't just apply a quick fix to culture.


Guns will decrease in popularity in the US when:

Tea goes down in poularity in UK, Football in Brazil, and la bella figura in Italy. The pilgrims jumped off the boat with guns it's part of the fabric of the culture- maybe not so much with this demographic(Onlit) - but believe we are not in the Main. From accross the other pond it looks crazy.

Do we have any regular onlitters born Texans on here? Or Louisiana born and raised? Mississippi ? I only point those three out as I lived down there and pretty familiar with the entrenched gun culture that is ever present there. Would be interested in their perspective.

Exactly.

[Emil Miller]

Actually, there are many who want tighter alcohol controls.

I think this applies to the UK rather than the US where there seems to be a much more sensible approach to alcohol.
If Americans have a fetish for guns, then alcohol is the British fetish. Hospital admissions, not least in Accident and Emergency, for alcohol related problems are a major cause for concern and criminal damage likewise.
The British have an infantile approach to drinking that has lead to ongoing calls for control but, as in the US where the gun lobby have political sway, in the UK the brewing industry keeps protesters at bay in much the same way.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

....Do we have any regular onlitters born Texans on here? ...Would be interested in their perspective.


Eh-hmm...Yeee haw, howdy Tony...oh, and you did get my persepctive. Please refer to post 14, 54 and 57


Qimi said she was from Texas earlier on, and she clearly has pretty strong views on this subject - I only know one Texan in the real world, and she is most definitely of the 'God, guns, and babies' variety.

Hot damn, I luv my guns and wouldn't you know, this gun tot'n Texan is also a philatilist, numismaticist, enjoys shooting pictures, watercolor, sketching,woodworking, rock hound, enjoys reading, watching Star Trek (TOS), listening to Bob Wills and Dvorak, but contrary to what many of you outsiders have come to believe from watching Dallas, there's no oil well in my yard.



...A net that covers 370 million people is a pretty big net, expecting eleven fish not to slip through is unreasonable. Other countries with high populations don't have as much of a problem, but I think the American gun obsession is cultural and you can't just apply a quick fix to culture...

Good point.

[Sancho]

Yup, yup, yup, howdy, howdy. That thar is Texas talk.

Anyway, I think, the problem with guns in this country is not so much the mass shootings as the onesies twosies. An unhinged person bent on mass murder will figure out a way, with or without a gun. But with so many guns laying around, it's just too easy for somebody to pick one up and instantly (and permanently) solve their problem: husbands and wives blowing each other away, taking care of the neighbor with the barky dog, or the pinhead who just cut you off in traffic - ready, fire, aim.

How many times have you read about a little kid getting into the family gun cabinet and then accidentally capping his little sister. Nobody evolved in that incident will ever feel good again, for the rest of their lives. Guns are just too easy, too quick, too deadly, and too unforgiving. And humans are too emotional.

Arming everybody (Ted Nugent excepted) has got to be about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Here's my example: the US Army is pretty good at guns. They know how to shoot and they're good at it. I have personally trusted my life to young soldiers with automatic weapons. But the idea of an entire brigade of soldiers walking around in garrison with concealed handguns is ludicrous. Even after the shooting at Fort Hood, the Commanding General never seriously considered letting everybody arm themselves on post as a deterrent for a kook with a gun and an attitude. He knew that a bunch of 18 and 20 year-olds, all packing, would be bloody. Guys would be blowing each other away for cutting the line at Burger King.

[YesNo]

Even after the shooting at Fort Hood, the Commanding General never seriously considered letting everybody arm themselves on post as a deterrent for a kook with a gun and an attitude. He knew that a bunch of 18 and 20 year-olds, all packing, would be bloody. Guys would be blowing each other away for cutting the line at Burger King.

That reminds me of the rapper shootout scene from Scary Movie 3. I'd link to it but I don't want to stereotype blacks although it is quite funny.

I have a brother who lives in Texas and a cousin who used to. Neither of them are as nutty as my sister who hunts with a bow and arrow in Indiana. Based on what happened in Connecticut, my current stereotype of people to be cautious about are rich white kids from the pseudo-enlightened east coast, but I'm sure most of them are OK as well.

[stlukesguild]

For a start, I've never even been on the bloody NRA website. Right now, bombs have killed less people. If you stop these killers accessing guns, they'll use bombs instead. Which will result in more death, don't you agree? Outright banning guns will do nothing but make the situation worse. What is needed is better checks on WHO can buy a gun, research to try and work out why these killers snap, and (in my opinion) a change in attitude towards childrens upbringing.

The problem with your theory lies in accessibility. Handguns are incredibly accessible... easier to obtain than a driver's license. The US is clearly far too ingrained in its obsession with guns to eliminate them completely... bot yet. many many more children will have to die before that ever happens. But the problem isn't the handgun kept for self defense or the hunting rifle... its the ability to easily purchase dozens of guns including semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons with an endless supply of ammo. These have absolutely no practical use except in killing people. Now unless there has been a rash of home invasions involving dozens of invaders I don't see the point.

We have the ability to track such things. I can't buy more than a couple bottles of certain over-the-counter medications in a given month because they are known to be used in the production of dangerous illegal drugs. The elements needed for the production of most bombs are also closely monitored and the purchase of such will likely lead to a visit from your friendly FBI agents.

Attempting to divert the focus to mental health services and parenting is absurdly ridiculous. How do you suppose we monitor, let alone enforce proper parenting? How do we recognize which mentally ill individual is likely to snap? What do we do... lock anyone up that we have a sneaking suspicion about? Most of the deaths by handgun that occur in homes are not homeowners killing intruders or unknown intruders killing homeowners, but rather the result of a dispute (often sexual... husband cheating on wife, etc..) between friends and family. The argument escalates and a person not known for any mental illness snaps... and uses the accessible gun. We repeatedly hear the same story with the shooter who snaps as a result of problems with co-workers or the loss of a job. Few of these mass-murders involve an individual who was identified as mentally ill. Who do you imagine will have the right to identify you or me... or that person who doesn't fit their concept of "normal" as a potential threat?

There are more alcohol related violence and deaths than gun related deaths. I've never heard of anyone wanting to ban alcohol or have stricter alcohol control measures.

Why is that?

Your point is moot. The purpose of alcohol is not solely to kill... unlike guns. And there are strict controls on things such as driving while intoxicated and there are indeed those who continue to push for stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws.

[Emil Miller]

Our guns are for keeping the Queen of England out of our face. You blokes might have broke free centuries ago if you'd had them. I bet the Irish were happy they kept theirs when the English came a knockin'.

Actually we did break free in 1649 when the King was beheaded and Oliver Cromwell became the top man. He also closed parliament for the reasons stated in this speech. Possibly the greatest of all Englishmen, the bauble he refers to is that of the Mace which was supposed to symbolize the authority of parliament. Unfortunately, when he died, the Monarchy was restored. :brickwall

Dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

Plus ça change ......

[Varenne Rodin]

There are more alcohol related violence and deaths than gun related deaths. I've never heard of anyone wanting to ban alcohol or have stricter alcohol control measures.

Why is that?

Your point is moot. The purpose of alcohol is not solely to kill... unlike guns. And there are strict controls on things such as driving while intoxicated and there are indeed those who continue to push for stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws.

You're really good at this.

[Buh4Bee]

We have to keep the children safe, but we, now also, have to live in a police state as well. And even with heightened security measures, the schools may still not be safe. Obama is correct in his stance to not only address gun reform, but also mental health access. We need to reform our gun laws. The other issue the American population faces is easy access to affordable mental healthcare. The access in poorer areas can be limited, simple because there are not enough providers. I think Obama is very smart in leveraging this issue now to get some things started. People are still very upset, meaning that the issues have a lot of support from the general population.

As an elementary school teacher, I am feeling quite numb. I lost a student earlier this year to a tractor accident and another student of mine is currently receiving radiation treatment for a brain tumor. When you see some much loss of life of children, it has to be the most sickening thing you can think of. I am not going to idealize children, but they are innocent. Obama understand this at a very deep level, and I am glad he is our President.

[qimissung]

Very thoughtful post, Buh4Bee.

[tonywalt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121220

The alarming part of this is the amount of homicides per year, compared to the other OECD countries.

[YesNo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121220

The alarming part of this is the amount of homicides per year, compared to the other OECD countries.

I especially liked how that data was presented as rate per 100,000 population.

[Volya]

That data doesn't really prove much. Of course if there are more guns there will be more gun homicides. What we should really look at is the total homicide rate for any weapon (which is probably still higher in America than in most).

[qimissung]

The Link between the shootings and the mental health of the perpetrator is always noticed after the event. The gun lobby are turning the debate in that direction.

Americans want to "do something" but don't want to give up their guns, Mental Health could be just the patsy they need, as violent videos were in the past.


And yes, I'm an old cynic.

To those who argue that the mental health issue is a patsy, yes, it certainly could be, in the hands of the NRA who are most assuredly adept at deflecting attention from their rather rabid views, but it should not be a case of one or the other. I do feel that we neglect mental health issues in our country. Getting access to good mental health care is really only possible for the very well off (is it ironic that Nancy Lanza falls into that category?). I've had much frustration and experience in that area.

Obviously better gun control laws are important. But I think a determined push for both is equally important.

[YesNo]

That data doesn't really prove much. Of course if there are more guns there will be more gun homicides. What we should really look at is the total homicide rate for any weapon (which is probably still higher in America than in most).

One could consider the countries with a high number of firearms per 100 people and low deaths by firearms per 100,000 people to see how these countries keep firearms available with a low death rate. The USA has a high number of firearms and a high death rate. The general question is how to reduce the death rate. A corresponding question is how to keep these firearms from being used by suicide-terrorists on children.

[Volya]

I think the problem will all the 2nd Amendment supporters is that they fail to understand what a well-regulated militia is. What they have in the US can hardly be called a militia, more of bunch of random people who happen to own guns. W
Whereas in Switzerland they also have a high number of guns but still maintain low crime rates - partly because the culture in Switzerland is very different to other countries, and partly because to own a gun you get conscripted into serving with the military for (I think) two years.

[Sancho]

...(Austin has pockets of culture too - i've seen some good rock bands there)


You've just destroyed your own argument.

Haha. I see your point, Emil. But if you ever happen to find yourself down on 6th street in Austin, Texas, you don't have to go to a rock-n-roll show. They also have Jazz, Blues, Hip Hop, Techno, Zydeco, Country-Western, Rap, Tejano, Folk, Soul, Metal...I could go on and on.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. The city also has an eclectic ensemble of folks who call themselves the Austin Philharmonic Orchestra. They're pretty good.

