Gunman kills 30 at US university - time to review gun laws?

[debate_junkie]

Fair enough. What works for you doesn't mean that it works for us etc.


So if the US didn't have a gun culture, there would still be incidents like in Virginia?
I'm sorry but the price of the gun culture you have is what happened to those poor individuals. The 2nd amendment makes it far EASIER for the person to exercise something not within their rights, such as murder. If that kid had only a knife, would he have killed over 30 people in a single spree, not likely.

Look I'm never going to convince anyone here that owning guns is bad thing, over 200 years of guns being engrained in US culture, I can't compete with that.
But at least recognise the price your country pays for this, for the victims at least. If you recognise and accept the price, well then that is your choice.

Yes there still would be incidents, because the one thing you fail to look at is there are OTHER means of creating mass casualty. Look, yesterday was the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. 180+people were murdered.. how?

At 9:02 a.m. CST, the Ryder truck, which contained about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of fertilizer and fuel oil mixture packed into the back,[5] detonated in front of the north side of the nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

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

Should we outlaw fertilizer and fuel, because someone took LEGAL products and created mass mayhem with them? Understandably, not everyone is as sophisticated as the 3 who perpetrated this attack, but it directly refutes your claim that GUNS have created this mass murder mentatlity.

In fact... alot of the serial killers that we've encountered over the many years, have not used a single gun to commit their crimes and terrorize their victims. So how does a "gun culture" create someone like that, who never even touches one?

 

[GarzaUK]

Should we outlaw fertilizer and fuel, because someone took LEGAL products and created mass mayhem with them? Understandably, not everyone is as sophisticated as the 3 who perpetrated this attack, but it directly refutes your claim that GUNS have created this mass murder mentatlity.

I never said that guns created this mass murder mentatlity. Guns are instruments, it is the person that is holding the gun is responsible. That saying, that guns don't kill people, people do is correct.
What I am saying that guns make it far far far easier for any Joe Hick to go on a killing spree.

I never knew bombs made out of fuel and fertilizer was a big problem in the US??

In fact... alot of the serial killers that we've encountered over the many years, have not used a single gun to commit their crimes and terrorize their victims. So how does a "gun culture" create someone like that, who never even touches one?

Serial killers are a different animal to Mass Killers. Criminology is a hobby of mine. Serial killers like to see there victims suffer. They love to smell and see the blood. They love to see life slip away in their hands. Thats why they use knifes, strangling. A bullet in the head is not going to satisfy there blood lust. Their acts are calm an calulate, and there are long periods of times before each killing.

Mass killers almost always use guns. Angry with society, they kill as many as they can before usually eventually they turn the gun on themselves. The gun is the most useful instrument to kill as many people as you can in a short piece of time.

 

[Hatuey]

Yes, and the records should have been made available so that when his background check was done, guess what. The shop owner would have said.."Sorry, under the law I cannot sell you a gun". But, and here's the thing, the same people that are screaming for gun control, are the SAME people that swore there should be privacy for records. Hmmmmm so I'm guessing that one missing tidbit of information, the fact that the courts deemed him an imminent danger to himself, would have, again, probably not stopped him, but COULD have made it that much harder for him.

...So wait...does this mean you're supportive of gun control...or you're not?

PS: What does privacy have to do with obtaining a gun legally? If you want to obtain a gun legally then you must agree to the fact that the vendor will do some reasonable inquiring into who you are before selling you the gun.

 

[debate_junkie]

I never said that guns created this mass murder mentatlity. Guns are instruments, it is the person that is holding the gun is responsible. That saying, that guns don't kill people, people do is correct.
What I am saying that guns make it far far far easier for any Joe Hick to go on a killing spree.

I never knew bombs made out of fuel and fertilizer was a big problem in the US??



Serial killers are a different animal to Mass Killers. Criminology is a hobby of mine. Serial killers like to see there victims suffer. They love to smell and see the blood. They love to see life slip away in their hands. Thats why they use knifes, strangling. A bullet in the head is not going to satisfy there blood lust. Their acts are calm an calulate, and there are long periods of times before each killing.

Mass killers almost always use guns. Angry with society, they kill as many as they can before usually eventually they turn the gun on themselves. The gun is the most useful instrument to kill as many people as you can in a short piece of time.

Any instrument used to murder once, is a problem... period, according to your logic. I don't care if it's a bomb, or a pencil. But what I do care about, is the advocation of punishing those who CHOOSE to follow the law, because a minority CHOOSE to break the law. Ya with me?


What if the minority of people, who wish to change the gun laws in your country won? Wouldn't you be steamed? After all, isn't that supposed to be the premise of a representative government? Majority rules? Well, in this instance, you are saying you wish for the minority in my govenment to silence the voice of a majority. Whether you like guns or not, the Constitution IS the foundation of this country. And just changing it, on a whim, is dangerous...period.

