Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate

[CptStern]

Weekly occurance? This is the first incident of this sort in a year as far as I can remember. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hardly "weekly".

well that's a bit of an exaggeration I admit as it would be hard to prove it consistently however that doesnt negate the fact that this is almost exclusively an american phenomenon ..even the language surrounding mass murder is almost exclusively american ..there is no spanish equivilent for "going postal" for example

 

[tehsolace]

well that's a bit of an exaggeration I admit as it would be hard to prove it consistently however that doesnt negate the fact that this is almost exclusively an american phenomenon ..even the language surrounding mass murder is almost exclusively american ..there is no spanish equivilent for "going postal" for example

funny... when I think "mass murder" I don't think "my neighbor, Jason"... I usually think "hitler during ww2". but maybe thats just me. maybe everyone else must think "his neighbor, Jason".

 

[Direwolf]

Well you should say its American as a phenomenon among first-world countries, because theres plenty of places where the situation is worse. However, as people have pointed out there have been similar incidents in other countries on occasion. (Not that killing 33 people is normal in the US either).

If everyone had a gun chances are there'd be a death every week. You simply can't put weapons in peoples hands and then trust them to know how to use it. Hardened criminals if they want it badly enough will always find a way to get hold of weapon, it's the normal people wandering around with guns that can be really dangerous, those that have had no training or simply training on how to shoot, not how to use a gun. Those are the people who can get spooked and blam. We'll never know what lengths he would have gone to get hold of a weapon, but being able to pick one up from the local store with minimal background checking didn't help the situation.

Thats all part of my point. Both extremes lead to bad outcomes, and apparently staying in the middle means that bad stuff like this is going to happen. So since a political solution seems like such a problem then we're going to have to approach from some other angle, probably either social or technological.

 

[Sidewinder]

I think many people miss a pretty large part of the gun control equation:

Number of firearms produced by US manufacturers every minute: 8
Number of handguns produced by US manufacturers every minute: 3
Number of handguns produced every 2 minutes by ROF in 1995: 1

ROF = Ring of Fire companies ..makers of cheap handguns



somebody's making a shitload of money

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

are you trying to say it's not okay to make money?
Guns will never be banned,they might make it tougher to get one,but if you aren't a felon and aren't a psycho (this guy was),then you should be allowed to own a gun.I find funny that so many people from the Britain are in this thread,I don't you word will have much bearing with US Gun owners.

 

[CptStern]

are you trying to say it's not okay to make money?

yes that's exactly what i'm saying ..that is if you ignore the bigger picture like lobbying power/influence

Guns will never be banned,they might make it tougher to get one,but if you aren't a felon and aren't a psycho (this guy was),then you should be allowed to own a gun.I find funny that so many people from the Britain are in this thread,I don't you word will have much bearing with US Gun owners.

I tend to agree, especially when you rally around slogans like "not my from my dead cold hands"

you can actually see the the not quite playing with a full deck zeal in moses' eyes ..btw his toupee is slipping

 

[Sidewinder]

I own some guns,but I don't have ammo for them.I keep them locked up and once in a while I get them to disemble them and/or clean them.I definitely for better background checks,and 5 day waiting periods....they shouldn't be banned though imho.

 

[Gray Fox]

If the following is correct, then the biggest problem with guns is not that they are legal, but the way they are treated and the fact that the government doesn't do enough to enforce gun laws, so maybe the gun nuts are right, and guns should be legal, but the laws simply better enforced.


Guns in the Wrong Hands

* Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/. For a state-by-state chart of gun crimes (FY 2000-2002), click here.
*
Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources. For more details, click here.
* Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

* According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com.

* The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.

* In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)

* According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001).


http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

 

[repiV]

Certain people here seem to be confusing the separate issues of providing guns to any Tom, Dick or Harry and banning guns.
No shit, people die because they have guns they don't know how to use. How is that an argument for banning guns?
People die because they use motor vehicles inappropriately, but I don't see people demanding cars be banned. (Plenty regarding motorcycles though, simply because we're an easy minority to scapegoat). Instead, we have a licensing scheme.
A gun is a completely safe object, only in the hands of an idiot does it become dangerous.

 

[kirovman]

How many idiots do you know though?

Also, a car serves an essential everyday purpose.

It is pretty central to the economy.

