next »

[dark_globe]

Ask the cops--the ones who actually deal with those heavily armed criminals--whether they think it's a great idea for citizens to have guns at home.  Just ask them.  Guess what the answer is?  Guess what the answer is from the experts on criminal behavior????

NO.

Why?  Because, by and large, people who own guns, and people who don't, are idiots.  They shoot themselves.  They shoot neighbors coming over to borrow a cup of sugar.  They shoot their children, or their children shoot their friends.  They shoot everyone, in short, but the goddamn criminals.  Gun owning homeowners are a menace to society, in many ways a far greater menace than armed criminals who, face it, couldn't care less about your Panasonic CD player (as Prytania3 pointed out so well).

Yes. My dad was a cop. He trained me from a very early age how to handle and RESPECT a gun. One point he made repeatedly was that most people who own guns shouldn't have them. Training in handling a firearm is essential, but even more essential is the certainty that you can, should the need arise, blow a big hole in another human being at close range, watch his blood go everywhere, watch him defecate and scream in agony, and all the other wonderful things that come with killing people. If you're not certain you can do this, then a gun is not for you.

And yes, of course it's very easy to say "Yes, I can do that!" It's very easy to say.

I don't own a gun, myself. I have watched several acquaintances handle their guns in ways that made me cringe and wonder why they hadn't killed anyone yet.

[chiclette]

[/quote]

I don't own a gun, myself. I have watched several acquaintances handle their guns in ways that made me cringe and wonder why they hadn't killed anyone yet.
[/quote]

I've lived in rural areas for years and am accustomed to having people around me with guns.  Smart people, and not-so-smart ones.  The latter have managed to kill and maim each other.  My best friend in highschool lost her dad this way. 

I once drove along a country road, passed a pickup truck that was parked by the ditch beside the opposite lane.  As I passed it, I realized that the driver was sitting in the truck, and had a rifle pointed out his window towards MY lane, no doubt aiming for a deer he'd seen in a field on my side of the road.  I was practically in his sights when the a$$hole realized that there was another vehicle there.

Yup, I'm all for putting guns into the hands of more people who don't know how to use them.

(And don't get me started about those city slickers who think that drinking and hunting go together.)

[helpful]

There is also, in my view, no comparison between freedom of speech and the "right" to own deadly weapons.

Of course there is a comparison between these two rights.  The right to bear arms and the right to free speech along with the right to private property allow for the citizenry to retain power and overthrow a tryrranical government.  These two rights work in concert for the maintenance of a free state. 

A government which would strip power from citizens and concentrate it in the hands of gvoernment agents by banning free speech is no different than a government which would strip power from citizens and concentrate it in the  hands of government agents by banning the right to bear arms.  I have the same amount of respect for people who ban free speech, ban guns or ban private property.

Well, there is a government that is violating the will of the people right now and I don;t see anyone trying to overthrow the government. So your argument makes no sense.

[case_insensitive]

A gun ban may not take all guns out of the hands of all criminals, but it will lower the incidence of suicide and domestic murders (see stats posted on the Meet-Greet thread), and it will prevent children from accidentally harming themselves or deliberately harming their classmates.  Let's start where we can, for pete's sake.

I don't want to live in a culture where carrying a weapon is considered normal behaviour.

If you did, 30 or more people wouldn't have died yesterday.

I have complicated views on the gun control issue. Regardless, one thing I struggle with is understanding the causal relationship here that people keep bringing up:

IF carrying a weapon was considered normal behavior in our culture
THEN 30 or more people wouldn't have died yesterday

How is that the case?

It is possible, because:

1. because it would be more likely that someone in the area would be able to fight back and stop the perpetrator before so many people were murdered.

2. because knowing that others are likely to be legally armed (and/or not afraid to fight back) is deterent to crime (e.g. Kennesaw).

[just_dave]

I've typed and then deleted a least a dozen messages related to the VT-shooting.  But this one I have to post.