 

[debate_junkie]

...So wait...does this mean you're supportive of gun control...or you're not?

Depends on how you define gun control. Restricting accessiblity to people who are deemed by the courts to be a danger to themselves or others, does not interfere with gun ownership, in my opinion. I believe if those records would have been made available, dood wouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

ps.... because there is an element in this country that believes that there are no personal records that should be disclosed to a government entitiy. It gets tricky, because normally when a person is deemed dangerous by the courts due to mental illness, there are usually some sort of psychiatric evaluation to go with them... and therein lies the crux of the problem. I am all supportive of such evaluations going directly towards background checks when it comes to buying firearms. However, I could not guarantee that the government would want to stop there, when it comes to medical records.

 

[GarzaUK]

Any instrument used to murder once, is a problem... period, according to your logic. I don't care if it's a bomb, or a pencil. But what I do care about, is the advocation of punishing those who CHOOSE to follow the law, because a minority CHOOSE to break the law. Ya with me?

Your right most things can kill a human being, if used maliciously. But if someone is looking to kill someone and there is a gun or a pencil there, which one is he going to pick? Like I said guns make murder so much easier.
But then again it depends on the person behind the gun. Canada has a less gun homicide rate than the US and they have piles of guns. So it is much down to American psyche rather than supply of guns.
But until you provide a system that keeps wackos from getting guns ( I don't see how, with or without gun laws), Americans will pay the ultimate price for it.

What if the minority of people, who wish to change the gun laws in your country won? Wouldn't you be steamed? After all, isn't that supposed to be the premise of a representative government? Majority rules? Well, in this instance, you are saying you wish for the minority in my govenment to silence the voice of a majority. Whether you like guns or not, the Constitution IS the foundation of this country. And just changing it, on a whim, is dangerous...period.

Your right majority rules over minority, as it should be. That's why guns are not going anywhere anytime soon. That's why I'm not looking forward to the next mass killing in the US.

 

[TurtleDude]

Many europeans are the product of societies where "rights" were retained by the sovereign and grudgingly given to the peasants or subjects. we come from a society where rights are given to man by natural law and the government rightfully takes only the powers that we delegated to it.

I don't trust a government (which is nothing more than a collection of men no smarter or more moral than you and I) that doesn't trust me to be armed.

 

[bub]

Many europeans are the product of societies where "rights" were retained by the sovereign and grudgingly given to the peasants or subjects. we come from a society where rights are given to man by natural law and the government rightfully takes only the powers that we delegated to it.

I don't trust a government (which is nothing more than a collection of men no smarter or more moral than you and I) that doesn't trust me to be armed.

Flemish and Northern Italian free cities from the middle age were remarkably free. The dozens of belfries that date back from this time are the symbol of our freedom. They are not to be confused with regions such as southern Italy or Eastern Europe, where you are right.

But people made revolutions. 1789, 1830...we got our freedom through blood too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

pistols easily kill any tank driver I have ever met-its merely a question of timing

if you think a pistol is the only weapons people could use in this doomsday scenario you are mistaken

The thing about tanks:
Tanks without infantry are sitting ducks.

 

[MSgt]

Gunny you are wrong we don't like it when America suffers tragedies such as these. We are not sadistic. I find that quite offensive.

Then don't include yourself in with that lot. We've been here before. I am not going to produce the studies again, nor am I going to entertain the notion that there isn't a substantial population count that looks on America with resentment. What is insulting here is the senitment that America can have racists because of our historical old south and slavery period, America can have its attitude of arrogance, Americans can be ignorant of the world beyond their borders, and America can have its "irresponsible" freedoms, but Europe is suppose to be able to be portrayed as fun loving, love thy neighbor, tolerant do gooders despite historical and present day events.

My fellow Europeans are trying to understand the gun culture that the US has, because it is alien to us. We do not understand how having a gun makes you "free". We see guns as instruments to not protect but take away life.

Europeans do not understand that guns are completely rooted in US culture, to ask to get rid of them would be like them asking us to get rid of booze. It ain't going to happen. I can't imagine the rebellion if a European country attempted prohibition. Same you happen in the US with guns.

But America needs to realise and recognise the price they pay to have this "freedom", the 2nd amendment. The price they pay is innocent American blood. The 2nd Amendment is soaked with it. What happened in Virginia is no surprise when they are so many easily assesable guns about. And it WILL happen again, there should be NO doubt about this.

But if this is the price Americans want to pay for their 2nd Amendment, that is there choice and is there freedom to do so.

But seriously guys don't look at each other and question "How this can happen?", you know all too well how this happened, as its happened so many times before.

daddyholland, bub, and GarzaUK......

