 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »» ...17 |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| How Many More Students Must Die Before The United States Gets Real About Gun Control? |
|
 |
LessBread Moderator Member since: 12/19/2001 From: Fresno, CA, United States |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 8:03:19 PM |
||||
| This is a spin off of the Virginia Tech university campus massacre: at least 29 killed thread, devoted to discussing the gun control angle in relation to that tragedy. Please keep the discussion civil. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Ravuya Moderator - GDNet Lounge Member since: 2/13/2001 From: Okotoks, Canada |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:04:18 PM |
||||
| Gun control won't do much; Kimveer Gill managed to cause a similar school shooting in a country with strict gun laws. ravuya: [Website][Not Your Journal] |
||||
|
||||
 |
Promit Moderator - Graphics Programming and Theory Member since: 7/29/2001 From: Baltimore, MD, United States |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 8:06:16 PM |
||||
| I guess Canada's not unscathed after all. This list might come in handy for the debate. I don't know if it's comprehensive, but it probably has all the major incidents. I was just getting tired of seeing more and more wikipedia links about shootings I'd never heard of. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Alpha_ProgDes Member since: 7/5/2002 From: Silver Spring, MD, United States |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 8:06:47 PM |
||||
| Well the best thing to do is determine what is "gun control", then move on from there. |
||||
|
||||
|
trzy Member since: 12/28/2000 |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 8:13:25 PM |
||||
| Not only that, but I believe there have been shooting rampages in Switzerland, Germany, and other countries. Granted, more of the population in Switzerland is armed... As for gun control, I used to be all for it, but in the last several years I've realized that it's a complicated issue and I don't know what the solution is. I think a clear interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is desperately needed. Hopefully this interpretation will at least allow for citizen militias to exist independent of military control. There is legitimacy to the argument that one ought to have a right to use deadly force to defend himself. Recently, near the UW campus (where I'm a graduate student), there have been shootings and armed robberies in the last several months that have made me consider obtaining a concealed carry permit (if it's legal in this part of the country -- it was in Nevada :)) and a handgun. Another aspect of the debate is the idea that citizens should be armed to resist authority if deemed necessary. Hence my comment about citizen militias. I used to think this line of reasoning was pretty whacky until recently. Then I realized that assault rifles in circulation among the people are enough to form an insurgency against even the mightiest of armies. This is being demonstrated now in Iraq and has been the case throughout the 20th century and earlier. It's a complicated issue but in summary, as long as there is some circulation of fully- and semi-automatic guns and rifles, the spirit of the 2nd Amendment may likely be preserved. ---- Bart |
||||
|
||||
|
LessBread Moderator Member since: 12/19/2001 From: Fresno, CA, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:14:14 PM |
||||
| Gun Politics, Gun Politics in the United States. I don't think ordinary citizens should be allowed unrestricted access to assault weapons, sub-machine guns or machine guns. Whether access to hand guns, shot guns and rifles should be restricted is not so clear cut. I think for the most part the 2nd amendment is outdated. It seems to read that a person that wants to own a gun should be required to join the National Guard, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing so long as the guard stays home and is never sent overseas to fight in bogus wars. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Trapper Zoid GDNet+ Member since: 5/20/2005 From: Melbourne, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:18:42 PM |
||||
| It's hard to know how well gun control would stop events like these - the tragic news today reminded me of the shooting at Monash University a few years back (Wikipedia link), and Australia already had stricter gun controls after the Port Arthur massacre. However I'm sure that what it does effect is the capability for a crazed gunman to kill; in the Monash shooting example the gunman had handguns, and a student and lecturer were able to restrain him when he moved to switch weapons. David Shaw, a.k.a. "Trapper Zoid" | trazoi.net - visit my website and try my games! | Inkscape Adventures - a tutorial on Inkscape and art |
||||
|
||||
|
JBourrie Member since: 6/13/2005 From: Phoenix, AZ, United States |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 8:19:01 PM |
||||