There are no "complex arguments" here.  This kid should not have been able to waltz into a gun shop and buy a Glock (or any other gun).  Gun shops should not exist.  Period.  Guns (hunting rifles only), if they are available for purchase, should only be available through a rigorous application process (similar to the case in Japan where it IS legally possible to own a gun but it's an extremely complex procedure). 

The whole "then-only-criminals-will-have-guns" argument is ridiculously flawed.  Hard-core criminals will have guns not matter what.   But guys like this VT-shooter would, almost certainly, never have sought out an illegal gun seller. Would he have killed someone with a knife or baseball bat instead.  Maybe.  Who cares?  Would he have build a bomb. Extremely unlikely.  Guns are not part of any civilized society.  Yes, guns are fascinating historical objects.  But that's it.  They belong in museums.

I don't care if this IS "Un-American."  Personally I find people's support for the idea that everyday citizens should carry guns to be an repugnant and as "primative" as apartheid-era race attitudes.

Sure, guns are not the whole story.  (The US has a higher per capita murder rate than Yemen where most adult males carry AK-47 assault rifles.) But without guns, THIS story would not have occurred. 

[hphphp]

What I find quite bewildering is that the same people (in the media, not neccessarily on this forum) who claim that restrictions on gun sales won't stop people who really want to get guns from obtaining them, are also claiming that outlawing drugs IS the right way to curb drug use, and also the same people who claim that giving condoms to teenagers will encourage them to have sex. So which way is it - does availability (of guns, drugs, condoms) encourage their use or not?

[dolljepopp]

What was the crime rate in Kennesaw before mandatory gun ownership?  Raging den of violent madness, was it?

If I remember correctly (I have relatives who live there), Kennesaw is a small town with a college and a big tourist attraction and a somewhat homogenous population, all factors that might influence crime rates with or without the citizenry packing heat.

Again, I do not favour outright bans.  Prohibition, IMO, is usually a flawed law enforcement strategy.

Cars and guns are very different in function, although stupid and/or careless people use both in ways that kill people on a massive scale.  Cars are not designed to kill.

About twenty years ago, I lived in Virginia for about a year.  I had a Virginia drivers' licence during that time.  When I went in to get it, I had to take a test.  Not a terribly difficult one, but a test.  When I first got a licence (in a different state), I had to take two tests and prove that I had taken and passed a course in proper and safe operation of a vehicle.

Why should any unskilled, untrained yob not be able to get permission to drive without training and testing, but be able to buy a gun?  Leaving aside the facts that argue profoundly against keeping a gun in the home for "protection," let alone the notion of having every third/tenth/twentieth/whatever person walking around thinking they are Wyatt Earp ready to prevent civil havoc with their Glock 9 tucked in their pants (read "News of the Weird" and see how often people shoot their own gonads this way).

Keep them legal, fine.  Let the historians and Supreme Court figure out what Madison and friends meant with the Second Amendment.  You want a gun, take a rigorous course on how to handle it, clean it, shoot it, store, etc.  Pay a hefty fee for your licence.

Make this a national standard.  If a federal law isn't doable (states' rights and all), then use the power of the purse like they did with the drinking age -- if your state doesn't want to pass sensible gun laws, fine, pay for your own roads, hospitals, airports, etc.

And your gun is not welcome in my home, car, or classroom.

[dolljepopp]

And I don't want to ban cars either, but I would be fine with making that a harder licence to get, too.

I'm all for a safer, more responsible society...

[diana_prince]

I would agree that there should be a more complex process for applying and purchasing guns than what was available for this shooter. It was way too easy for him to purchase the guns. We're in agreement. At this point, I think we should give "gun control" laws a chance and see what happens over time. I thought this opinion piece was very well written about public policy on guns.

http://chronicle.com/free/2007/04/2007041809n.htm

I would just disagree, again, that there is no value in looking at the life of the shooter and the events leading up to the massacre, or in looking at the security on campus. I think that this particular shooter would have found a gun illegally or used some other lethal weapon, such as bombs, if he was intent on killing. He would have killed by some other method besides using guns. We've seen airplanes flown into buildings used as weapons. This shooter would have obtained the guns illegally or built bombs, etc.