Also, look at the gun crime stats of America compared with other developed countries where guns are banned.

 

[repiV]

How many idiots do you know though?

It's not relevant. Banning something because a minority of people use it irresponsibly is discrimination and nannying, nothing more.
It should not be the government's place to manage our lives for us, redistribute our wealth or generally interfere in our everyday lives anyway.

Also, a car serves an essential everyday purpose.

It is pretty central to the economy.

In the eyes of many everyday Americans, the gun serves an everyday purpose just as essential as the car. Who are self-righteous holier-than-thou people like Stern to decide unilaterally that they are all wrong and that their age-old freedoms should be removed?
Isn't that extremely hypocritical in light of the fact that he is always complaining about America imposing their ways on the world? Perhaps according to Stern, dictatorship is acceptable as long as he supports the rules being dictated.

Not entirely dissimilar to certain people, no names mentioned, who preach about how horrible and evil and pointless war is and how we must take the pacifist route at any cost, and then start yapping about glorious socialist revolutions...

 

[Gray Fox]

Without our gunz, the immagrants might stoled mah Capitalizm.
Amirite

 

[Llama]

Certain people here seem to be confusing the separate issues of providing guns to any Tom, Dick or Harry and banning guns.
No shit, people die because they have guns they don't know how to use. How is that an argument for banning guns?
People die because they use motor vehicles inappropriately, but I don't see people demanding cars be banned. (Plenty regarding motorcycles though, simply because we're an easy minority to scapegoat). Instead, we have a licensing scheme.
A gun is a completely safe object, only in the hands of an idiot does it become dangerous.

A gun is never a safe object. A professional criminal is not an idiot, and you can guarantee the gun won't be any less dangerous then.

You can't use that motor vehicle argument because cars, unlike guns, actually serve a useful purpose on a day-to-day basis. They are designed to shorten time. Guns are designed simply to blow the shit out of someone else.

 

[Jintor]

Certain people here seem to be confusing the separate issues of providing guns to any Tom, Dick or Harry and banning guns.
No shit, people die because they have guns they don't know how to use. How is that an argument for banning guns?
People die because they use motor vehicles inappropriately, but I don't see people demanding cars be banned. (Plenty regarding motorcycles though, simply because we're an easy minority to scapegoat). Instead, we have a licensing scheme.
A gun is a completely safe object, only in the hands of an idiot does it become dangerous.

Hello? IT IS DESIGNED TO KILL. IT IS NOT SAFE. A GUN IS NOT SAFE. GUN IS NOT SAFE TO PEOPLE. GUN KILLS PEOPLE. KILLING BAD, NOT SAFE.

DO YOU COPY?

Also, dude knew how to use a gun, that's why so many people are dead. -_-

 

[15357]

BUT GUNS RE COOL. SO IT ALL EQUALS OUT.

 

[repiV]

A gun is never a safe object. A professional criminal is not an idiot, and you can guarantee the gun won't be any less dangerous then.

You can't use that motor vehicle argument because cars, unlike guns, actually serve a useful purpose on a day-to-day basis. They are designed to shorten time. Guns are designed simply to blow the shit out of someone else.

A gun sitting on a table is entirely safe, as is a responsibly handled gun. Just like a stationary or responsibly driven car. Only when misused does it become dangerous.
This is common sense and completely bloody obvious.
Guns serve a useful purpose on a day-to-day basis aswell - just because you prefer to roll over and play dead does not mean that self-defence and target shooting are not valid reasons.
Furthermore, in a free society you do not need to have an externally valid reason to own something - you need a damn good reason to deny someone the right to own it. You need a much better reason than "guns are designed to kill!!!!1111". Especially when the constitution specifically lays down the fundamental right to bear arms.

 

[repiV]

Hello? IT IS DESIGNED TO KILL. IT IS NOT SAFE. A GUN IS NOT SAFE. GUN IS NOT SAFE TO PEOPLE. GUN KILLS PEOPLE. KILLING BAD, NOT SAFE.

DO YOU COPY?

Also, dude knew how to use a gun, that's why so many people are dead. -_-

Don't talk to me like some kind of retard, especially when you are completely wrong. You can leave a gun sitting on a desk for a thousand years and noone will get hurt. You can leave it in the hands of a responsible owner for life and noone will get hurt. Guns are not dangerous.

