Shooting At US Uni

[His Divine Shadow]

Not again. Seriously, what is it about American schools that attract gun-toting loonies? Is it the faculties' "Just ignore them," attitude towards bullying? (I think that contributed to Cho Seung-Hui's mental health problems-- see here.) Is it stress? Is it negligent parents ignoring their children's mental health problems?

Oh ten years of massive media circuses maybe having made something once unknown into something everyone knows about, it's just going to attract copy cats. Over here though it just warrants a passing mention nowadays, which is good. We don't want to give these people the attention they crave. Fuck 'em.

[Glocksman]

What the hell is wrong the US and their guns?

Guns should be out of civilian hands. PERIOD.

Sure.
When you pry my cold dead fingers from around the hot smoking barrel.

All such sentiments aside, as much as you think we're the crazy ones an awful lot of Americans see gun ownership as a right, as indeed it *is* one specifically enumerated in many state constitutions and SCOTUS is most likely to affirm that the Federal 2nd Amendment is an individual right as well.

For a lot of people in the US, the attitude is 'fear the government that fears your guns'.
Greatly simplifying it, you could see the US's attachment to civilian gun ownership as one more example of our individualist culture.

[Tiriol]

For a lot of people in the US, the attitude is 'fear the government that fears your guns'.
Greatly simplifying it, you could see the US's attachment to civilian gun ownership as one more example of our individualist culture.

Greatly simplifying, it looks like you are the nation of gun-loving, violence-adoring near-maniacs (or even full maniacs) who don't give a rat's ass if an entire country somewhere else is engulfed in perpetual civil war and anarchy because of your nation's actions, but God forbid if someone touches "me good an' ol' friend, the Little Jimmy Magnum .44", then it's all about an oppressive government and how "we must have our guns, otherwise King George will come back and by God, the redcoats will steam-roll our fair land!"

However, I am greatly saddened by the loss the families involved must endure. Those who died were all young, had hopes and dreams and possibilites before them, only to be cut down before their time.

It almost feels like this would have become a worryingly increasing trend, the school killings. Not just in USA, mind you, there are other countries where this has happened as well.

[Zadius]

Shit, my brother just graduated from there last year, same class as the gunman apparently.

[Starglider]

And while removing guns will remove gun violence I'm concerned that it won't necessarily stop killings. For example, switching to pipe bombs wouldn't be that difficult for someone bright enough to go to college and some of the shooters we've had in the past have at least flirted with the idea. We gain nothing if the whackos just change weaponry.

This is not correct. If fewer people are killed by pipebombs each year than were previously killed by guns, it's a benefit. I strongly suspect this will be the case, because pipebombs require more knowledge, more preparation and are a much more chancy proposition (they can fail to detonate, fail to fragment usefully, or detonate at the wrong time). The question is a fairly academic one in this case, but intent is not the only factor in whether a crime is comitted, weapon accessibility and convenience are also major factors.

[Raw Shark]

This is fucked up. I wonder what actually happened?

Young male goes postal on February 14th. Gee, I wonder. [/sarcasm]

[Broomstick]

And while removing guns will remove gun violence I'm concerned that it won't necessarily stop killings. For example, switching to pipe bombs wouldn't be that difficult for someone bright enough to go to college and some of the shooters we've had in the past have at least flirted with the idea. We gain nothing if the whackos just change weaponry.

This is not correct. If fewer people are killed by pipebombs each year than were previously killed by guns, it's a benefit.

As I said in prior thread, mere reduction in the number killed is not enough - it is not acceptable for even 1 student to be killed in this manner. I would acknowledge that, say, 7 dead is preferable to 15, but only because it is the lesser of two evils. I think it would be preferable (if perhaps not practical) to find out why people do this and have a way to help them, or at least prevent them from harming others.

As I said - the people who doing killings tend to be pretty bright. The intelligence to find alternate means to kill is there.

The US has had heavily armed civilians for centuries... but it's only in the last part of the 20th Century that we started to have school killings. Why? The guns didn't change, and the fact people were armed didn't change... what changed? This is a symptom of something else - granted if you can't cure the disease you treat the symptoms but treating the root cause is more effective.