Well, obviously you understand it quite well as you have summed up exactly what I have already stated. Our laws are our own. Americans "realize" that everything has a consquence. And most things have a negative and a positive repurcussion. And the reason Europeans can't understand our gun laws is because they do not share our history. However, this is a cop out. If I can look at Europe's history and understand well enough about why gun laws are an alien thing, then why can't Europeans do the same thing when looking towards Americas? .....

1) We exist because of the gun. We have ensured a protection from government tyranny through the gun. We expanded west and protected out homes in a lawless frontier through the gun. We built a military large enough to tip the balance against global tyranny and large enough to maintain a presence in the wounded globe in the wake of that tyranny through the gun.

2) You mention alcohol. Prohibition saw rise to organized crime. And drugs? Merely another thing for outlaws to cling to in order to make money and achieve power. Our liberties in America are different than what is in Europe. Our freedoms are about the individual not the group. We have so much freedom and so much laws that protect the individual, that anything meant to protect the innocent only strengthens the criminal. Outlaw our guns, and criminals will merely make the most dynamic underground gun operation in history. Criminals will have them, and honest citizens will not. Therefore, we rely on the individual's responsibility when he celebrates his freedom. We are not a socialism. Our freedoms are about "liberty."

Now, what is there not to understand? This is all very simple stuff. I am led to believe one of two things. Either Europeans simply don't possess the mental ability to observe another civilization and see it for what it is or they simply see it just fine, but reserve the right to criticize. And this is exactly why any condolences offerred to America whenever an idiot (or groups of them) takes advantage of the "land of the free" is always largely overshadowed with criticisms.

The problem with "minding our business" is that we frequently have to be abroad. We intervene when invited with extreme exception. And even then it is not to plant a flag, conquer, colonize, or to enslave. We do not pretend ourselves to matter when it comes to your laws. But the difference between us is that whatever we do to ourselves it does not involve your militaries to have to travel across the ocean to our lands. For some damn reason, everything you do or fail to do winds up involving our presence.

....and as for as "why does having a gun make us free?" It doesn't make us free. It's simply a freedom we have always had. Notice how such things like the Patriot Act to catch terrorists in our country before they strike is supposed to be about stripping our freedoms, but something like stripping our guns away, which has been a day 1 right, from us is some how acceptable?

You don't understand, because you are not American. But the beauty here is that you do not have to understand. We live in a nation where we truly are in charge. We have private gun ownership and we vote. Our government doesn't have to worry about coups or internal militias. It's a trust that goes both ways. The side effect and repercussion is that we have to put up with idiots who abuse their trust and liberty. The other side effect and repercussion and that there isn't a country on earth that would dare invade us.

Pros and Cons.

 

[daddyholland]

Well, I will say one last thing to all....
This thread was pointless.....:roll:

 

[LaMidRighter]

A crazy person talking and using the 1st won't cause harms to others. A crazy person buying a gun might....

I don't know Hatuey, crazy and charismatic people can influence mobs, crowds, and entire countries, look at Hitler as a classic example, or speech that creates panic, riotous behavior, etc. I do agree that a crazy person with a gun can be dangerous, but am playing devil's advocate here.

Fair enough. What works for you doesn't mean that it works for us etc.

I think we pretty much are on the same page here, I have no problem with your particular position as I see it coming more from a philosophical and curious nature, I have a problem with the people who try to dictate our policies absolutely within our borders(especially the U.N.)

So if the US didn't have a gun culture, there would still be incidents like in Virginia?
I'm sorry but the price of the gun culture you have is what happened to those poor individuals.

Here is where we will have differing opinions, There have been mass shootings in Japan and other countries with much stricter gun control than the U.S., which would lead me to believe motive trumps means

and The 2nd amendment makes it far EASIER for the person to exercise something not within their rights, such as murder. If that kid had only a knife, would he have killed over 30 people in a single spree, not likely.

As far as this goes, it is not quite as easy to purchase a gun legally as one might think, first off there does exist a background check and waiting period(7 days usually) involved in the purchase, most locations have laws forbidding the firing of a weapon, and guns must be out in the open unless a conceal and carry permit is issued, it is actually much easier to buy a gun illegally in the U.S. because of the beuracracy involved in excersizing our rights. Now here's the complicating factor, I don't know if he would have been able to commit multiple murders with the knife or not, but it is possible, or he could have used bombs, which are absolutely illegal under hazmat and ordinance laws of the U.S.

Look I'm never going to convince anyone here that owning guns is bad thing, over 200 years of guns being engrained in US culture, I can't compete with that.
But at least recognise the price your country pays for this, for the victims at least. If you recognise and accept the price, well then that is your choice.