 

[Jintor]

Don't talk to me like some kind of retard, especially when you are completely wrong. You can leave a gun sitting on a desk for a thousand years and noone will get hurt. You can leave it in the hands of a responsible owner for life and noone will get hurt. Guns are not dangerous.

Poison's not dangerous because you can leave it out of people's bloodstrems! Sharks are not dangerous because you can stay out of the water! Radiation is not dangerous because you don't have to go near it! Guns are not dangerous because they're not easily accessible by the public!

WHICH OF THESE DOES NOT BELONG?

By your logic NOTHING is dangerous because you don't HAVE to go anywhere near them.

 

[Nemesis6]

RepiV, I have to correct you here: Guns ARE dangerous, that's why they were invented. The problem is that when people do go crazy with them, it seems like there no other people with guns to stop them.

 

[repiV]

Poison's not dangerous because you can leave it out of people's bloodstrems! Sharks are not dangerous because you can stay out of the water! Radiation is not dangerous because you don't have to go near it! Guns are not dangerous because they're not easily accessible by the public!

WHICH OF THESE DOES NOT BELONG?

By your logic NOTHING is dangerous because you don't HAVE to go anywhere near them.

What the ****?
You can hold a loaded gun correctly and it's still not dangerous. Quit being a hysterical idiot - you sound like a crazy middle-aged "soccer mom" and you make absolutely no sense.
Our world is full of things that are difficult to master and potentially dangerous - that's why we spend decades learning how to live. I can also guarantee you that my 600cc superbike is infinitely more likely to cause injury or death than any firearm I might own. But I also had to take a demanding intensive course and pass an extremely difficult test to be able to ride it - funny how that works, eh?

 

[repiV]

RepiV, I have to correct you here: Guns ARE dangerous, that's why they were invented. The problem is that when people do go crazy with them, it seems like there no other people with guns to stop them.

They are not. Guns are harmless static objects which do absolutely nothing until used by human beings.

 

[Jintor]

You're taking dangerous literally, i see. But what is the intent behind a gun?

 

[repiV]

You're taking dangerous literally, i see. But what is the intent behind a gun?

A gun is never dangerous - it does not have a brain and it does absolutely nothing unless externally manipulated. Only the people using the guns can be dangerous.
Comparing guns to a shark or a radiation leak which are dangerous without any external input is absolute nonsense.
The intent behind a gun depends entirely on which gun it is, what ammo it's using and what purpose it's for.
NATO assault rifles, contrary to popular belief, with their 5.62mm ammo are specifically designed to wound the enemy enough to take three or five soldiers off the battlefield for every enemy down - one injured, the rest to look after the injured.
9mm submachineguns are designed to kill, instantly - to neutralise the threat before they can harm anyone else in close quarters.
.22s are designed for target shooting.
Handguns are usually designed for effective personal defence.

 

[Jintor]

So if a person uses a gun to kill another person, is it the person who is dangerous?

 

[Mr-Fusion]

To the common citizen, guns are rather useless in 1st world civilised countries.

But there are always nerds in society. Computer nerds, car nerds, gun nerds. There's always a group of people who get obsessed over inanimate objects. Gun nerds are slightly more dangerous for obvious reasons and they always give you that rubbish "I'M PROTECTING DEMOCRACY" or some-such babble.

I'd prefer all guns to be banned. WORLDWIDE. ALl military forces lay down your arms, give all your guns to superman and he will throw them into the sun. Then how will we fight the alien invaders?

DISCUSS.

 

[repiV]

So if a person uses a gun to kill another person, is it the person who is dangerous?

Yes. Unless the other person was posing an active threat and needed to be disabled, in which case they have done their duty to society.

 

[repiV]

To the common citizen, guns are rather useless in 1st world civilised countries.

But there are always nerds in society. Computer nerds, car nerds, gun nerds. There's always a group of people who get obsessed over inanimate objects. Gun nerds are slightly more dangerous for obvious reasons and they always give you that rubbish "I'M PROTECTING DEMOCRACY" or some-such babble.

I'd prefer all guns to be banned. WORLDWIDE. ALl military forces lay down your arms, give all your guns to superman and he will throw them into the sun. Then how will we fight the alien invaders?

DISCUSS.