[Glocksman]

Why? The guns didn't change, and the fact people were armed didn't change.

Indeed.
Prior to the 1968 GCA, one could mail order firearms, including easily restorable fully automatic DEWAT weapons.

The USA may have a problem, but the availability of firearms isn't it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, as I said earlier, ten years or so ago, the concept of school shootings was not really widely heard about. It is now however something every person in most of the 1st world knows about. So I am not suprised the copy cats are coming out of the woodwork.

[Jadeite]

What the hell is wrong the US and their guns?

Guns should be out of civilian hands. PERIOD.

Go fuck yourself.

[Steel]

What the hell is wrong the US and their guns?

Guns should be out of civilian hands. PERIOD.

Go fuck yourself.

So what would you say it is about gun ownership that justifies 30,000 gun deaths per year in the United States then? What could there possibly be that would make the easy availability of guns worthwhile when in the last 3 years Americans have killed more Americans using legally available weapons than the entire Vietnam and Iraq wars combined?

You cant say that people could just as easily get illegal firearms, because looking at other countries they dont. A large proportion of those deaths are accidental, which would be totally avoided. When people flip out and go into schoolrooms and shoot people, they do it with stuff they bought legally and easily. They could go and get more powerful illegal weapons now, but they dont. Where in the world with actual gun control policies has even a tenth the number of school shootings as the US?

[gizmojumpjet]

So what would you say it is about gun ownership that justifies 30,000 gun deaths per year in the United States then?

If you're going to start throwing out numbers, make sure to qualify that the majority of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides, not murders, in order to put things in perspective. Frankly, I could care less about the number of people who kill themselves with a gun every year and don't see how it's relevant to the mass-shooting conundrum. It's their life, let 'em off themselves if they want to.

What could there possibly be that would make the easy availability of guns worthwhile when in the last 3 years Americans have killed more Americans using legally available weapons than the entire Vietnam and Iraq wars combined?

Preserving the fundamental Human right to self defense is a worthwhile goal. Sure, some people demonstrate bad gun-related behavior. Why should my ability to own and carry the tools I need to defend myself be revoked just because other people are have made bad choices? Hell, lots of people kill each other in alcohol-related automobile crashes. Why don't we just ban alcohol and cars, too? I mean, if it saves just one life, it's worth it, and people aren't even granted the right to drive or get drunk in the Constitution so they can't even complain, really!

When people flip out and go into schoolrooms and shoot people, they do it with stuff they bought legally and easily.

Blatant falsehood. The guns used in the Columbine shooting were illegally purchased and possessed., and I'm sure there are other examples.

They could go and get more powerful illegal weapons now, but they dont. Where in the world with actual gun control policies has even a tenth the number of school shootings as the US?

What do you mean by "actual gun control policies?" The US has gun real, actual gun-control policies on the books right now. You have to pass a background check to buy one. You can't own one if you're a felon, or if you're mentally ill. Those are good ones, but many of them are terribly misguided, such as banning the carry of firearms by licensed carriers in places which are statistically proven to attract people who are intent on perpetrating mass killings (schools.)

The gun grabber argument would make more sense if mass-killings weren't a new thing, but they are. As someone else has pointed out, we may have a problem, but the problem isn't the guns.

[redmagister]

[quote="ray245"]What the hell is wrong the US and their guns?

Guns should be out of civilian hands. PERIOD.[/quote]

one question, what would that solve? most guns used in crime are purchased illegally, and all a thief has to do is knock over a cops house and chances are "hey this guys got guns! oh and a uniform now I can impersonate him!" there would be more incentive to do that kind of thing.

oh and one more thing, why not put a simple device at the entrances to schools? I call it the metal detector, I had to walk past one everyday in France and though the armed guard was a bit unnerving it was not much of an inconvenience.

[Jadeite]

So what would you say it is about gun ownership that justifies 30,000 gun deaths per year in the United States then?

Gun deaths by cause, using 2001 data: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.