Aye yai yai, what were we talking about again? Hmm, oh, I remember - guns. Bad juju those things.

You know, Volya, the 2nd amendment rulings by the US Supreme Court (the court that has the final say in constitutional law here) did interpret the amendment to mean "well regulated militia," instead of a broader interpretation as the right for private citizens to "bear arms", up until relatively recently. 2008, I think. We do, in this country, have a well regulated militia: it's called the National Guard. They are state militias who answer to the state governor, but who can also called up for federal service during times of emergency (Title 10 Activation).

[Volya]

You know, Volya, the 2nd amendment rulings by the US Supreme Court (the court that has the final say in constitutional law here) did interpret the amendment to mean "well regulated militia," instead of a broader interpretation as the right for private citizens to "bear arms", up until relatively recently. 2008, I think. We do, in this country, have a well regulated militia: it's called the National Guard. They are state militias who answer to the state governor, but who can also called up for federal service during times of emergency (Title 10 Activation).

If you want to own a gun then you should have to serve with the National Guard, seems to be a good idea to at least try out, just to see if it makes a difference in regards to gun crime. It can hardly make it any worse.

[qimissung]

I liked what the second commenter had to say in the NYT article:

". It's hard to ignore the fact that guns are a convenient, popular choice for robbing the lives of others, but to focus solely on guns as the problem is no less foolish than focusing on cars as the problem for car accidents."

It's true, and we should not stop in our efforts to tease out the roots of the problem, which will be deep-seated and lie within our culture.

Looking at the chart I noticed that in the first column, Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population,Japan had 0.0 at the top while we were at the bottom with a 3.5. I wonder why that is? I read somewhere once upon a time that the Japanese have a love of violence in their games and movies, much as we do, yet their level of violent gun-related crime, or violent crime in general is much lower than ours.

[Sancho]

If you want to own a gun then you should have to serve with the National Guard, seems to be a good idea to at least try out, just to see if it makes a difference in regards to gun crime. It can hardly make it any worse.

That'd probably never fly, but I like your thinking.

I haven't much studied it, but concerning the Supreme Court rulings and the intentions of the founders, I've got to think the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment were thinking along the same lines as you - a well regulated militia. It was a well regulated militia (The Continental Army lead by George Washington) that tossed out the Red Coats. And it was a semi-well-regulated militia (Sam Adams and the boys) that got everybody all riled up in the first place: they tossed several tons of good East India tea into Boston Harbor during a little soirée.

And all that stuff was high on their minds when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

The 3rd amendment says:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Which was a direct answer to George III's army being quartered on private property in the American colonies. And those two amendments make me think the founders were trying to protect us against the sort of things that lead up to the Revolutionary War. I doubt they'd have had much sympathy for a modern-day dude who wants to own an AR-15 with a big ole banana clip.

By the way, the National Guard still has the logo of an 18th century Minute Man. They are the direct descendants of Paul Revere and the lot.

My other theory is that the 2nd amendment was all just a big misunderstanding, a typo. What really happened was Benjy Franklin, Al Hamilton, Chuck Pinckney, and little Jimmy Madison had been out all night boozing it up on Sam Adams' beer and whoring around in Philly. The next morning at the Constitutional Convention they wrote the 2nd amendment. They'd been mooning around all night with a French Can-Can girl named Mademoiselle Liberté. Anyway, you how a bunch of young guys get when they're around the fairer sex. They meant to write "bare arms." They thought they were being funny. The sots.

[Volya]

I liked what the second commenter had to say in the NYT article:

". It's hard to ignore the fact that guns are a convenient, popular choice for robbing the lives of others, but to focus solely on guns as the problem is no less foolish than focusing on cars as the problem for car accidents."

It's true, and we should not stop in our efforts to tease out the roots of the problem, which will be deep-seated and lie within our culture.

Looking at the chart I noticed that in the first column, Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population,Japan had 0.0 at the top while we were at the bottom with a 3.5. I wonder why that is? I read somewhere once upon a time that the Japanese have a love of violence in their games and movies, much as we do, yet their level of violent gun-related crime, or violent crime in general is much lower than ours.

Japan have some of the strictest gun laws in the world - even stricter than here in the UK. I think it is pretty much impossible to own a gun. From what I'm aware, the Japanese have very low crime rates in general (I'm not sure how much crime the Yakuza get up to)

[Emil Miller]

Haha. I see your point, Emil. But if you ever happen to find yourself down on 6th street in Austin, Texas, you don't have to go to a rock-n-roll show. They also have Jazz, Blues, Hip Hop, Techno, Zydeco, Country-Western, Rap, Tejano, Folk, Soul, Metal...I could go on and on.



Please don't, I think I'll stick to music.:lol:

[ennison]

Owning a gun in America is a right touted by anarchist fruit cakes. The notion that keeping several revolvers and machine guns at home helps you to defend yourself against your democratic government is risible. Most of these I-need-a-gun nasties are not members of a militia and not well -regulated. They are more likely to shoot their neighbour in an argument over a parking space than to ever go hunting. Their arguments for gun ownership are laughable.

[prendrelemick]

My advice to Mr President would be to make a small start, set the ball rolling, perhaps introduce some legal responsibility to gun ownership, and in about 50 years you may start to see a change in atitudes. Meanwhile watch out for fiscal cliffs

[Sancho]

Please don't, I think I'll stick to music.:lol:

...also they have Swing, Bebop, Gospel, Punk, Rockabilly, Doo-wop, Salsa, Cajun, Grunge, Bluegrass, Baroque String Quartet...whoa, who let the long-hairs in the house?

[Alexander III]

My advice to Mr President would be to make a small start, set the ball rolling, perhaps introduce some legal responsibility to gun ownership, and in about 50 years you may start to see a change in atitudes. Meanwhile watch out for fiscal cliffs

If America were a one party system or a monarchy sure no problem, but considering the other party has more than half of the lower house it is neig on impossible.

[prendrelemick]

Today the NRA told it how it is, and blamed :-

The Media,
Video Games,
President Obama,
Gun free school zones,
Hurricanes,
Sports stadiums,
Celebrities,
Foriegn aid,
Movies,
Music Videos,

But definitely not guns.

[Emil Miller]

This is rather pertinent:

http://youtu.be/Ternps0JFwo

[miyako73]

Even without guns, those who are determined to kill children and make schools as graveyards will have machetes to use. If that happens, it will be clearer to us that the problem is not about guns but the desire to kill children as a social statement that bothers and to create havoc at schools out of revenge on a society that "others" and does not listen.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Even without guns, those who are determined to kill children and make schools as graveyards will have machetes to use. If that happens, it will be clearer to us that the problem is not about guns but the desire to kill children as a social statement that bothers and to create havoc at schools out of revenge on a society that "others" and does not listen.

Well I don't want to get into a discussion about guns (so you might say why bother reading and replying...) but really, I don't see the killing of children as a 'social statement' at all - go wear a different coloured T-shirt if you are into that. I just see it as some ****ed up individual with easy access to weapons. All I can say is that I'm glad the UK doesn't have a so called gun culture. This country also has its fair share of idiots but at least they can't pick up semi-automatic rifles (or whatever) down at the local supermarket.

[Volya]

I have tried to think about this problem with a clear head and with an open attitude to both sides of the argument, and it seems clear to me that there are a few points we can make that summarize the issue rather well:


There will always be crazy murderers in the world, and they will always murder people no matter what rules and regulations we put in place.
Although guns are not the CAUSE of these murders, they do allow murderers to commit these atrocities more easily.
If we ban guns or restrict the amount of guns available, this may reduce the amount of deaths but it will not solve the problem.
Part of the problem lies in the loss of community values in western culture, and the 'glorification' (for want of a better term) of these massacres by the mainstream media.


Therefore the answer is not to act on our first impulse and ban guns, the tool seemingly responsible for the atrocities that have occurred recently. What is required is a change in the way people look at life. People need to realize that the most common reason for these events is the mental instability of the murderer. It would also appear that often in the past, these killers have been social outcasts at school or in life as a whole. For example in the most recent shooting at Sandy Hook, the killer was described as a loner. If somebody in his class had befriended him rather than shunning him, then the shooting may never have happened. I am unsure whether the murderer did it in the moment or he had had these feelings for a while now, but either way if somebody had been there for him to talk to him and realize when he was going to snap (for it seems the mother wasn't great at that), then those school children could be alive right now.

Now I'm not saying these killers are innocent, or merely victims of society. They are still the ones who 99% of the blame should be put on. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't blame ourselves as well.

Then the other part of the problem: the media. Each time a killing like this happens, it hits the front page of every big newspaper in the world. All this does is prove to other people out there that if they go out and do this, they will become famous too. This needs to change. There should be less focus on the killer and more focus on the innocent lives lost. What seems most appalling to me is that often newspapers will produce little time-lines and maps showing what the killer did and when. This is clearly only there to feed the sick curiosity that the average reader has, and if nothing else only serves to give future killers a guide to how to do it.

P.S
I have no comment on what level of regulations we should put on the sale of firearms since it seems to only fuel the fires and distracts from other issues that are at hand.

[miyako73]

Well I don't want to get into a discussion about guns (so you might say why bother reading and replying...) but really, I don't see the killing of children as a 'social statement' at all - go wear a different coloured T-shirt if you are into that. I just see it as some ****ed up individual with easy access to weapons. All I can say is that I'm glad the UK doesn't have a so called gun culture. This country also has its fair share of idiots but at least they can't pick up semi-automatic rifles (or whatever) down at the local supermarket.

Maybe this incident in China will give you a hint.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

Also, if not of literature on which I had clung to for solace and calm, I would have killed all my classmates in grade school for calling me a faggot (although I was a transsexual girl) and bullying me to the hilt all day long and all my teachers for not doing anything to stop them. An othered person who has been persecuted for so long will think of everyone and everything as his enemies and those include his family, his friends, God, the society, the world, the universe.

[Sancho]

Today the NRA told it how it is, and blamed :-

The Media,
Video Games,
President Obama,
Gun free school zones,
Hurricanes,
Sports stadiums,
Celebrities,
Foriegn aid,
Movies,
Music Videos,

But definitely not guns.