Since we don't live in Happy Jolly Kum-bay-ah Fairytale Land, your discussion point is farcical and irrelevant.

 

[Jintor]

Yes. Unless the other person was posing an active threat and needed to be disabled, in which case they have done their duty to society.

So a gun is never dangerous?

 

[repiV]

So a gun is never dangerous?

No. We've covered this already. A gun is a tool that responds to external input, and without that external input it is a harmless inert object. The only factor that creates danger is inappropriate external input.

 

[Jintor]

I guess the long and short of it is that your definition of dangerous is different to my definition of dangerous, and no amount of arguing is going to change either side's definition.

 

[repiV]

I guess the long and short of it is that your definition of dangerous is different to my definition of dangerous, and no amount of arguing is going to change either side's definition.

Your definition is inaccurate.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Guns are not at fault in this incident. The most easily identifiable blame lies with Cho.

I can't help thinking that the ease with which Americans can acquire guns contributed to this incident. It's irrelevant whether the guns he bought where legal or illegal; if legal guns are easily available then it is far easier for illegal guns to be sold at car boot sales. Statistics regarding other countries seem to suggest a general trend of illegality equalling less gun crime, but I don't think there's enough data to draw a reliable conclusion, and there are notable contradictions to the tendency.

I can see the sense in a guns = defence = safety argument but I can see far more in a ban = less guns = more safety line; the logic seems inexorable.

All of this, however, is useless to us because it wouldn't apply to America; any ban would be undermined by the existing prevalance of firearms, and of firearm culture (+ rights culture). The logic or unlogic of banning guns changes completely depending on the circumstances, timespan, country and culture in which the argument takes place.

Furthermore, though I still believe in the general, long-term viability of a firearm ban - judging by statistics it seems to work in the UK - the guns may not be the real issue.

This thread should not be called 'Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate'; availability helped Cho enormously but did not motivate him. It should be called 'Virginia Tech Shootings - Society Debate'.

 

[Jintor]

How about: A gun is designed to be used by dangerous peop- oh, no, wait, some people are going to use these to protect themselves, aren't they. My mistake.

Hmmm.

So a nuclear missile is not dangerous until it is fired, a bomb is not dangerous until it is exploded, a tiger is not dangerous until it is mauling you, etc.?

/EDIT

Guns are not at fault in this incident. The most easily identifiable blame lies with Cho.

Agreed. But apparently Guns are not dangerous, so it's all good.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The tiger has volition; the bomb doesn't.

But following a sort of utilitarian harm principle with freedom as its base unit of morality:

We don't allow nuclear bombs because the freedom to possess and use one really only amounts to the freedom to kill a million people in a split-second. The mass curtailment of freedom this causes (everybody dies) ultimately and unquestionably outweighs the freedom of one person to kill a million. We don't let people own some tools because they make it just too easy to cause massive harm.

Does the loss of freedom when people are shot dead outweigh the freedom gained by allowing weapons? I'm inclined to argue yes; that the general availability of weapons contributes, not diminishes, the loss of freedom from people getting shot. People who say 'then only the lawbreakers would have guns' ignore the important fact that if guns are legal, they're easier to get illegally; if there are no guns in the entire country, even the most determined criminal is going to have a hard time. Only the criminals may have guns, but they will have far less guns.

At best the freedom to own a gun breaks down into 1) the freedom to shoot recreationally (nice, but this would also be gained by not letting people take guns outside shooting ranges or designated hunting areas) and 2) the freedom to defend yourself. In many cases, 2) can end up coming around in a circle, because you gain one life but may lose another. Not to mention that you might not have needed to shoot the guy if he hadn't bought his own gun to kill you with.

As I've said already though, there's no way this would work in the US because everyone's armed already.

 

[repiV]

Guns are not at fault in this incident. The most easily identifiable blame lies with Cho.

However, I cannot help thinking that the ease with which Americans can acquire guns contributed to this incident. It's irrelevant whether the guns he bought where legal or illegal; if legal guns are easily available then it is far easier for illegal guns to be sold at car boot sales. Statistics regarding other countries seem to suggest a general trend of illegality equalling less gun crime, but I don't think there's enough data to draw a reliable conclusion, and there are notable contradictions to the tendency.

I can see the sense in a guns = defence = safety argument but I can see far more in a ban = less guns = more safety line; the logic seems inexorable.

