Welp, another massacre. This one, as you all know, is of a particularly heinous nature because the children are involved. Horrible, horrible stuff.
I think it's puzzling that so many people on my social networks are advocating "really doing something to make a difference this time" and attempting to whip up the masses in a frenzy to contact their congressmen to "make a real difference".
I got into a bit of an online tiff. Someone said that their coworker was able to obtain a gun in 15 minutes. I commented, asking "how many people he has killed?" He was incredulous, and insisted that I didn't understand. He said that 15 minutes simply isn't enough; we need a weeks or months long process. We need psychological evaluations.
I replied that it did not matter how long it took; it's not as if the state has some expert team of demigods to predict whether or not the person will ever commit a violent crime. The reality is that the government is inept in the most basic operations and the idea that a lengthier background check will prevent bad people from getting weapons is asinine.
Killers will get weapons. The only thing we can do is enable people to defend themselves.
I know this is very elementary but I wanted to talk about it with some like minded folks. What would be some good reading on the subject?
Also, do you think Obama cried for these children too?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
so someone takes a year to buy a gun
another takes a second to kill them and steal the gun.
there is no legislation that prevents this.
I was about to make a thread about this regarding how to respond to the constant crap I see liberals spewing out on the other forum I go to. The only thing I've done so far to respond to it all was just post a Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on YouTube in response explaining how gun control is "bullshit!" I don't really know how to get started in responding to it all in a thorough manner, however.
There are 2 main points here:
1) We can supply guns to ourselves through the local gun dealer, or the Mexican drug cartels can supply them to us. Either way, there are going to be guns, but the cartels tend to bring an entire set of additional problems along with them.
2) The real reason we want guns is because history has shown that armed governments have mass murdered unarmed civilians a million times over what armed civilians have done to themselves. What happened today should never be minimized, but it is no comparison to the larger issue at hand.
It should take 5 months for me to get a kitchen knife then!
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I think an especially strong argument would be to cite what happens in countries that have the strictest gun controls such as the UK (not to mention the extreme cases of the fascist and communist states), where supposedly they actually saw gun violence increase after implementing the controls. Now, I haven't studied the details, but I think cases like that at least show that strict gun controls or bans don't necessarily reduce gun violence.
Y'all are wrong. This stuff never happens in North Korea.
What about Chicago? It has shootings all the time and it has "strict" gun control laws.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
"What about Chicago? It has shootings all the time and it has "strict" gun control laws."
Genuine question here. Do people who commit gun violence in areas with strict gun laws generally purchase their weapons from another city or state where it's a lot easier? That could serve as an argument for a nationwide ban.
I live close to Harlem, known pretty well for being a dangerous place. Whenever someone is advocating gun control, I tell them "imagine you live in the middle of Harlem, and guns get banned. Do you now feel safer?" People almost always say no, because at that point it becomes obvious that gun laws will not stop criminals from owning guns, and those same laws actually encourage them to break into homes they believe are unprotected.
I was enraged watching Obama tear up thinking to myself the deaths of over a thousand children he is personally responsible for in Pakistan alone. But, I would agree what the previous suggestion. Watch the Penn & Teller "Bullshit" series on gun control. It is on Youtube. The problem with wait times is, what about the individual that is being threatened by their ex spouse and need to be able to protect themself? There are many cases where people who previously never needed arms suddenly are put into a position that they need to be able to defend themselves.
When there's a massacre in a school everybody almost instantly talks about gun control.
But it's rare to see anyone talking about the real issue: packing a lot of small children in the same virtually defenseless building everyday, where they are all sitting ducks waiting for the next psychopath.
An honest question - are public schools in the US prohibited from hiring an armed guard? Or is this decision at the principal's discretion? Or do they actually have armed guards?
All of the public schools in my district have unarmed guards. They are mainly there to break up school fights or to catch kids skipping class so they don't really need guns. However, I'm pretty sure it's legal almost everywhere and some schools do have armed guards.
Schools are the problem, not guns. The introvert-loners are forced into schools, which brings mental disorders to them.
Is there any statistics about how many of the scenes of mass shootings had armed guards?