The press anticipated a conciliatory statement from the NRA, but they came out with pistols blazing, fighting like cornered rats. Uhh, do cornered rats fight with pistols blazing? Well, in this case - yes.

Anyway, that statement by the NRA tells me they're running scared.

[Alexander III]

I have tried to think about this problem with a clear head and with an open attitude to both sides of the argument, and it seems clear to me that there are a few points we can make that summarize the issue rather well:


There will always be crazy murderers in the world, and they will always murder people no matter what rules and regulations we put in place.
Although guns are not the CAUSE of these murders, they do allow murderers to commit these atrocities more easily.
If we ban guns or restrict the amount of guns available, this may reduce the amount of deaths but it will not solve the problem.
Part of the problem lies in the loss of community values in western culture, and the 'glorification' (for want of a better term) of these massacres by the mainstream media.


Therefore the answer is not to act on our first impulse and ban guns, the tool seemingly responsible for the atrocities that have occurred recently. What is required is a change in the way people look at life. People need to realize that the most common reason for these events is the mental instability of the murderer. It would also appear that often in the past, these killers have been social outcasts at school or in life as a whole. For example in the most recent shooting at Sandy Hook, the killer was described as a loner. If somebody in his class had befriended him rather than shunning him, then the shooting may never have happened. I am unsure whether the murderer did it in the moment or he had had these feelings for a while now, but either way if somebody had been there for him to talk to him and realize when he was going to snap (for it seems the mother wasn't great at that), then those school children could be alive right now.

Now I'm not saying these killers are innocent, or merely victims of society. They are still the ones who 99% of the blame should be put on. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't blame ourselves as well.

Then the other part of the problem: the media. Each time a killing like this happens, it hits the front page of every big newspaper in the world. All this does is prove to other people out there that if they go out and do this, they will become famous too. This needs to change. There should be less focus on the killer and more focus on the innocent lives lost. What seems most appalling to me is that often newspapers will produce little time-lines and maps showing what the killer did and when. This is clearly only there to feed the sick curiosity that the average reader has, and if nothing else only serves to give future killers a guide to how to do it.

P.S
I have no comment on what level of regulations we should put on the sale of firearms since it seems to only fuel the fires and distracts from other issues that are at hand.

12 pages of discussion and this seems to me to be the most intelligent post so far.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Maybe this incident in China will give you a hint.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

I gather your point is that that people who want to make a 'social statement' will do so regardless of guns (though in the article all those who were attacked by the knife survived). However, the 'crime' that seemed to lead to the idiot on the bus going nuts was that his girlfriend left him or some such altercation. This has nothing to do with a society that does not listen. Such day-to-day things happen everywhere and in every culture and every culture there are always going to be a small minority of psychopaths. I'm just pleased that in my backyard these people can't pick up guns as easy as they can pick up a pack of sausages.

I think the easy access to guns in the US is ridiculous, but it is not my culture or country so it's not really my problem or right to pass judgement. It is also rather like the alcohol Vs drugs debates though because guns, like alcohol, is already out there which makes it all the more difficult to contain or regulate.

In your particular case, I'm sorry for you - that you were surrounded by such small minded individuals, and had to put up with that. Personally I can't stand such pig ignorance or those who follow the crowd so much that they haven't got the brains to think for themselves. However, such a thing is not limited to one culture or another and happens everywhere over any sort of difference from that particular social group.

Certainly you had every right to bonk them on the nose or to take a more sophisticated Gandhi-like approach to dealing with the issue but most likely you wouldn't have done anything more than that because thankfully it is only a rare psychopath like the ones above that goes completely of the rails when faced with particular emotional stress.

[miyako73]

Let me speak as a trained anthropologist.

In anthropology we see human as the center of anything--may it be media, economy, politics, sex, family, culture, society, or community.

Guns, violent computer games, internet, media glorifying murder, etc. are just peripheral or superficial elements. At the center of those elements are people with murderous desire. You can take those elements away, if that desire to murder remains among those people, nothing will change. So, the problem really is: why do they have murderous desire?

It's like a person having an infection that causes his wounds, rashes, boils, etc. You can treat his wounds, rashes, boils with cream and ointment, but if you don't treat the infection which is the center of it all, new wounds, rashes, and boils will manifest in other parts of the body.

[miyako73]

It can be argued maybe his girlfriend left him because he was poor. Why was he poor? Because he had no education. Why did he not get an education? Because only the rich could afford college? Why is that so? Because that is the reality in his society. Man is a social animal; anything he does or does not do can be traced back to the society in which he belongs.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It can be argued maybe his girlfriend left him because he was poor. Why was he poor? Because he had no education. Why did he not get an education? Because only the rich could afford college? Why is that so? Because that is the reality in his society. Man is a social animal; anything he does or does not do can be traced back to the society in which he belongs.

I'm sorry but that's just nonsensical.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Double post.

[islandclimber]

That knife incident from China was brought up many times the day after as an argument that guns aren't the problem, as he would have just used a different weapon. What no one mentioned, is that although 22 children were injured in the attack, not one died, and he was detained. Whereas in Connecticut, 28 died. That is an enormous difference. Of course guns don't float along through the air and pull their own triggers at random, neither does any other weapon. Yet, comparatively speaking, it is less likely to a ridiculous degree that a knife or a sword or a crossbow could kill the same numbers as a gun, anywhere near as quickly. This is just logic. Guns make it easy for people who go crazy to do a lot of damage. The idea that if everyone had a weapon we would be much safer is so absurd its amusing. Look at the gun homicide rate in the United States. Of developed nations it is far and away higher than any other. The lack of gun control in the United States and the types of firearms available to the general populace, these things are terrifying. The right to bear arms is absurd and outdated, and is bred into America from its revolutionary beginnings. I, for one, am glad I live in Canada, though less so of late as we ideologically attempt to march our way into a better understanding with our neighbour to the south.

[miyako73]

Yes, in that incident. But there were school attacks (in China) in the past that had many casualties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/world/asia/13china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[miyako73]

I'm sorry but that's just nonsensical.

It's nonsensical because you don't see the issue as a whole.

[islandclimber]

Yes, in that incident. But there were school attacks (in China) in the past that had many casualties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/world/asia/13china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yes. I would never suggest a knife cannot be used to kill. And 5 or 6 dead is still awful. Yet all is relative. And the ability to kill dozens in minutes is much worse. Besides that. It is much easier to defend oneself against a knife than a gun. Or to try to stop the person. If, as an adult, you try to stop a knife wielder, you may get stabbed, cut, etc. or you may succeed. With a gun toter, you are best served to just run or hide.

Of course, weapons aren't the root cause of the problem, yet at the same time, certain weapons just make it easy to kill. And they help to ingrain it within a culture that violence is how problems are dealt with. Handguns and assault rifles are for nothing else; they serve only human upon human violence. No one hunts with a handgun or an automatic weapon. So why are they so accessible? Who are these people defending against?

[miyako73]

so, you mean guns should be banned because 6 deaths from a knife is better than 22 deaths from a gun?

Why not go further? Why not ask why those people kill and how they can be helped so there will be 0 death?

Don't get me wrong. I'm also for banning guns. I just think it's useless to ban them if the real problem is not taken care of. If those murderous people kill again with machetes, are we going to ask for the banning of machetes? Weapons are not the problem; those murderous people who use them are.

[islandclimber]

I'm sorry I did not provide more clarity. 6 deaths is less than 22 of course, but the act is still there, the tragedy is the same. So I agree with you entirely that without doing something about the root cause, which is of course the people behind these acts, the problem will not go away. Our society needs to take care of the downtrodden and the lost, those forced into corners from which they see no escape. We toss people into a world they are not prepared for and expect them to be okay. Often they are are. Sometimes they are not and they snap. There needs to be a safety net for such people, and for those who are the truly criminally insane, well, that is entirely another problem and not enough is being done to look after such people and keep them away from the opportunity to harm others. I, however, am unsure as to how this could be done.

Of course, there will always be murders, no matter how much is done to help these people, some will slip through the cracks but certainly many of these cracks could be sealed and these people helped in order to reduce the terrible frequency of such massacres.

[stlukesguild]

Volya-the answer is not to act on our first impulse and ban guns, the tool seemingly responsible for the atrocities that have occurred recently.

"Seemingly?" It seems to me that too many wish to overlook the obvious. Every possible spin is put upon the statistics that show a clear correlation between the ease of access to weapons that have little practical use outside of killing in the US and the US murder rate by these same weapons. As the NRA would have us believe, its the Media, video games, the president, the gun free schools, society, the mentally ill, Hollywood, music videos, etc... anything but the ease of access to guns

What is required is a change in the way people look at life.

This is just an absurd avoidance of reality. Do you honestly believe we can change how people... how society as a whole thinks when we can't get a bunch of idiots to give up their right to own AK-47s regardless of how many innocent children get killed each year?

People need to realize that the most common reason for these events is the mental instability of the murderer.

So we all assume. Most of us cannot fathom snapping and going off and killing a bunch of innocent bystanders... and so we paint then all as madmen of a sort... because they surely cannot be like ourselves. We do the same with figures such as Stalin or Hitler. We assume they must have been exceptional, raving madmen. They clearly cannot have been "normal" in any way. And this is what makes such individuals dangerous... quite often they aren't some raving lunatics. They don't stand out from the rest of us.

It would also appear that often in the past, these killers have been social outcasts at school or in life as a whole. For example in the most recent shooting at Sandy Hook, the killer was described as a loner.

I suspect a great many members of this site might be described as "loners".

If somebody in his class had befriended him rather than shunning him, then the shooting may never have happened.

"If only..." "Might have"... can we really know what "might have been if only...?" And is "Lets all go out and make friends with a 'loner'" really a practical solution to a real problem... or just fantasy?

I am unsure whether the murderer did it in the moment or he had had these feelings for a while now, but either way if somebody had been there for him to talk to him and realize when he was going to snap (for it seems the mother wasn't great at that), then those school children could be alive right now.

This is all wishful thinking.

Then the other part of the problem: the media.

Now I fully agree with you here.

Each time a killing like this happens, it hits the front page of every big newspaper in the world. All this does is prove to other people out there that if they go out and do this, they will become famous too. This needs to change.

I not only agree with this... but I will take it further. You suggest that the glorification of such murderers may impact the actions of others. I agree that this cannot help but be true. We know that corporations spend billions on advertising every year because it works... because it affects public behavior and buying. We need to ask ourselves what the impact is of the extreme violence in films, video games, television, and video games. Now as an artist I am wholly against censorship... but perhaps those in the media need to begin to question their responsibilities to society as a whole... and perhaps we need to question the ease of access by impressionable younger minds to such material.