We can't just think it's that easy of a solution. Let's change public policy on guns as a first step. Let's not ignore all of the other factors leading to mass murder such as this. That's all I'm asking.

[anthroid]

Thank you, dolljepopp.  You have said it very well; so has Dave.

One other point--and perhaps dark_globe can weigh in on this too.  Shooting people, as dark_globe points out, is a horrible, horrible experience.  You have to be ready to deal with the immediate consequences of watching someone die--or slowly bleed out because you are a terrible shot.  Cops will tell you that they--again, they are the ones who actually deal, on a daily basis, with the criminals against whom some people claim to be prepared to act as vigilantes--rarely, if ever, pull their weapons, much less use them.  I know cops whose careers span 40 years who have never, ever shot their guns.  Ever.  And they are the professionals.  How can amateurs be more effective than cops?

In addition, most cops are terrible shots, as are most gunowners.  Unless you're specially trained in sniping, one shot is unlikely to kill anyone, since you'll miss.  The heat of the moment ruins your aim, or so I'm told, so what results are multiple shots fired, most of which miss.  At VT, the close range and the firepower of the semiautomatic Glock--which has a large enough bullet to do deadly damage--eliminated the need for good aim.  A gun-toting professor or student, however, perhaps might have been able to kill the shooter--and a whole hell of a lot of other people as well.  Guns and bullets are bad ideas, in the classroom, in the home, and in general.

Look, folks.  One, I don't agree that the Second Amendment allows for private gun ownership.  But even if it does (and it doesn't), just because a right exists doesn't mean you should exercise it.  Guns create far more trouble than they solve problems.  This constant insistence on rights, rights, rights, without taking any responsibility for anything, is part of our incredibly self-indulgent, me-first culture.  It's that violent, infantile culture that bears significant responsibility for helping to create the VT shooter.  If we instead could create a culture based on reasoned discourse, rather than emotional overreaction in which every impulse gets satisfied as soon as possible, perhaps this wouldn't have happened.  When we get someone with no impulse control (encouraged by this society) with open access to guns, death is a clear possibility.

I would agree that there should be a more complex process for applying and purchasing guns than what was available for this shooter. It was way too easy for him to purchase the guns. We're in agreement. At this point, I think we should give "gun control" laws a chance and see what happens over time. I thought this opinion piece was very well written about public policy on guns.

http://chronicle.com/free/2007/04/2007041809n.htm

I would just disagree, again, that there is no value in looking at the life of the shooter and the events leading up to the massacre, or in looking at the security on campus. I think that this particular shooter would have found a gun illegally or used some other lethal weapon, such as bombs, if he was intent on killing. He would have killed by some other method besides using guns. We've seen airplanes flown into buildings used as weapons. This shooter would have obtained the guns illegally or built bombs, etc.

We can't just think it's that easy of a solution. Let's change public policy on guns as a first step. Let's not ignore all of the other factors leading to mass murder such as this. That's all I'm asking.

I can agree with you on that, diana_prince.  Thank you for such a thoughtful post.

[allbutfoundajob]

What was the crime rate in Kennesaw before mandatory gun ownership?  Raging den of violent madness, was it?



Why should any unskilled, untrained yob not be able to get permission to drive without training and testing, but be able to buy a gun?  Leaving aside the facts that argue profoundly against keeping a gun in the home for "protection," let alone the notion of having every third/tenth/twentieth/whatever person walking around thinking they are Wyatt Earp ready to prevent civil havoc with their Glock 9 tucked in their pants (read "News of the Weird" and see how often people shoot their own gonads this way).



And your gun is not welcome in my home, car, or classroom.