| I think it is reactionary to discuss gun control in light of this incident. - Something bad happens - People start trying to explain why it happened - Scapegoats fly out of every orifice - People discuss how they can fix it - Politicians start using the situation to push hidden agendas and/or get re-elected - Most suggestions/bills are shot down for violating our rights, but the politicians already knew that was going to happen - Jack Thompson starts raving like a madman - Eventually some celebrity dies and the news starts obsessing over it instead - Repeat ad-nauseum This wasn't a kid. This was somebody who was old enough to legally own and carry a gun. That's what makes it so terrible: this situation can only be avoided by taking away one of our most basic rights. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin Quote: The 2nd amendment is still very important. We can't stop the criminals from having guns (why would they uphold an anti-gun law, but not others?). We can only protect ourselves and our family from them. Things could have gone very differently if one of those students had a gun for protection. [Edited by - JBourrie on April 16, 2007 7:19:44 PM] |
||||
|
||||
|
Kaze Member since: 11/16/2004 From: Canada |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:23:58 PM |
||||
Quote: i think there's some debate as to whether semi-automatic weapons are a essential liberty |
||||
|
||||
|
ThePredator Member since: 4/14/2007 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:26:11 PM |
||||
| "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns." Making them illegal will not in any way, shape, or form stop the people who are already planning to break the law from getting them. It will only stop the law abiding citezens from having them. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~ George Washington |
||||
|
||||
|
JBourrie Member since: 6/13/2005 From: Phoenix, AZ, United States |
||||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:30:37 PM |
|||||
Quote: True. I guess part of it is that I think criminals are more than capable of getting their hands on illegal weapons. So it seems to me that we'd be heavily weakening the lawful side, but only slightly deterring the unlawful side. Quote: I thought this was already the case. But looking into it, it seems the laws that banned these weapons have expired. Odd that a law can expire to begin with... This is a very strong argument, and I'm not sure on which side I stand. Quote: This is the part that I think should not be regulated any further than it is. [Edited by - JBourrie on April 18, 2007 11:30:34 AM] |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Kaze Member since: 11/16/2004 From: Canada |
||||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:30:54 PM |
|||||
Quote: "If you outlaw guns a few outlaws will have guns." "If you keep using this argument every outlaw will have guns." Quote: mabey, but like my earlier argument although i agree their are defiantly criminals that will always get their hands on guns i think your using the minority of criminals to justify why its not even worth trying to stop them |
|||||
|
|||||
|
JBourrie Member since: 6/13/2005 From: Phoenix, AZ, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 8:50:09 PM |
||||
Quote: I'm certainly not saying its not worth trying to stop them. I'm saying that I don't think gun control is the best answer. I can't say for this particular case since it's too early to know why this guy did it, but in most cases there are plenty of triggers that lead up to a situation like this. Addressing these triggers (not scapegoats, mind you, but the real situation at hand) would be far more effective than removing the instrument he used. People are looking for a quick solution, when in fact there is no overnight fix for this kind of thing. I see much of the problem being how we try to find these "triggers". Everybody with a voice (politicians, the media, celebrities) also have an agenda, and usually this bias comes out in their proposed solutions. And the public eats it up like floorcaek. Mass education may be the only solution to this problem, something that continues to decline in America. Edit: Clarified the last paragraph, and added a meme reference [Edited by - JBourrie on April 18, 2007 11:50:03 AM] |
||||
|
||||
 |
Michalson Staff Member since: 9/29/1999 From: Toronto, Canada |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 8:53:08 PM |
||||
| Gun control won't help (much). "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is very true. In Japan there is extremely tight gun control, and gun crime is insanely low (they have the lowest per capita rate in the world last time I looked). By contrast, Switzerland has perhaps the exact opposite gun contro: not only are guns laws pretty open, including the ability to easily buy military grade full jacket ammo, but as part of the state militia's reserve defense program, just about everyone under 30 is basically required by law to have a military grade assault rifle (usually a state issued SIG 330, which is similar to the M16A1), and has the training to use it as a professional killer (as opposed to your teen shooters who isn't even prepared for the recoil of their little 9mm handgun). While Switzerland has a higher rate of gun deaths then Japan (about 300 per year, a large number being suicides), they still have a fraction of the per capita deaths of the US. Finally take Canada. Canada is a good example because it is very close to the US in many ways: it's gun ownership levels are very close (the big difference being that Canadians tend to own rifles and other practical weapons, where as in America handguns and other "I'm going to be a movie hero" type weapons are common); it's citizens are exposed to the same entertainment (most of our TV is American, along with our magazines, video games, etc) with the same level of censorship; We are have similar ethnic makeups and similar lifestyles (apart from being cleaner and less cluttered with chalk marks, most Canadian cities are easily mistaken for Northern US cities). Yet despite