There should be less focus on the killer and more focus on the innocent lives lost. What seems most appalling to me is that often newspapers will produce little time-lines and maps showing what the killer did and when.

Indeed. A few short days after the killing, a local network here saw fit to air the story of the murder of John Lennon. It is indeed pathetic that we are all given the life story of the murders... we are all undoubtedly aware of the name of the killer in Newtown, Connecticut (and as such I won't even repeat his name). We've been bombarded with stories of his life and his relationship with his mother... as if he were a celebrity... or a hero... someone whose life is worth being known by us all. But how much will we be told about Victoria Soto...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/victoria-soto-300.jpg

... the first grade teacher who heroically hid her students from the shooter... and was murdered as a result? How much time has been spent on the life of this teacher who protected her children in spite of her age... in spite of the fact that she was employed in a profession that has been virtually demonized and denigrated by politicians who repeatedly call for "accountability" as if their demands for job security and decent pay are unreasonable and selfish?

What of Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy... the Teacher's Aides who died trying to protect their children? I have worked with any number of Teacher's Aides over the years and am well aware of their dedication to their students... in spite of the fact that they are grossly underpaid.

Why, indeed, do we continue to glamorize the killers... waste time analyzing their motivations, their lives, etc... while ignoring the victims... and the heroes?

[Delta40]

If I left dangerous items all around my house where a young child lived and and consequently died from mishandling them, the reaction would not be to try and understand why the child behaved like that. I might be berated for not teaching my child to be more responsible around dangerous objects but first and foremost, I would be burnt on the cross for not employing basic common sense and limiting access to things which could pose a threat to himself and others.

I fail to see why society doesn't work on this same principle.

[miyako73]

In that scenario, Delta, your child is the victim. Your behavior should be questioned.

[Delta40]

You're missing the point Miyako.

why did lanzo (a victim in his own right - since everyone including you have banged on about isolation, bullying, the mental health system etc) act the way he did?
why wasn't he taught to be more responsible?
why did he have access to such dangerous weapons?

Whose behaviour should be in question here? I actually expect government to exercise the model of responsible parenting. What else do we have them for? You're ready to point the finger at the head of the household so why not expect the same from government? By all means address these questions but as I stated before, common sense prevails in reducing the likelihood of tragedy when access to dangerous weapons is restricted.

[islandclimber]

Yes. It is entirely reprehensible that no American government to date has taken a real stand against the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is absurd and outdated and created soon after a revolution that gave birth to the nation. To allow such weapons as automatic rifles and handguns to be accessible to the general populace is absurd and illogical. And until such time as these dangerous weapons are controlled and restricted this will continue to occur frequently which is a tragedy. It seems that in the US, with such a high homicide rate compared to most of the first world, there is this culture of violence and a prevalent notion that violence is an semi-acceptable way to deal with problems. The 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, surely reinforces this. Why does one need the right to bear arms? To defend oneself? But this is just answering violence with violence, an eye for an eye, solving one's problems through greater weaponry, an arms race in our own homes... The banning/strict regulation of firearms would at the very least promote a cultural shift away from the idea that violence is a solution to problems...

[miyako73]

If we put Lanzo in the center of the circle that represents society, the kid had so many barriers in life:

1) Broken Family
2) Maybe a mother or a father who does not integrate him into the community/society out of shame
3) Disability that's related to behavioral and mental development
4) Being Bullied in school
5) Isolated himself due to self-esteem issue
6) Inability to lead a normal life like having a career, friends, girlfriend, etc.

These are enough for someone to hate the world. I've been there.

So what should the government do to take care of these people:

1) Part of divorce settlement should be an amount set aside for continuous counseling of kids until they reach 18
2) Government, church, school, private programs that integrate mentally disabled kids in their communities. A lot of programs exist for the normal kids where they have summer camp, volunteerism, skill development, etc. There should be programs like those for the mentally ill too. Government should give subsidies and tax breaks to institutions and private groups that have integrative programs for the mentally disabled.
3) Effective, hands-on, long-term, accessible Mental Health programs including health and emergency, housing and welfare, and academic and job services.
4) Making bullying a misdemeanor crime and abuse (physical/mental/verbal/sexual) of the mentally disabled a felony.
5) Parental or family assistance that will train parents how to deal with troubled and mentally ill kids. that's where the parents are advised to throw away or be careful with guns in the house or how to encourage their kids to be sociable. some parents don't even know what their children have. Some still consider depression as acting out or sulking. This should be the job of the health department.
6) social networks for the mentally ill. If the little people/midgets in the US can establish a strong network where they meet, share resources, establish friendships and relationships, why can't the mentally ill? Maybe the government can ask help from the experts how to do this.

School shooting by troubled, mentally ill teens or adults is a social problem first before it is an issue about guns and violent multimedia. Above is the sociological prescription for the said problem. banning guns and censoring violent multimedia are also important, and they will make the solution to the problem complete and totally meaningful.

[qimissung]

If we put Lanzo in the center of the circle that represents society, the kid had so many barriers in life:

1) Broken Family
2) Maybe a mother or a father who does not integrate him into the community/society out of shame
3) Disability that's related to behavioral and mental development
4) Being Bullied in school
5) Isolated himself due to self-esteem issue
6) Inability to lead a normal life like having a career, friends, girlfriend, etc.

These are enough for someone to hate the world. I've been there.

So what should the government do to take care of these people:

1) Part of divorce settlement should be an amount set aside for continuous counseling of kids until they reach 18
2) Government programs that integrate mentally disabled kids in their communities
3) Effective, hands-on, long-term, accessible Mental Health programs including health and emergency, housing and welfare, and academic and job services.
4) Making bullying a misdemeanor crime and abuse (physical/mental/verbal/sexual) of the mentally disabled a felony.
5) Parental assistance that will train parents how to deal with troubled and mentally ill kids. that's where the parents are advised to throw away or be careful with guns in the house or how to encourage their kids to be sociable. some parents don't even know what their children have. Some still consider depression as acting out or sulking.
6) social networks for the mentally ill. If the little people/midgets in the US can establish a strong network where they meet, share resources, establish friendships and relationships, why can't the mentally ill? Maybe the government can ask help from the experts how to do this.

School shooting by troubled, mentally ill teens or adults is a social problem first before it is an issue about guns and violent multimedia. Above is the sociological prescription for the said problem. banning guns and censoring violent multimedia are also important, and they will make the solution to the problem complete and totally meaningful.

I would have to say I am totally in agreement with this.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not sure the breakdown of society is at fault for Lanza, the deadliest attack on an American school remains a bombing of a Michigan elementary school in 1927, where 38 children were killed. When exactly did our Western society begin to collapse? These kind of things are hardly new. Most school shootings boil down to hormonal teens shooting 1-2 people because they lost their temper, and they never should have had a gun. These mass shootings by "disturbed loners" are a drop in the pond for the death of minors by gun violence.

[miyako73]

Orphan, the bomber in the 1927 case had stress that was economic-related, again that was mental and social.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/12/mass-school-bombing-in-1927-puts-sandy-hook-in-context/

the signs of Great Depression were already apparent in 1927-- the economy was going down. The fact that psychology or psychiatry those days was still at its infancy, we could not really say that the bomber was not mentally ill. he killed his wife; he must be crazy. let's just use that as our proof. I don't think a husband who kills his wife is not mentally troubled.

[OrphanPip]

My point was that there is nothing new about Lanza, was the media and the breakdown of social values the cause of the 1927 bombing? Unlikely.

Also, it had nothing to do with the Depression, the bomber was a member of the School Board and a farmer. From what I'm able to find on the internet, his motivation was probably anti-government politics and his failure to get re-elected. Of course, he could have been mentally ill, but mental illness is a cop-out explanation for any exceptional crime.

[miyako73]

well according to the link I posted:

"Kehoe had financial problems and was upset about having to pay taxes. He had killed his own wife before blowing up his house."


With this personality in today's psychology? these are signs of mental illness.

From Wikipedia:


Kehoe was regarded by his neighbors as a highly intelligent man who grew impatient and angry with those who disagreed with him. Neighbors recalled that Kehoe was always neat, dressed meticulously, and was known to change his shirt at midday or whenever it became even slightly dirty. Neighbors also recounted how Kehoe was cruel to his farm animals, having once beaten a horse to death.[1]

At first the Kehoes belonged to the Catholic church in Bath, but he refused to pay the church's parish assessment of members, and prevented his wife from attending.[1]

Kehoe's neighbors thought he preferred mechanical tinkering to farming. His neighbor M.J. "Monty" Ellsworth wrote in his account of the disaster,
He never farmed it as other farmers do and he tried to do everything with his tractor. He was in the height of his glory when fixing machinery or tinkering. He was always trying new methods in his work, for instance, hitching two mowers behind his tractor. This method did not work at different times and he would just leave the hay standing. He also put four sections of drag and two rollers at once behind his tractor. He spent so much time tinkering that he didn't prosper.[1]

[Delta40]

I don't disagree that a close sociological examination of the functions of society is in order. It should always be an evolving study anyway and a longitudinual one at that. As a parent raising a family, while I would hope to become better and wiser over time, improve the quality of my family through experience and knowledge, I would not risk the lives of my children through the absence of common sense at the outset. Society simply doesn't condone it.

We can lose ourselves in multiple variables in the hope of becoming a better society but we should never make excuses for negating the primary responsibility - making the environment safe.

[Varenne Rodin]

I can cut fruit and bread with a knife. I don't think I'll be cutting my food by shooting it with a gun any time soon.

Some of you call guns tools. What are they tools for, other than destruction?

[islandclimber]

I can cut fruit and bread with a knife. I don't think I'll be cutting my food by shooting it with a gun any time soon.

Some of you call guns tools. What are they tools for, other than destruction?

This. Simply put. Perfect.

[ralfyman]

"The Second Amendment you don't know"

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

"On Guns, America Stands Out"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html

[prendrelemick]

"The Second Amendment you don't know"

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

"On Guns, America Stands Out"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html


To me this is a suprising thing. There is a lot of sensible and reasoned analysis on this issue coming out of America at the moment, I have been reading journalism of the highest quality and integrity. Does nobody read it over there? Or is a it out of step with popular thinking.