One thing I like about your debating style is that of coming to an understanding, I think we will always have differences in perception as we are of two different political cultures, where you perceive a price I might perceive a tragedy caused by other factors outside of the right, many people have seen cases where someone could not get to their guns and became victims to either brutish or lesser armed(knives, bats, etc.) attackers, just last week in fact, my friend was attacked while filling her car with gas in a decent area of my city which is safe by most standards, it only took three seconds for this guy to surprise her, and she ended up with a few abrasions, however the guy had a rapists approach in this and she is lucky that is all that happened, she had a loaded .380 in her car, but couldn't get to it, as the attack happened outside, she was a victim because she was smaller, unarmed, and the perp perceived an advantage, this would not be the case if she had been armed.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Well, I will say one last thing to all....
This thread was pointless.....:roll:

I dont see how it was pointless.. Maybe in Canada its pointless to discuss things when a majority have a certain opinion, that doesnt make it pointless elsewhere.

What do you think of the poll? 53% think the gun laws should NOT be reviewed, the rest think they should. Of those 10% approx thinks the gun laws should be even more loose, they think guns should be allowed everywhere, loaded guns.
I can only guess this is because if the people at the school in virginia all was allowed to carry guns the gunman wouldnt be able to shoot 33 people, someone would have intervened if everyone have a gun.


This thread being pointless in your opinion certainly tells me something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do you think of the poll? 53% think the gun laws should NOT be reviewed, the rest think they should.

68% think they should be left alone -- or made less restrictive.
What do you think of that?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

68% think they should be left alone -- or made less restrictive.
What do you think of that?

52% think they should not change. 16% think they should be less restrictive, that means 48% want a review..

 

[LaMidRighter]

52% think they should not change. 16% think they should be less restrictive, that means 48% want a review..

Actually, using YOUR simple lumping of data, 62% do in fact want the second to at least be left alone, only 30% TOTAL are sure that gun rights should be reviewed, that brings us to 92% with 2% undecided. But that doesn't matter for two reasons:
1) When it comes to altering law in this country that is not even close to a large enough minority opinion to even warrant interest, much less start any legal procedings to change gun rights in this country.
2) You're not an American citizen, so you have no dog in this fight.

 

[daddyholland]

2) You're not an American citizen, so you have no dog in this fight.

@ Maximus Zeebra,

This is why this thread has lost it's "point" to me.....you can make any other assumptions you want, they dont matter.

 

[bub]

YouTube - Shooting Victim Tells How To Stop the Violence

...from a 100% ary...err...american :roll:

 

[Hatuey]

I don't know Hatuey, crazy and charismatic people can influence mobs, crowds, and entire countries, look at Hitler as a classic example, or speech that creates panic, riotous behavior, etc. I do agree that a crazy person with a gun can be dangerous, but am playing devil's advocate here.

See this is where it gets blurry for some people. The difference between Hitler talking and 1st amendment was that he was allowed to do what he preached. Freedom of speech only protects your freedom to express yourself. However acting out whatever you are talking about is a whole different scenario.

 

[RightOfCenter]

If the government becomes oppressive, do you really think you're going to be able to stop their tanks with a gun?

Seems to be working for insurgents in Iraq...

 

[Kandahar]

Seems to be working for insurgents in Iraq...

The Iraqi government can barely even function, let alone oppress anyone. The closest to "oppression" they can do is look the other way while private militias take over...which they would be doing anyway.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The Iraqi government can barely even function, let alone oppress anyone. The closest to "oppression" they can do is look the other way while private militias take over...which they would be doing anyway.

It wasn't a question of oppression, it was a question of how well guns and rifles can function against a modern military. They seem to be winning to me.

 

[Kandahar]

It wasn't a question of oppression, it was a question of how well guns and rifles can function against a modern military. They seem to be winning to me.

I assumed that an oppressive government meant a government that was unafraid to use physical force on its people, and was strong enough to truly pose a threat to them. Otherwise it isn't really oppressive in my book. Sure, guns are effective against weak governments that have to worry about things like human rights.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I assumed that an oppressive government meant a government that was unafraid to use physical force on its people, and was strong enough to truly pose a threat to them. Otherwise it isn't really oppressive in my book. Sure, guns are effective against weak governments that have to worry about things like human rights.

I wasn't talking about oppressive governments, I was talking about the usefulness of firearms that a person would have against a modern army. From Iraq we can see that they do indeed work and could protect liberty against a government with control over the armed forces.

 

[DeeJayH]

I wasn't talking about oppressive governments, I was talking about the usefulness of firearms that a person would have against a modern army. From Iraq we can see that they do indeed work and could protect liberty against a government with control over the armed forces.

soooooo
IEDs and car/truck Bombs and RPGS are now firearms.
gotcha. I thought it was just pistols and rifles and automatics