People are not required to take a test and get a liscence prior to purchasing a car and driving a car.  People are required to take a test and get a liscence prior to driving a car on PUBLIC ROADS.  Most states require a person to apply for and receive a permit priot to having a concealed weapon. 

[allbutfoundajob]

Look, folks.  One, I don't agree that the Second Amendment allows for private gun ownership.  But even if it does (and it doesn't), just because a right exists doesn't mean you should exercise it.  Guns create far more trouble than they solve problems.  This constant insistence on rights, rights, rights, without taking any responsibility for anything, is part of our incredibly self-indulgent, me-first culture.  It's that violent, infantile culture that bears significant responsibility for helping to create the VT shooter.  If we instead could create a culture based on reasoned discourse, rather than emotional overreaction in which every impulse gets satisfied as soon as possible, perhaps this wouldn't have happened.  When we get someone with no impulse control (encouraged by this society) with open access to guns, death is a clear possibility.

[

Nice strawman.  Who here is advocating that people should not be responsible with the right to bear arms?  No one is doing so.  But that does not stop you from trying to smear people who want to preserve a freedom that you do not seem to care about.

[anthroid]

What was the crime rate in Kennesaw before mandatory gun ownership?  Raging den of violent madness, was it?



Why should any unskilled, untrained yob not be able to get permission to drive without training and testing, but be able to buy a gun?  Leaving aside the facts that argue profoundly against keeping a gun in the home for "protection," let alone the notion of having every third/tenth/twentieth/whatever person walking around thinking they are Wyatt Earp ready to prevent civil havoc with their Glock 9 tucked in their pants (read "News of the Weird" and see how often people shoot their own gonads this way).



And your gun is not welcome in my home, car, or classroom.

People are not required to take a test and get a liscence prior to purchasing a car and driving a car.  People are required to take a test and get a liscence prior to driving a car on PUBLIC ROADS.  Most states require a person to apply for and receive a permit priot to having a concealed weapon. 

You cannot buy a car in most states without a driver's license.  Period.  Get your facts straight.

[draco]

This constant insistence on rights, rights, rights, without taking any responsibility for anything, is part of our incredibly self-indulgent, me-first culture.  It's that violent, infantile culture that bears significant responsibility for helping to create the VT shooter.  If we instead could create a culture based on reasoned discourse, rather than emotional overreaction in which every impulse gets satisfied as soon as possible, perhaps this wouldn't have happened. 

Anthroid, 

A culture based on reasoned discourse is a wonderful idea, but you might as well keep dreaming. 

Humans are not rational creatures.  We are driven by biological need states and by emotions. 

Case in point:  look at how often we witness emotional overreaction in this forums by parties which, as academics, one would have expected to risen to a more rational state.

[anthroid]

This constant insistence on rights, rights, rights, without taking any responsibility for anything, is part of our incredibly self-indulgent, me-first culture.  It's that violent, infantile culture that bears significant responsibility for helping to create the VT shooter.  If we instead could create a culture based on reasoned discourse, rather than emotional overreaction in which every impulse gets satisfied as soon as possible, perhaps this wouldn't have happened. 

Anthroid, 

A culture based on reasoned discourse is a wonderful idea, but you might as well keep dreaming. 

Humans are not rational creatures.  We are driven by biological need states and by emotions. 

Case in point:  look at how often we witness emotional overreaction in this forums by parties which, as academics, one would have expected to risen to a more rational state.

Good point, you idiotic stupid...  :~)

I don't know.  I think in fact rationality is possible, but it's an achieved state rather than a "natural" one.  However, I don't buy that we are creatures of biological impulse, or, at least, that we don't have to be.  Social life would be impossible if that was true. 

Nice strawman.  Who here is advocating that people should not be responsible with the right to bear arms?  No one is doing so.  But that does not stop you from trying to smear people who want to preserve a freedom that you do not seem to care about.

Thank you for the lovely compliment.  I care about the right of the people to overthrow the government, which is how I read the Second Amendment.  I do not care about your desire to shoot people with your Glock.  You do not have that right.