[Volya]

I would hardly call that second article 'journalism of the highest quality and integrity'. Those statistics are meaningless given that it is obvious that with less guns less gun homicides will follow. Now if the writer had shown statistics for TOTAL homicide and crime rates with any weapon used, then I would be able to call it high quality.

However I do fully agree with that first article linked. If gun-owners want to follow the 2nd Amendment, they should form a REAL militia, not a bunch of random gun owners who half the time might not be well-trained or safe (though that is not to say that all gun owners are like this).

[prendrelemick]

I would hardly call that second article 'journalism of the highest quality and integrity'. Those statistics are meaningless given that it is obvious that with less guns less gun homicides will follow. Now if the writer had shown statistics for TOTAL homicide and crime rates with any weapon used, then I would be able to call it high quality. However I do fully agree with that first article linked. If gun-owners want to follow the 2nd Amendment, they should form a REAL militia, not a bunch of random gun owners who half the time might not be well-trained or safe (though that is not to say that all gun owners are like this).



Wasn't the 4th column exactly that. - deaths due to assult per 100 000

[Emil Miller]

I can cut fruit and bread with a knife. I don't think I'll be cutting my food by shooting it with a gun any time soon.

Some of you call guns tools. What are they tools for, other than destruction?

How about protection?

[Volya]

Wasn't the 4th column exactly that. - deaths due to assult per 100 000

I stand corrected, sorry about that.
Do you know if deaths caused by self-defence count as homicides?

Varenne - A guns purpose is indeed to kill. That doesn't mean it's there to kill good people though. You can use them for self-defence and for hunting.

[prendrelemick]

How about protection?


I stand corrected, sorry about that.
Do you know if deaths caused by self-defence count as homicides?

Varenne - A guns purpose is indeed to kill. That doesn't mean it's there to kill good people though. You can use them for self-defence and for hunting.

It would be interesting to see how many of those deaths were "bad guys" shot by "good guys"- to use NRA phraseology.

Although I don't think shooting burglars and thieves is something to be proud of.

[Emil Miller]

Although I don't think shooting burglars and thieves is something to be proud of.

It's not a question of being proud but one of self-preservation.

Personally I don't care what happens to burglars.

[cafolini]

It's not a question of being proud but one of self-preservation.

Personally I don't care what happens to burglars.

Without an orderly trial, who's a burglar and who's not cannot be determined. Even then, it is often difficult. To frame someone as a burglar is very easy. It has been demonstrated again and again.

[E.A Rumfield]

Idle message board goers: just as powerful as the UN.

[islandclimber]

Protection and self-preservation through a gun in each home... A domestic arms race. What a ridiculous idea. No wonder there are so many firearm homicides in America each year.

[Emil Miller]

Without an orderly trial, who's a burglar and who's not cannot be determined. Even then, it is often difficult. To frame someone as a burglar is very easy. It has been demonstrated again and again.

If someone breaks into my property he's a burglar. Why else would he force an entry? Why would anyone want to frame someone else as a burglar? Unless you have a logical response there's little point in posting.


Protection and self-preservation through a gun in each home... A domestic arms race. What a ridiculous idea. No wonder there are so many firearm homicides in America each year.

No not each home because there are plenty of people who aren't prepared to protect themselves but for those of us who are we will take whatever measures we are allowed and continue to do so.

[Delta40]

I found this interesting:

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

[qimissung]

If someone breaks into my property he's a burglar. Why else would he force an entry? Why would anyone want to frame someone else as a burglar? Unless you have a logical response there's little point in posting.



No not each home because there are plenty of people who aren't prepared to protect themselves but for those of us who are we will take whatever measures we are allowed and continue to do so.

I don't think you'll like hearing this, Emil, but with that attitude you'd fit right in here in Texas.

[Sancho]

Personally, I'm not prepared to kill somebody for stealing my TV.

[Emil Miller]

I don't think you'll like hearing this, Emil, but with that attitude you'd fit right in here in Texas.

To be honest, I don't think I would fit into the USA. I would like to think of myself as superior to those who view force as the answer to threats, but the reality is that to arm oneself in the face of liberal bleating that it is better to be robbed than to kill a robber who may be prepared to kill, is a question of natural justice, yet alone human instinct. This is a rhetorical question, because I know exactly how we arrived at this insanity that the criminal is worthy of consideration. But for the benifit of the uninitiated: how the hell did we arrive at this sick conclusion?

[Varenne Rodin]

I had a teacher who shot and killed an intruder. That act destroyed his life. A taser gun probably would have been a better choice.

[Emil Miller]

I had a teacher who shot and killed an intruder. That act destroyed his life. A taser gun probably would have been a better choice.

Well an intruder is an intruder who may be armed with intent to use a weapon. I don't know if tasers are available to the general public but I would much prefer to ensure my personal safety with a firearm because, as I said, I don't care what happens to a burglar.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well an intruder is an intruder who may be armed with intent to use a weapon. I don't know if tasers are available to the general public but I would much prefer to ensure my personal safety with a firearm because, as I said, I don't care what happens to a burglar.

My brother was a thief. He died in prison. I cared. Our mother cared. We weren't proud of him, but we loved him very much. I would never steal anything from anyone, but I value life over property. Things are replaceable. People are not.

You should watch Oz, Emil. I appreciate your passion on this subject, even though our priorities are different.

Maybe tasers should be more widely available than guns? Just an idea. My country is broken and stupid and sick. I don't want us to be a third world nation any time soon.

[Buh4Bee]

V- I thought your brother was murdered?

[Varenne Rodin]

V- I thought your brother was murdered?

He was.

[Buh4Bee]

... the first grade teacher who heroically hid her students from the shooter... and was murdered as a result? How much time has been spent on the life of this teacher who protected her children in spite of her age... in spite of the fact that she was employed in a profession that has been virtually demonized and denigrated by politicians who repeatedly call for "accountability" as if their demands for job security and decent pay are unreasonable and selfish?

What of Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy... the Teacher's Aides who died trying to protect their children? I have worked with any number of Teacher's Aides over the years and am well aware of their dedication to their students... in spite of the fact that they are grossly underpaid.

Why, indeed, do we continue to glamorize the killers... waste time analyzing their motivations, their lives, etc... while ignoring the victims... and the heroes?

I believe this is another piece to the story that people forget.

I appreciate the quote here, as I lack the emotional restraint at this time to try to explain this issue as well as the few teachers on this thread have.

[qimissung]

To be honest, I don't think I would fit into the USA. I would like to think of myself as superior to those who view force as the answer to threats, but the reality is that to arm oneself in the face of liberal bleating that it is better to be robbed than to kill a robber who may be prepared to kill, is a question of natural justice, yet alone human instinct. This is a rhetorical question, because I know exactly how we arrived at this insanity that the criminal is worthy of consideration. But for the benifit of the uninitiated: how the hell did we arrive at this sick conclusion?

Because they are still human beings.

I was being facetious. I'm sure you wouldn't, mainly because I think you take great pride in being superior to probably just about everybody. And even though you cannot let a single chance to make a snide remark about the U.S.A. go by, you really don't know anything about this country, or us.


My brother was a thief. He died in prison. I cared. Our mother cared. We weren't proud of him, but we loved him very much. I would never steal anything from anyone, but I value life over property. Things are replaceable. People are not.

You should watch Oz, Emil. I appreciate your passion on this subject, even though our priorities are different.

Maybe tasers should be more widely available than guns? Just an idea. My country is broken and stupid and sick. I don't want us to be a third world nation any time soon.

I'm glad your brother had you and your mother, Varenne. Even though he did something wrong, it would be more damaging to us as humans to be unable to forgive and to harbor anger. I'm sure he realized that what he did was wrong and would have liked a chance to live his life as a better person.

[Buh4Bee]

My apologies, rereading this, it was insensitive.

[YesNo]

Personally, I'm not prepared to kill somebody for stealing my TV.

They can have my TV.

I can't think of anything in our house that someone would want. There are some plants and a cat. There's a piano. There are some watercolors and etchings that could be replaced for under $200 each. If they take the computers, it would be a good excuse to get something up-to-date. I don't think they'd want the books. The valuables are all online or in the cloud.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm glad your brother had you and your mother, Varenne. Even though he did something wrong, it would be more damaging to us as humans to be unable to forgive and to harbor anger. I'm sure he realized that what he did was wrong and would have liked a chance to live his life as a better person.

Thanks, Qimi. That's sweet of you to say. He was trying to help my mom out of a crisis and he made a bad decision. He would have turned things around under different circumstances. I miss his wit.


My apologies, rereading this, it was insensitive.

If this is for me, no worries, BB. If it's not, disregard. :)

[Volya]

I would have to say I offer no sympathy to your brother Varenne. Maybe he was a nice guy, but he made a bad choice, and he paid for it. That's what you get for turning to crime.

Also I would think that a lot of the time you wouldn't have to kill the intruder, pointing a gun at them should be enough to make them leave. And if not, then that's their fault.

[Emil Miller]

Because they are still human beings.

I was being facetious. I'm sure you wouldn't, mainly because I think you take great pride in being superior to probably just about everybody. And even though you cannot let a single chance to make a snide remark about the U.S.A. go by, you really don't know anything about this country, or us.


I should think that it's practically impossible not to know something about the USA, given that it's in the news on a daily basis and, on a discussion site, it's right and proper that one speaks as one finds. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having the discussion.

[Sancho]

Strategically speaking, I agree, Emil. Guns are a deterrent to burglary. Here's a stat from Jeffrey Goldberg's article, The Case For More Guns (and More Gun Control); from this month's Atlantic Monthly (a left-leaning magazine):


Crime statistics in Britain, where guns are much scarcer, bear this out. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, wrote in his 1991 book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, that only 13 percent of burglaries in America occur when the occupant is home. In Britain, so-called hot burglaries account for about 45 percent of all break-ins. Kleck and others attribute America’s low rate of occupied-home burglaries to fear among criminals that homeowners might be armed. (A survey of almost 2,000 convicted U.S. felons, conducted by the criminologists Peter Rossi and James D. Wright in the late ’80s, concluded that burglars are more afraid of armed homeowners than they are of arrest by the police.)