being the most similar country in the world to America, Canada's gun deaths are only at Swedish levels (to get near American gun death per capita levels, which are the highest in the industrialized world, you either need to go to wartorn 3rd world countries, or hit the bottom of the industrialized world with countries like Mexico). So the presense of guns don't result in high gun death rates, movies and video games don't; laws and police enforcement don't do much either (even Mexico is actually noticeably lower in gun deaths despite the fact that corrupt police cause a good number of them). Simply put the ability to obtain and fire a gun does not have a very large impact on whether a large group of people are depraved enough to point that gun at another person. Ultimately it's culture. A self endowed feeling of manifest destiny that destroys the soul, making a human being into a heartless killer. You could take away every gun in American, and it won't reduce the number of deaths. Unless you made a fundamental shift in culture, introducing foreign ideas like humility, respect for others, and love for ones fellow man, the culture in America would just turn to boards with nails in them to kill each other. |
||||
|
||||
|
ThePredator Member since: 4/14/2007 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:00:21 PM |
||||
| I would just like to iterate just what an 'assault rifle' is and what most people in this thread seem to be confusing it with. An assault rifle is a rifle semi-automatic rifle with certain features such as colapsable stock (as if that would make it fit in your pocket), a bayonet mount (would a bayonet make the gun that much more dangerous), higher capacity mags, pistol grip and a few other aesthetic features. This is what the ban recently expired for. Full auto rifles and sub-machine guns are still class III weapons that you need a special permit to get (you have to jump through hoops like getting your sherrif to sign it and it has to be a pre-1980 gun). These legally owned class three wepaons are very rarely used in crimes because of their prohibitive expense (around $15,000 for an MP5) and the background checks before you are able to get the gun. |
||||
|
||||
|
trzy Member since: 12/28/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:10:35 PM |
||||
Quote: You're right that cultural factors are at play but you certainly haven't nailed them down. In my experience, Canadians aren't fundamentally any different than Americans. America, however, is a very different place than Canada. People like to cite "per capita" figures as if that's a meaningful way to normalize all data. You have to consider a whole slew of factors that come with being the most populous and wealthy country in the world. Issues like social stratification and the marginalization of certain groups (ethnic, economic) depend on a wide variety of factors. ---- Bart |
||||
|
||||
|
Mithrandir Member since: 9/14/1999 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:11:18 PM |
||||
Quote: Yeah, he'd probably end up getting shot by the police, having been mistaken as the shooter. |
||||
|
||||
|
slayemin Member since: 2/23/2001 From: Seattle, WA, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:11:43 PM |
||||
| I support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe the idea behind the 2nd Amendment is to give citizens the means and ability to resist an oppressive government and to protect themselves and family against danger, whether its a wild animal (unlikely these days), criminal elements or other things. It's my belief that every human being has the right to protection and security. Realizing that the 2nd Amendment to bear arms is an American controversy, I'll cite the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. While it explicitly doesn't sanction the ownership of a weapon (very interesting what's not included!), it does say that we all have the right to security of person and Article 16 explicitly talks about everyones right to raise a family. By implication, a part of the duties in raising a family would be protecting the family, so keeping a weapon for family safety should be acceptable in any country, whether the police forces are competent or not. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Now, I'm sure its a common argument by proponents for gun owners to say that we need guns to resist anything the government may do. The proportionality of force between a national army who has tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, bombs, aircraft carriers, nuclear missles, etc. compared against the effectiveness of a citizen armed with an assault rifle to resist the oppressive governments is almost absurd. Should we even the playing field by giving common citizens access to tanks, artillery, shoulder fired rockets, etc? The answer is pretty obvious. So an advocate for gun control would argue that the armed citizen is ineffective against an armed government oppressing its citizens, so why not just completely disarm the citizens? They're powerless anyways, right? The wrong time to realize you need a gun is when you don't have one. Guns are like auto insurance in some ways. You don't buy a gun expecting to get into a gun fight, just like you don't buy car insurance expecting to get into an accident. If you DO get into an accident, or someone DOES break into your home threatening your family, it's the wrong time to think about protection. You either have it or you don't. In the not so distant past, Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans. The aftermath