I think an especially strong argument would be to cite what happens in countries that have the strictest gun controls such as the UK (not to mention the extreme cases of the fascist and communist states), where supposedly they actually saw gun violence increaseafter implementing the controls. Now, I haven't studied the details, but I think cases like that at least show that strict gun controls or bans don't necessarily reduce gun violence.
I'm not sure any definite answer can be found by looking at gun/crime stats. The experience of the UK is shown in the graph below (handguns were banned in 1997 after a school masaccre in scotlant very similar to the one we have just seen), which shows there was an increase in gun crime around the year 2000 which then began to fall again around 2003/4 and is more or less back to where it was.
The problem is that statistics such as this mean nothing because it is only comparing two variables against each other, whilst ignoring all the other factors that influence their change (such as culture, history, how easy it is to acquire guns illegally, etc). There are many examples of places that have strict gun-control and low crime, but also many places that have lax gun-control and low crime. The obvious ones to demonstrate the latter is Switzerland and Canada, both of which have widespread gun-ownership and next to no crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/01/conservative_estimates_on_viol.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EZCK-QtBY
Good video. As a warning he tears up quite a bit. :p
It's a pretty complex issue. If Molyneux is correct, these include being drugged, an oppressive mother, lack of a father, the forced "socialisation" of modern schools etc. Guns don't really factor in except as the weapon. The guy is pretty intelligent. He could've devised another means of inflicting harm on people, e.g. a bomb.
Either the guy was very good at internalising and hiding his problems, or these were ignored. E.g. "suck it up" etc. These shooters would seem to share bad parenting, amongst other things, as a common trait. Of course he probably has psychological traits, inherited or developed in his environment, that were aggravated by all the above.
As for Chicago, I think the point to be understood is that people who want guns will get their hands on them, especially if they have a disregard of the law. Those who suffer are the people who are afraid of breaking it, or for whatever moral reasons, believe the government is in its right to arrogate to itself and no one else the right to defend them. Statistics trying to correlate guns to crime or its reduction miss the point that a gun is simply a tool. Perhaps that isn't their purpose, but it means that the problem is the mentally disturbed individual. If he devised a bomb using kitchen goods, what difference would it make? Why think he'd resort to a knife or spoon? There's plenty of ways to harm people, sadly.
A good illustration of the sort of forces that make people snap is the movie Death of a Cheerleader. Naturally, he remains culpable for what he has done. However, rather than ranting about guns, all those people who are displaying faux moral outrage should be focusing on what led him to the killings. Yes, guns are easy to obtain, irrespective of what the law says, provided you're willing to flout it.
I can't buy the argument that guns save lives. If so, explain Japan. They have among the lowest gun ownership rate in the world (6 guns per 1000 people), yet a very low murder and violent crime rate. in the most recent year, according to UNODC, Japan recorded just 442 murders - a rate of .3 murders per 100,000 people.
This. Let's not forget proper methodology, Austrians.
Al_Gore the Idiot: I can't buy the argument that guns save lives.
I can't buy the argument that guns save lives.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
The best defense against crime is abortion. Honestly.
Prime, maybe I should have restated it. True, there have been instances where guns saved lives. But you can't come to a clear cut conclusion that tight gun control increases crime. Supporters like to point to Chicago's strict gun control laws and high crime rate as "proof" that gun control isn't working. But at the same time they choose to ignore areas that have both strict gun control and low crime. For the record I don't support gun control. But I feel there is a need to look at the other side of an issue before jumping to conclusions.
But you can't come to a clear cut conclusion that tight gun control increases crime.
Supporters like to point to Chicago's strict gun control laws and high crime rate as "proof" that gun control isn't working.
But at the same time they choose to ignore areas that have both strict gun control and low crime.
But I feel there is a need to look at the other side of an issue before jumping to conclusions.
Al_Gore the Idiot: Supporters like to point to Chicago's strict gun control laws and high crime rate as "proof" that gun control isn't working. But at the same time they choose to ignore areas that have both strict gun control and low crime.
Supporters like to point to Chicago's strict gun control laws and high crime rate as "proof" that gun control isn't working. But at the same time they choose to ignore areas that have both strict gun control and low crime.