Here's the link to the entire article:
http://theatln.tc/S8sl47

But tactically speaking, I'm a pragmatist. So, it's 2am, El Sancho and his Señora are happily tucked in their bed when they are startled awake by a burglar crashing around downstairs, stealing their TV set. My plan is to get my people out of the house to a safe place and call the cops. We have a crappy TV anyway, and we have good homeowner's insurance. Any confrontation, armed or not, creates an extremely dangerous situation. I'll fight, but only if the flight option is taken from me (caveman instinct), in which case Señor Bandito will have to deal with the wrath of El Sancho and his old lady. La Señora may be small, but she's got fight. She knows how to shoot, but she prefers knives and chainsaws.

That's all just a hypothetical situation anyway, because any burglar who breaks into La Casa del Sancho will almost immediately be licked to death by our recklessly friendly Spaniels; either that or he'll be pressured into a game of throw-me-the-ball-and-make-it-snappy.

[ralfyman]

The first article gives a very interesting argument. That is, the right to bear arms is based on the right to self-defense, which is part of English common law. Since this right is a given, then it is illogical to make it an amendment in a constitution. In short, there's no need to state explicitly through law what is a natural right.

If this argument is followed, then it means that the second amendment is not about the right to bear arms, as that is already assumed. Instead, it takes that right and uses it to call for the formation of militias. (I am aware, though, that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.) In short, the framers took what is a natural right (to defend oneself) and then used that as a reason to compel citizens to defend their country (by forming militias). The proof for this is that various farmers already had various arms used for hunting, defending their property, etc., but not all citizens wanted to use firearms for any reason, and there was no statute for militias. That is why following the amendment were two militia acts which were very specific about how the miltias were to be formed, what weapons were needed, etc. More than a century later, the acts were replaced by one calling for the formation of a National Guard.

With that, the basis for the right to bear arms is not the second amendment but the right to self-defense. The second amendment uses the right to self-defense and extends it to the necessity of defending the country.

The irony is that militias are not supposed to be used against the government but the opposite: they are supposed to serve the government as an armed reserve. Also, the claim that a right in inviolable and absolute is interpreted incorrectly. A right is inalienable because one possesses it by default, but it doesn't mean that no law can violate it. For example, there is a right to bear arms, but a convict may be deprived of that right. The same goes for the right to life given capital punishment.

Given that, gun control or even a gun ban does not violate the second amendment or the Constitution.

The second article very likely reveals what may be obvious: the more guns, the more gun-related crime.

[Varenne Rodin]

I would have to say I offer no sympathy to your brother Varenne. Maybe he was a nice guy, but he made a bad choice, and he paid for it. That's what you get for turning to crime.

Also I would think that a lot of the time you wouldn't have to kill the intruder, pointing a gun at them should be enough to make them leave. And if not, then that's their fault.

Volya, you have no idea what happened or why. I don't care about your garbage opinions on my life, so keep your asinine feelings about me to yourself. Attempt to improve silence.

[Hawg Horse]

Varenne.
Your posts (and art) are the heart of this site. I always look first to see if you have contributed. There are so many different scenarios of home burglaries, it's difficult, at least for me, to summarize my own thoughts; not even sure of the right questions. As you know, I was assaulted and seriously injured by a burglar who repeatedly stabbed me about my head, neck and chest with a knife in my home this past July. The experience changed my life, physically and mentally, not all for the worse. It was early morning. I was unarmed, in only my underwear, on my way from the bedroom to brew a cup in the kitchen. There would have been no time to grab a gun. On reflection, I still can't think of a safe way to own or effectively carry one for protection. The police gave me suggestions, but none befit my lifestyle. My incident was like being struck by lightning, a post-modern event. I still have trouble sleeping. I have resolved that learning self defensive skills, and taking sensible protective measures, are more important to me than I thought previously. None of the home alarm systems I have considered to date work for my home layout or for my budget. I have a dog (small munsterlander), but for some reason she did not bark on the fateful occasion. Not able to end with a strong sentence, perhaps later.
Hawg

[Emil Miller]

Strategically speaking, I agree, Emil. Guns are a deterrent to burglary. Here's a stat from Jeffrey Goldberg's article, The Case For More Guns (and More Gun Control); from this month's Atlantic Monthly (a left-leaning magazine):



Here's the link to the entire article:
http://theatln.tc/S8sl47

But tactically speaking, I'm a pragmatist. So, it's 2am, El Sancho and his Señora are happily tucked in their bed when they are startled awake by a burglar crashing around downstairs, stealing their TV set. My plan is to get my people out of the house to a safe place and call the cops. We have a crappy TV anyway, and we have good homeowner's insurance. Any confrontation, armed or not, creates an extremely dangerous situation. I'll fight, but only if the flight option is taken from me (caveman instinct), in which case Señor Bandito will have to deal with the wrath of El Sancho and his old lady. La Señora may be small, but she's got fight. She knows how to shoot, but she prefers knives and chainsaws.

That's all just a hypothetical situation anyway, because any burglar who breaks into La Casa del Sancho will almost immediately be licked to death by our recklessly friendly Spaniels; either that or he'll be pressured into a game of throw-me-the-ball-and-make-it-snappy.


They'd have a job taking my TV as I dumped it earlier this year. In a liberal democracy, it's not very clever to keep anything of value in one's home unless it's part of a gated community or some similarly protected area. So apart from my computer and music centre there would be nothing else to gain from burgling my home; I don't think they could carry the piano.
However, joking aside, there have been cases in the UK where people have been subjected to extreme violence and even death at the hands of burglars. Now I have to ask myself what those who object to burglars being shot would do if they were in the same situation? I live in one of the most populous cities on earth and the chances of being a victim of crime are probably greater than if I lived in a village but even there one isn't safe. A couple of friends who live in just such a place returned home from staying the week-end at their holiday home to find that they had been burgled. There was also the notorious case of Tony Martin, a farmer living in a remote Victorian farm house, appropriately called Bleak House, who heard burglars downstairs one night and came down with a shotgun and killed one and wounded the other. The gun was unlicensed but that had no bearing on the case as he would have used it either way. To say that I was furious when he was charged and found guilty of murder would be more than an understatement and there were many other people who made their feelings felt through the media. But here's the point: the surviving burglar was sentenced to 3 years for burglary and released 1 year later after a parole board hearing, subsequent to which he was arrested for drug dealing and again for stealing a car. Now I can't help feeling that it was a pity that Martin, who wounded him, didn't finish the job properly. Anyway, Martin was released after three years but it still makes me ashamed to be British.

[TheFifthElement]

Oh, the irony :D


This is a rhetorical question, because I know exactly how we arrived at this insanity that the criminal is worthy of consideration. But for the benifit of the uninitiated: how the hell did we arrive at this sick conclusion?


There was also the notorious case of Tony Martin, a farmer living in a remote Victorian farm house, appropriately called Bleak House, who heard burglars downstairs one night and came down with a shotgun and killed one and wounded the other. The gun was unlicensed but that had no bearing on the case as he would have used it either way. To say that I was furious when he was charged and found guilty of murder would be more than an understatement and there were many other people who made their feelings felt through the media. But here's the point: the surviving burglar was sentenced to 3 years for burglary and released 1 year later after a parole board hearing, subsequent to which he was arrested for drug dealing and again for stealing a car. Now I can't help feeling that it was a pity that Martin, who wounded him, didn't finish the job properly.

It appears, Emil, that you consider the criminal worthy of consideration after all. Or is it not insanity to consider the convicted killer who shot two men with an illegal weapon?

[Varenne Rodin]

Varenne.
Your posts (and art) are the heart of this site. I always look first to see if you have contributed. There are so many different scenarios of home burglaries, it's difficult, at least for me, to summarize my own thoughts; not even sure of the right questions. As you know, I was assaulted and seriously injured by a burglar who repeatedly stabbed me about my head, neck and chest with a knife in my home this past July. The experience changed my life, physically and mentally, not all for the worse. It was early morning. I was unarmed, in only my underwear, on my way from the bedroom to brew a cup in the kitchen. There would have been no time to grab a gun. On reflection, I still can't think of a safe way to own or effectively carry one for protection. The police gave me suggestions, but none befit my lifestyle. My incident was like being struck by lightning, a post-modern event. I still have trouble sleeping. I have resolved that learning self defensive skills, and taking sensible protective measures, are more important to me than I thought previously. None of the home alarm systems I have considered to date work for my home layout or for my budget. I have a dog (small munsterlander), but for some reason she did not bark on the fateful occasion. Not able to end with a strong sentence, perhaps later.
Hawg

Thank you, Hawg. I really appreciate your contributions here, and your kind words. I appreciate Volya, too. In this case, I probably got too personal, and Volya responded without knowing the details. My fault. My brother didn't break into anyone's home. He took seventeen dollars from the cash register at his work. They could have just fired him, but they wanted to make an example of him. When the police went to deliver the charges, Kenny had a small amount of marijuana on him. The judge in his case hated drug users and sentenced him to five years in state prison. I believe it was the maximum penalty at the time for that offense. His sentence was reduced to two years, and he was planning on going back to college after his release, but he was killed a little over a year into serving his time. Death penalty for $17 and pot is what it amounted to. Some people might see that as justice. I'm at odds with that way of thinking.

To clear up any confusion, my brother was not one of the family members I lost to gun violence. Those were my father, my step-mother, and my young cousin. I am not referencing these things to garner sympathy. I felt they were topical and I have tried not to go into grotesque detail. Beg pardon of anyone who didn't view my portion of the discussion as beneficial. Further questions, if any, on my personal losses should be redirected to private conversations.

Getting back on point; like you, Hawg, I have been in situations in which I would not have been able to use a gun against an armed assailant. Not if I had a cache of a thousand semi-automatics in my basement. Not if I had a pistol in my pocket. By the time there is a weapon pointed at a person, there is little or no time for anything accept hoping. I'm sure daring heroics have happened in extreme cases and luck prevailed, but I still think prevention is better than reaction.

[Emil Miller]

Oh, the irony :D





It appears, Emil, that you consider the criminal worthy of consideration after all. Or is it not insanity to consider the convicted killer who shot two men with an illegal weapon?

Not at all. I agree that Martin had an illegal weapon and I wouldn't feel sorry for him if he were charged with that offence. But I do feel sorry for him being charged with murder when trying to defend himself on his own property from two burglars who, in my view and also that of many others judging by the stir it created in the UK media, got what they deserved.

[Sancho]

Not at all. I agree that Martin had an illegal weapon and I wouldn't feel sorry for him if he were charged with that offence. But I do feel sorry for him being charged with murder when trying to defend himself on his own property from two burglars who, in my view and also that of many others judging by the stir it created in the UK media, got what they deserved.