of the hurricane was complete lawlessness and chaos. How did people protect themselves and their families from armed gangs of looters when the police departments couldn't be relied on? Guns of course! To be fair though, the looters wouldn't be armed with guns if we didn't have guns in America. They would have had something else, perhaps baseball bats or knives. Weapons none the less. In Iraq, a country which is ravaged by multiple factions of insurgents, it is very dangerous for average Omar and his family. I once spoke to an Iraqi translator who said that he can't sleep at night unless he has an AK-47 to protect himself and his family. He lives in REAL FEAR, nothing most of us have ever experienced. You never know if you're going to be dragged out into the street and shot in the middle of the night. At least with an assault rifle to protect himself and his family, he has some semblance of a chance against any lawless death squads. On the flip side, even the insurgents are justified in having guns as a means to resist what they don't want in their country. I condemn violence as the best means to an end, but I'd be hypocritical in saying that our country doesn't use violence and force to get our way. Now, fast forward to today. This school shooting in virginia is the most deplorable act of violence possible. It's lower then terrorism. To call this shooting "terrorism" (watch, it'll happen somewhere) is to give it more credit and legitimacy then it could ever deserve. It is the lowest of the low. At least with terrorism, it has a purpose driven by desperation. This is killing for the sheer sake of killing, to kill as many people as possible before dying. I would be willing to bet that it was premeditated too. I can only make guesses at the truth... What a sad, sad tragedy. |
||||
|
||||
|
Mithrandir Member since: 9/14/1999 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:16:08 PM |
||||
Quote: You know... things were a lot different 200 years ago, when guns took up to a minute to load. Now any random jackhole can put 15 bullets into a fucking handgun and go nuts. Somehow, I think George Washington would have been saying something different, had he known that guns would evolve into what we have today. |
||||
|
||||
|
chessnut Member since: 3/17/2007 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:19:31 PM |
||||
Quote: If most students were armed small fights would turn into blood baths. It's well known more guns equate more death: clicky. Just think of the wild west or areas in the world where tribal warfare are high. Of course society plays a part in the individuals mean capacity for violence, but with guns involved the capacity for destruction is logically much higher. Killing masses with a gun or knife, what on average will get the most kills? Or, samurai vs rifles... |
||||
|
||||
|
ThePredator Member since: 4/14/2007 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:22:19 PM |
||||
| Then again 200 hundred years ago natural selection still existed because the governemnt didn't protect people from themselves. |
||||
|
||||
|
Kaze Member since: 11/16/2004 From: Canada |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:23:54 PM |
||||
Quote: now this is why i think that any semi/automatic weapon needs tight control, permits or outright ban for ordinary civilians, how many times does the innocent party need to shoot a dozen people in less than 8 seconds |
||||
|
||||
|
Nypyren Member since: 8/20/2002 From: Eugene, OR, United States |
|||
 Posted - 4/16/2007 9:35:57 PM |
||||
| You can't take away everyone's guns and you can't give everyone a gun to carry at all times. I vote for robotic ceiling turrets. |
||||
|
||||
|
DaBookshah Member since: 1/15/2006 From: Perth, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 9:39:01 PM |
||||
Quote: Quoted for truth. Dumb shit like this makes me happy not to live in the US. |
||||
|
||||
|
LessBread Moderator Member since: 12/19/2001 From: Fresno, CA, United States |
|||||
|
Posted - 4/16/2007 10:01:11 PM |
||||||
Quote: I think it's reactionary to not discuss gun control in light of this incident. Supposedly Columbine was a wake up call, but it turns out we just hit the snooze button and kept on snoring away. That said, I more or less agree with your timeline of events. This news has finally removed Imus from the mill of the sensational, but again, the alarm bell is ringing. Quote: I don't think we know enough about the shooter at this time to say those things. Quote: What about giving up non-essential liberties for a lot of semi-permanent safety? Quote: Oh yeah, wild west vigilantism is the way to go... The 2nd amendment is only marginally important. It made sense when communities were smaller and under threat from the native population. It doesn't make so much sense today. 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. The right to keep and bear arms should only apply in the context of serving in the state militia. Since states no longer call on everyday people to serve in the militia in times of emergency, it makes no sense to let anyone who wants a gun have one, even people that are otherwise law abiding. At any rate, what I've noticed so far, at least from the snippet of Scarborough Country is that when the gun control issue is raised, there are always others there that quickly try to change the subject to banning movies, music and video - as if these people died from a hail of words rather than bullets. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »» ...17 All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