The reason places such as Chicago and Washington D.C. provide solid evidence is because we have statistics from both before and after legislation was passed on the same sample population. It is not accurate to use information from entirely different cultures, such as Japan, unless you can point to specific legislation at a specific point in time that altered the rate of gun violence.
Very true; comparing a culture as completely, night-and-day different as ours and Japan's is ridiculous. I watched Bowling For Columbine several years ago and Michael Moore made a comparison between us and Canada about how similar we are yet we have so much more violent crime. Of course, then I'm sure he blamed capitalism or something.
How about this:
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy." "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."
Not the only place.
Not much on these places and their crime rates in regards to gun ownership, but it paints a good picture, you don't know who does and who doesn't own a gun, and is a criminal going to take the higher risk? What if you know 100% of homes/individuals are registered gun owners, whether or not you know they have it on them at the time, are you going to take that risk?
<<I can't buy the argument that guns save lives. If so, explain Japan. They have among the lowest gun ownership rate in the world (6 guns per 1000 people), yet a very low murder and violent crime rate. in the most recent year, according to UNODC, Japan recorded just 442 murders - a rate of .3 murders per 100,000 people.>>
Read Japanese news on asian websites.
Japanese police regularly officially record murders as suicide, when they do not think they can easily convict anyone. This is done to make a very high conviction rate and solved case rate. Actually, many countries do this.
E.g. <<His penis was severed and underneath the bed in the next room. The door to his appartment was open. Some things were taken. He argued with his girlfriend his neighbors said. The knife with which he was stabbed with in the chest was underneath a dresser in the other room, cleaned off. His corpse was in the living room. The police wrote he committed suicide. Resulting in outrage in the media.>>
One more famous example is low rate of mortality at birth in cuba. They don't count babies until one year has passed.
The most famous example, this time from the 19th century: a law was passed on how to behave in town. It reduced venerial disease among British sailors, because that also went down to 0 that year. Or that was what it looked like. A navy regulation also was put into effect at the same time to remove all sailors found to have venerial disease from the payroll, so they were no longer counted. The law did nothing to reduce incidence of venerial disease.
the guns were stolen, so how is leglislation going to keep guns out of the hands of people that steal guns?
Were the CT shooteter's guns stolen? Oops, there goes the leftists' argument. Better crack down harder on the illegal guns--that's working out great in Mexico I hear.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/right-to-own-handheld-device-that-shoots-deadly-me,30742/
Sigh, Onion...
Voluntaryist Reader: Remarks on the Connecticut Tragedy
Clayton -
@cab21
"the guns were stolen, so how is leglislation going to keep guns out of the hands of people that steal guns?"
I think at that point, they'll just resort to advocating a complete ban on private ownership of guns. I mean, I hear that CT has strict gun laws, but the gun control crowd probably sees the fact that the guy's mother still had all those weapons in the first place as the problem.
Let's ban knives, cars, cigarettes, alcohol, and swimming pools, too, while we're at it.
To further damage the liberal case, I read today that the shooter first tried to purchase his own rifle but was denied because of a mandatory wait. So he just decides to take someone else's gun. These silly rules and regulations are meaningless.
If it ever gets to the point where they actually try to confiscate already purchased guns, I do believe we will have full blown secesssion and/or civil war. When Clinton banned ARs in the 90s he did not confiscate anything already purchased. If they ever cross that line all hell breaks loose.
The most famous example, this time from the 19th century
I would love a source for this one!
I just read The Onion piece on this, and unfortunately it doesn't seem satire. How about one describing how "If we could just keep people from obtaining handheld devices that propel metal pellets at high speeds, we could put an end to all violence. Someone who previously was going to hurt people would have no choice but to give up, since without these handheld devices, it would be impossible. All we need to do is make them illegal and we will once and for all put an end to violence."
There is a reason why you don't hear of armed gunmen murdering dozens of people at a gun range. If more guns = more crime, then gun ranges should be the #1 place in America for murders to occur.
Morgan Freeman, for a Hollywood type, seemed quite sensible on the matter.
Re swimming pools:
"In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day. 19% of drowning deaths involving children occur in public pools with certified lifeguards present."
Crap, somebody has to do something about it! Ban public pools NOW!