Sounds to me like Martin had a lousy barrister. He should've gotten Johnny Cochran.

[Emil Miller]

Sounds to me like Martin had a lousy barrister. He should've gotten Johnny Cochran.

He did. In fact the defence lawyer who represented him later wrote an article for a leading newspaper in which he said that it was wrong for anyone to shoot a burglar. So with that kind of representation, who needs enemies ? Here's what the appeal judges were told about the case when Martin, who had changed his legal representative, appealed against his sentence and had it reduced to manslaughter:

The appeal judges, Lord Woolf, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson, were told that the case put forward by the defence at the original trial had only ended up helping the prosecution.

[Volya]

It seems to me that it's a ridiculous situation where you have to fear for yourself when somebody breaks into your house or attacks you - not because the criminal will hurt you, but because you could go to jail for defending yourself.

[islandclimber]

There is quite a difference between self-defence and killing someone breaking into your home as they run away. Such as Joe Horn killing two men who broke into his absent neighbour's home. He shot one of them in the back as he was trying to run away. This, after being told repeatedly by the 911 dispatcher not to get involved as police would be there shortly. A plain-clothes detective even arrived in time to witness the shooting. The transcript of the conversation with the 911 dispatcher is available. Joe Horn repeatedly suggests that he won't let them go, and is going to go out and kill them, and suggests it is self-defence. He was acquitted on all counts. He killed two human beings over a home burglary next door, two men not threatening him, but trying to run away, as the police were arriving on scene. He should have been sentenced to life in prison for this, instead, he walked.

[qimissung]

This was in The Economist:

If Americans want a society where schools do not, as the one in Newtown did, have to drill their children in emergency lock-down procedures, more drastic measures should be contemplated. Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale. Gun licences, obtainable only after extensive police and medical review as in most other civilised countries, would be needed for hunting and sporting weapons. Tough police action, coupled with an extensive “buy-back” programme, would be needed to mop up the hundreds of millions of guns that are already held. If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be amended.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is proposing a bill that appears " modeled on the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 until 2004." This is a bill that is expected to save only about 400 lives per year. I support this law, and I sincerely hope that this tragic affair causes America to examine closely their priorities and what they hold dear. I would hope that changing the law would start us on the road to changing our culture, but as you can see, we have a long, long way to go.

The NRA, meanwhile, would like to "coordinate a national effort to put former military and police officers in schools as volunteer guards." I have heard this before, anytime there is an incident with a gun, the rational is "if only that person had had a gun." At this point we should be the safest country in the world, but from where I sit it doesn't appear that we are.


Varenne.
Your posts (and art) are the heart of this site. I always look first to see if you have contributed. There are so many different scenarios of home burglaries, it's difficult, at least for me, to summarize my own thoughts; not even sure of the right questions. As you know, I was assaulted and seriously injured by a burglar who repeatedly stabbed me about my head, neck and chest with a knife in my home this past July. The experience changed my life, physically and mentally, not all for the worse. It was early morning. I was unarmed, in only my underwear, on my way from the bedroom to brew a cup in the kitchen. There would have been no time to grab a gun. On reflection, I still can't think of a safe way to own or effectively carry one for protection. The police gave me suggestions, but none befit my lifestyle. My incident was like being struck by lightning, a post-modern event. I still have trouble sleeping. I have resolved that learning self defensive skills, and taking sensible protective measures, are more important to me than I thought previously. None of the home alarm systems I have considered to date work for my home layout or for my budget. I have a dog (small munsterlander), but for some reason she did not bark on the fateful occasion. Not able to end with a strong sentence, perhaps later.
Hawg

Dear God. This one incident and the follow up illustrate how maddening and difficult it is to solve these problems. Still it seems like there ought to be some workable solution. Let us know how things go, Hawg.


Thank you, Hawg. I really appreciate your contributions here, and your kind words. I appreciate Volya, too. In this case, I probably got too personal, and Volya responded without knowing the details. My fault. My brother didn't break into anyone's home. He took seventeen dollars from the cash register at his work. They could have just fired him, but they wanted to make an example of him. When the police went to deliver the charges, Kenny had a small amount of marijuana on him. The judge in his case hated drug users and sentenced him to five years in state prison. I believe it was the maximum penalty at the time for that offense. His sentence was reduced to two years, and he was planning on going back to college after his release, but he was killed a little over a year into serving his time. Death penalty for $17 and pot is what it amounted to. Some people might see that as justice. I'm at odds with that way of thinking.

To clear up any confusion, my brother was not one of the family members I lost to gun violence. Those were my father, my step-mother, and my young cousin. I am not referencing these things to garner sympathy. I felt they were topical and I have tried not to go into grotesque detail. Beg pardon of anyone who didn't view my portion of the discussion as beneficial. Further questions, if any, on my personal losses should be redirected to private conversations.

Getting back on point; like you, Hawg, I have been in situations in which I would not have been able to use a gun against an armed assailant. Not if I had a cache of a thousand semi-automatics in my basement. Not if I had a pistol in my pocket. By the time there is a weapon pointed at a person, there is little or no time for anything accept hoping. I'm sure daring heroics have happened in extreme cases and luck prevailed, but I still think prevention is better than reaction.

I am so sorry, Varenne. That is not only a tragedy but a travesty of justice.

[Emil Miller]

It seems to me that it's a ridiculous situation where you have to fear for yourself when somebody breaks into your house or attacks you - not because the criminal will hurt you, but because you could go to jail for defending yourself.

And so it does to anyone who can add 2+2 and get 4 but, in the face of opposition from a self-serving legal profession who will do anything to prevent a halt to their gravy train, Mr Grayling the Justice Secretary, under pressure from the public and certain sections of the media, has decided to change the law in order to give people the right to protect themselves against burglars. However, the BBC (who else? ) has thrown in its lot with the lawyers and wheeled out that well-known Labour lovie James Naughtie to argue the case for maintaining the status quo. Here he is being put in his place by the Rev. Peter Mullen the conservative cleric in an article from the Daily Telegraph. The bolding is my own.

But Mr Grayling received only rough justice mixed with deliberate incomprehension from James Naughtie, the Today presenter. Naughtie put it to Mr Grayling that if in the night you saw a shadowy figure, out of it on drugs, in your “front hall” – interesting to have this revelation of the sort of house Naughtie imagines we live in – and shoot him dead, then surely that would be disproportionate?

Naughtie completely misunderstands what sort of thing a burglary actually is. By definition it is something which takes place in the dark hours. I offer an alternative scenario to Naughtie’s, one which I think is nearer the likely reality. You are fast asleep and suddenly you are awakened by a noise. It is dark. You fear for your family’s safety and your own. You cannot see clearly what’s going on. All you know is that there is an intruder.

Are you to arise serenely from your bed, unarmed of course, approach the intruder and gently enquire as to his business in your house in the middle of the night? If that’s what you decide to do, then there is a fair chance that it will be you, the householder, who gets clubbed or knifed or shot dead, and the burglar who gets away, perhaps with a sackful of your treasured belongings.

A burglary discovered while it is taking place is a crisis. And in such a crisis there is no time or room to make assessments. The disturbed householder is obliged to react instinctively to defend himself and to protect his family and property. If this means that he hits the intruder over the head with the frying pan or shoots him with his shotgun, then that should be permissible – even if the shot happens to kill the burglar.

All Mr Grayling was saying – though Naughtie chose not to understand him – is that the law should be on the side of the householder who should not be arrested for defending himself and his household. That is eminently reasonable. But what about the burglar’s human rights? There are no rights in wrongs. By his criminal act, the burglar has forfeited his rights. When we used to speak plainly, we had the right word for such a criminal: outlaw.

[qimissung]

This story explains some of the mental health issues that I am concerned about better than I have been able to:


http://www.salon.com/2012/12/23/how_not_to_stop_a_massacre/

[Varenne Rodin]

This was in The Economist:

If Americans want a society where schools do not, as the one in Newtown did, have to drill their children in emergency lock-down procedures, more drastic measures should be contemplated. Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale. Gun licences, obtainable only after extensive police and medical review as in most other civilised countries, would be needed for hunting and sporting weapons. Tough police action, coupled with an extensive “buy-back” programme, would be needed to mop up the hundreds of millions of guns that are already held. If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be amended.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is proposing a bill that appears " modeled on the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 until 2004." This is a bill that is expected to save only about 400 lives per year. I support this law, and I sincerely hope that this tragic affair causes America to examine closely their priorities and what they hold dear. I would hope that changing the law would start us on the road to changing our culture, but as you can see, we have a long, long way to go.

The NRA, meanwhile, would like to "coordinate a national effort to put former military and police officers in schools as volunteer guards." I have heard this before, anytime there is an incident with a gun, the rational is "if only that person had had a gun." At this point we should be the safest country in the world, but from where I sit it doesn't appear that we are.



Dear God. This one incident and the follow up illustrate how maddening and difficult it is to solve these problems. Still it seems like there ought to be some workable solution. Let us know how things go, Hawg.



I am so sorry, Varenne. That is not only a tragedy but a travesty of justice.

Thank you, Qimi. Your entire post is very insightful.

[YesNo]

Naughtie completely misunderstands what sort of thing a burglary actually is. By definition it is something which takes place in the dark hours. I offer an alternative scenario to Naughtie’s, one which I think is nearer the likely reality. You are fast asleep and suddenly you are awakened by a noise. It is dark. You fear for your family’s safety and your own. You cannot see clearly what’s going on. All you know is that there is an intruder.


I used to think these things occurred at night until there was a series of burglaries in our town home community a few years ago. This was done by a team of two or three from outside the community who worked the area until they were finally caught. Some people had valuable jewelry in their homes. This could not be recovered since it would have been melted down immediately and sold for the value of the metal. What they recovered was what was covered by their insurance.

The local police held a meeting and informed those of us interested in attending what we could do to prevent ourselves from being targeted. I remember the following items:

1) Most burglaries happen during the day, during the week, because that is when no one is expected to be home. They are not done at night.

2) Don't leave the garage entrance open or have the windows unshaded so that passers-by can see that all the cars are gone. The burglar will know the house is empty.

3) Don't leave valuables such as purses set on a counter where they can be seen by passers-by looking through a window. The burglar will know there might be something in the house worth breaking through the door.

4) Lock your doors although a locked door will not stop someone wanting to get in.

5) Don't try to confront or trap the burglars if you happen to run into one. That is, allow them a chance to exit without being forced to fight. They would be more motivated and prepared to fight than we would be to bring them to justice.