This, however, is irrelevant, because it wouldn't apply to America; no ban would serve to reduce risk because the existing prevalance of firearms, and of firearm culture (+ rights culture) would only undermine it. The logic or unlogic of banning guns changes completely depending on the circumstances, timespan, country and culture in which the argument takes place.

This happened because of gun control, not the lack of it. If weapons were allowed on campus, people would have been able to fight back. Gun free zones are just an open invitation to commit mass murder.

Furthermore, though I still believe in the general, long-term viability of a firearm ban - judgeing by statistics it seems to work in the UK - the guns aren't even the issue.

Handguns were lagal here pre-Dunblane, and the weapon used in that incident was an illegal firearm. Gun crime shot up when they were banned - all the ban served to do was deprive law-abiding sportspeople of their livelihood, and increase the demand for a black market. Legislation is the most ineffective way of solving any problem, and usually the result is that ordinary citizens are penalised whilst criminals are not deterred or even given more free reign.

This thread should not be called 'Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate'. It should be called 'Virginia Tech Shootings - Society Debate'.

Hey, I just borrowed the title from Evo.

 

[repiV]

How about: A gun is designed to be used by dangerous peop- oh, no, wait, some people are going to use these to protect themselves, aren't they. My mistake.

Hmmm.

Yes, people use guns to protect themselves. What is your problem with that?

So a nuclear missile is not dangerous until it is fired, a bomb is not dangerous until it is exploded, a tiger is not dangerous until it is mauling you, etc.?

A nuclear missile is completely harmless until the atomic reaction is set off. It cannot be detonated by force, impact or anything in fact except causing the correct chain reaction.
A tiger doesn't require external input to become dangerous, as we have also covered beforehand. Think, damnit.

Agreed. But apparently Guns are not dangerous, so it's all good.

The real danger here is people like you and Stern who think they have the right to impose their own opinions on others by force of law - in societies they do not even belong to, no less. For the "good of the people" or some tripe.

 

[Jintor]

This happened because of gun control, not the lack of it. If weapons were allowed on campus, people would have been able to fight back. Gun free zones are just an open invitation to commit mass murder.

Yes, Australia for example is a hotbed of people dying in gun massacres every year. -| -|

/EDIT And of course widespread avaliability of guns will make us safer. Yes, I'll be perfectly safe when anybody who suddenly has an urge to kill people has access to deadly weaponry, of course.

They'd shoot him eventually, if everyone has guns, true, but I think that the number of incidents would rise rather than fall.

*Shrug*

 

[repiV]

Yes, Australia for example is a hotbed of people dying in gun massacres every year. -| -|

Don't be childish. Address the point at hand and stop being an idiot. In an armed society, it is quite obvious that gun free zones skew the situation in favour of the criminal.

 

[repiV]

In many cases, 2) can end up coming around in a circle, because you gain one life but may lose another. Not to mention that you might not have needed to shoot the guy if he hadn't bought his own gun to kill you with.

It's not a question of how many people die, it's whether the right people are killed. If you break into someone's home, threaten their life or otherwise pose a threat to anybody, you lose your right to continue living for the duration you are endangering the people around you. If you are posing a danger to somebody, you have no rights.
Sudden death is an occupational hazard of being a criminal - too bad.

 

[Jintor]

I have a right to be childish, I'm 15.

You didn't say 'in an armed society'. You said 'gun free zones'. Ok, your statement is true for an armed society. In an unarmed society, crimminals are going to get their hands on weapons anyway, so the logical solution is to give everybody weapons and create an armed society where everybody has the ability to shoot everyone else dead (or wounded, if you prefer).

Hooray, logic.

 

[repiV]

I have a right to be childish, I'm 15.

By participating in this debate, you are putting yourself on an equal footing with me. You can't have it both ways. Act like an adult and be treated as one or be childish and have your opinions dismissed.

You didn't say 'in an armed society'. You said 'gun free zones'. Ok, your statement is true for an armed society. In an unarmed society, crimminals are going to get their hands on weapons anyway, so the logical solution is to give everybody weapons and create an armed society where everybody has the ability to shoot everyone else dead (or wounded, if you prefer).

Hooray, logic.

Obviously, in an unarmed society, the concept of a gun free zone is irrelevant.
That is a potential solution, yes.