We were not affected. They would have been disappointed anyway.

The moral of the story: Common sense prevention is the best defense.

[Calidore]

The idea that more guns will reduce the problem of gun violence reminds me of the old joke about the man in a leaky boat who drills another hole to let the water out.

My mind boggles at the amount of loss you've suffered, Varenne, and while nothing can replace them, I hope life brings you great goodness in compensation.

Volya, you're still a kid, so a certain amount of insensitivity isn't unexpected, but I hope you're suitably embarrassed and have learned something about rushing to make self-righteous proclamations without knowing anywhere near the whole story.

[Varenne Rodin]

The idea that more guns will reduce the problem of gun violence reminds me of the old joke about the man in a leaky boat who drills another hole to let the water out.

My mind boggles at the amount of loss you've suffered, Varenne, and while nothing can replace them, I hope life brings you great goodness in compensation.

Volya, you're still a kid, so a certain amount of insensitivity isn't unexpected, but I hope you're suitably embarrassed and have learned something about rushing to make self-righteous proclamations without knowing anywhere near the whole story.

Thank you, Calidore. I'm so glad you weighed in on the gun issue. I couldn't agree with you more. :)

I was too abrupt in my response to Volya's post. We talked it out and reached a better understanding. Overall, I'm glad for the conversation. Volya is a smart teenager. A lot of potential there. This is a very serious, and at times disturbing, discussion. I forgive any and all slights and jabs, and please know that I mean no harm to any of you.

[qimissung]

Thank you, Qimi. Your entire post is very insightful.

Thank you, Varenne.

That was exceedingly big-hearted of you to engage in a discussion with Volya. I'm glad you guys reached a better understanding.

[Emil Miller]

The local police held a meeting and informed those of us interested in attending what we could do to prevent ourselves from being targeted. I remember the following items:

1) Most burglaries happen during the day, during the week, because that is when no one is expected to be home. They are not done at night.

The moral of the story: Common sense prevention is the best defense.

You are right, but there are plenty of instances when thieves will use the cover of darkness and try to protect themselves by maintaining anonymity. It would be very difficult to convict if they are subsequently arrested but the offence has been committed in the dark.
In the case I have mentioned, Martin said that all he could see in the dark was the form of two figures and he opened fire instinctively to protect himself from possible attack. If he had allowed them to escape, instead of one burglar surviving to continue his criminal activity there would have been two.
Obviously the best way to protect one's property is to follow the procedures outlined in your post, but there is always the possibility that an attempt might be made as can be seen by the number of burglaries that actually take place.

[prendrelemick]

As a farmer living in a remote Victorian farmhouse myself, I took interest in the David Martin case. I thought as usual the truth was somewhere between two scenarios where either he or the burglers were the victim. However, his defence did not challenge the prosecution case that he was lying in wait for the burglers, and therefore he was freed on appeal.

Remember he was convicted by a jury who attended the whole trial - not just from sensational press reports. Also remember he used an illegally held weapon and he tried to hide it afterwards. - that alone is a jailable offence. His own guns had been confiscated because the police thought he was unstable.

This stuff the govenment is coming out with about protecting your home is electioneering bollox. Basically just talk, The law is already there, and has been for years. Politicians can talk tough without actually doing anything.

[Varenne Rodin]

Politicians can talk tough without actually doing anything.

This is what I got out of attempting to communicate with Duncan Hunter about this (I was asked by a local committee to contact him):

Dear Miss Kane:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on firearms following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It's good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this matter.

Like you, I was deeply saddened when I heard the news of the horrific shooting in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this tragedy. I welcomed hearing of your views on the issue of gun control as part of an effort to protect our children. I can assure you that as a father of three, I firmly believe that we must consider all options possible to ensure the safety of our children, particularly while at school.

That being said, however, when situations like this arise, the first reaction is to advocate for additional gun control laws and restrictions that may not be necessary. Let me be clear, I fully support efforts to implement policies that reduce crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and street-gangs. Further, I believe that those who violate our state and federal gun laws should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter Member of Congress

[Emil Miller]

This stuff the govenment is coming out with about protecting your home is electioneering bollox. Basically just talk, The law is already there, and has been for years. Politicians can talk tough without actually doing anything.

The law as it exists states that people can use 'reasonable force' to dissuade an attacker. What does that mean other than a self-serving piece of legal jargon?
It may well be that the politicians will once again do nothing, but if they are convinced that it is a useful electioneering ploy it shows that there is significant public approval for a change in the law.

[TheFifthElement]

He did. In fact the defence lawyer who represented him later wrote an article for a leading newspaper in which he said that it was wrong for anyone to shoot a burglar. So with that kind of representation, who needs enemies ? Here's what the appeal judges were told about the case when Martin, who had changed his legal representative, appealed against his sentence and had it reduced to manslaughter:

The appeal judges, Lord Woolf, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson, were told that the case put forward by the defence at the original trial had only ended up helping the prosecution.
Yes, that might be what the judges were told but they rejected it. Martin's case wasn't dismissed, it was commuted to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility - if anything Martin is a great example of why gun control is needed. He was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder and he shouldn't have had a gun (both legally and practically). His self defence argument never washed and it certainly was not the basis on which his sentence was amended to manslaughter. This is what LJ Woolf said:


Lord Woolf, sitting with Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson, said: "Martin used a firearm which he knew he was not entitled to have in a manner which was wholly unjustified.

"There can be no excuse for this, though we treat his responsibility as being reduced," he said.
From this report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/oct/30/tonymartin.ukcrime


Not at all. I agree that Martin had an illegal weapon and I wouldn't feel sorry for him if he were charged with that offence. But I do feel sorry for him being charged with murder when trying to defend himself on his own property from two burglars who, in my view and also that of many others judging by the stir it created in the UK media, got what they deserved.
But by your logic the commission of a crime disbars you from the protection of the law. It makes you an outlaw. So why should Martin be any more deserving of sympathy than the burglars? Why is his back story relevant, if the burglars' are not? You would argue that the burglars setting foot on Martin's property should disbar them from any protection under the law, it should in your words:

By his criminal act, the burglar has forfeited his rights.
Therefore surely Martin forfeits his rights to protection under the law by means of his possession of an illegal weapon? He was a criminal before anyone set foot on his property. By your logic he is as deserving of his murder conviction as the burglar is of his death because 'By his criminal act the murderer forfeits his rights' is equally true. Had he not illegally possessed the weapons the events which led to his murder conviction would not have occurred.

And that's before you even get into the facts of the case. Martin's story did not tally with the forensic evidence. For example you said:



In the case I have mentioned, Martin said that all he could see in the dark was the form of two figures and he opened fire instinctively to protect himself from possible attack. If he had allowed them to escape, instead of one burglar surviving to continue his criminal activity there would have been two.

Yes, that's what Martin said, but there was significant evidence that Martin was lying. Perhaps there would be scope for sympathy had the burglar had been found dead at the foot of Martin's stairs having died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. But in fact the burglar who was killed, who was a 16 year old boy, was found dead outside the property having suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the legs and a fatal wound to the back. Did Martin need to 'defend himself' from a boy who was running away? Or was he enacting his paranoid fantasy of gunning down a 'thieving gypsy'? This image of Martin as an innocent man just protecting his property having 'surprised' some burglars and fired at them in the dark from the top of his stairs is a conveniently sympathetic image but not really commensurate with the facts of the case or his own history of gun related violence, his apparent mental illness and the poor state of his property that he was seeking to 'defend' from others but apparently couldn't be bothered taking any care of himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/20/tonymartin.ukcrime2

There were no winners in that story, and certainly no heroes and if it's the best example you can give of why people should have guns to protect themselves from burglars, it's a pretty poor one.

[prendrelemick]

This is what I got out of attempting to communicate with Duncan Hunter about this (I was asked by a local committee to contact him):

Dear Miss Kane:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on firearms following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It's good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this matter.

Like you, I was deeply saddened when I heard the news of the horrific shooting in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this tragedy. I welcomed hearing of your views on the issue of gun control as part of an effort to protect our children. I can assure you that as a father of three, I firmly believe that we must consider all options possible to ensure the safety of our children, particularly while at school.

That being said, however, when situations like this arise, the first reaction is to advocate for additional gun control laws and restrictions that may not be necessary. Let me be clear, I fully support efforts to implement policies that reduce crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and street-gangs. Further, I believe that those who violate our state and federal gun laws should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter Member of Congress

That's a standard letter he will have sent out by the hundred - I wonder if he even read yours.


The law as it exists states that people can use 'reasonable force' to dissuade an attacker. What does that mean other than a self-serving piece of legal jargon?
It may well be that the politicians will once again do nothing, but if they are convinced that it is a useful electioneering ploy it shows that there is significant public approval for a change in the law.

My understanding was they aren't changing the law, just "changing the emphasis" (which they can't do - it's up to the judges )and "having the debate".

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

...and if it's the best example you can give of why people should have guns to protect themselves from burglars, it's a pretty poor one.

Well, if it’s in bad taste for one to defend their home and family against human invaders, then how about a fat orange Tabby?

I grew up in Oak Cliff, a suburb on the south and west sides of Dallas. Those two words will send shivers up the spine of the north Dallas blue hairs. Over the years much of Oak Cliff had deteriorated into a region of fraught with crime. There remain fragments of Oak Cliff that remain wonderful, relatively safe places to live, but the borders of the bad element are pressing in and in some cases infiltrate the nicer neighborhoods.

Ours was one such neighborhood. After the parents passed on, I bought the old family home to renovate and sell. My wife and new baby moved in. Having been away from the home for a few years, I was not familiar with the usual “sounds in the night”, but knowing I was in Oak Cliff, I kept one of the three guns I referenced in post 14 next to the bed. (Winchester M1 Carbine WW II).

One night we woke up in terror at the sound of someone trying to rip a screen off a downstairs window. Instinctually, (because I was in Oak Cliff and a native Texan) I grabbed the weapon, along with a couple of cartridges kept separate from the home defense tool and made my way stealth fully down the stairs in the dark. Adrenaline pumping, not sure if I should hit the lights, yell or fire a warning shot, I proceeded down the hall.

I approached the den slowly, and as I entered I saw the corpulent home invader silhouetted by the light of the moon perched on the window sill grabbing hold of the screen with two paws pulling outward then letting it snap back into position.

It was the orange Tabby I inherited along with the house letting me know she wanted in.