Because I don't think the murder rate is that big of a deal? Essentially, I am 32% more likely to kill myself than to be murdered with a firearm. Actual probability is much lower, given that I'm white and middle class. Eleven thousand murders sounds impressive, until you take the US's enormous population into account which makes it .000036%, if I did the math right. Hell, if the US's black population got Raptured away, our firearm death rate would drop by almost 14,000 (and I bet you there's more murders than suicides in that number).

What could there possibly be that would make the easy availability of guns worthwhile when in the last 3 years Americans have killed more Americans using legally available weapons than the entire Vietnam and Iraq wars combined?

Simple, banning firearms will simply turn hundreds of thousands of Americans, if not millions, into criminals. I would certainly not hand in my collection even if it were required by law (and my state does not have a gun registry, so the police don't even know I have a collection), and I know for a fact that my position is shared by plenty of other people. You've seen how badly Prohibition went, and the War on Drugs is going; the FedGov doesn't exactly have a shining track record of prohibiting things.

Going after weapons will not solve crime. Much more problematic social issues must be tackled instead, such as the drug trade, poverty, and gang violence.

You cant say that people could just as easily get illegal firearms, because looking at other countries they dont. A large proportion of those deaths are accidental, which would be totally avoided. When people flip out and go into schoolrooms and shoot people, they do it with stuff they bought legally and easily. They could go and get more powerful illegal weapons now, but they dont. Where in the world with actual gun control policies has even a tenth the number of school shootings as the US?

You mean like Britain?

Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

Yeah, I don't exactly look at Europe as a utopia of public safety. At least here in the US, if you don't live in a ghetto, your chances of being attacked are pretty slim. The US tends to condense its crime-ridden areas into little cesspools of shit. Don't go into those, and you'll be fine.

[Glocksman]

The US tends to condense its crime-ridden areas into little cesspools of shit. Don't go into those, and you'll be fine.

True, but as the US economy craters, there'll be more and more people forced into those cesspools.
Personally I believe that the underlying causes of illegal (justifiable homicide is no crime) violence need to be addressed.
Hence my support of single payer nationalized health care and measures that'd preserve what decent paying blue collar jobs (Detroit is an excellent case study of what happens when good jobs leave) are left in the USA.

[Jadeite]

True, but as the US economy craters, there'll be more and more people forced into those cesspools.
Personally I believe that the underlying causes of illegal (justifiable homicide is no crime) violence need to be addressed.
Hence my support of single payer nationalized health care and measures that'd preserve what decent paying blue collar jobs (Detroit is an excellent case study of what happens when good jobs leave) are left in the USA.

Agreed The biggest problem creating the US crime rate is our almost utter lack of a social support network, and the terrible state of public education in most states. Inner city schools are essentially drop out factories, and that contributes to the cycle of poverty and violence by continually adding new people to it.

[[R_H]]

Illinois student killer is named (BBC)

Police have identified a gunman who killed five students when he opened fire at a university near Chicago as former student Stephen Kazmierczak.

Head of police at Northern Illinois University, Don Grady, said Kazmierczak had studied sociology there in 2007.

Chief Grady said it was not known why Kazmierczak - who was armed with three handguns and a shotgun - opened fire in a crowded lecture hall.

Another 15 people were injured before Kazmierczak shot and killed himself.


'Outstanding student'

Kazmierczak was described by the police chief as having been an "outstanding student" and he said there had been nothing to suggest he would commit such an act.

"Actually, there were no red flags. He was an outstanding student, he was an awarded student. He was someone that was revered by the faculty and staff and students alike," Chief Grady said.

"So we had no problems and we've had no indications at all that this would be the type of person that would engage in such activities," he added.

But Chief Grady did say that Kazmierczak, 27, had become erratic in recent weeks after he stopped taking some unspecified medication.

The police chief said it was still unclear how many shots had been fired, but 48 bullet casings had been found as well as six shotgun shells.

He praised the actions of the emergency services at the university, saying that police had been on the scene within minutes.

He said that the swift response had been thanks to excellent planning and teamwork


Counselling

The gunman's tearful father, Robert Kazmierczak, told reporters outside his home in Lakeland, Florida, it was a "very hard time" for him, but was too upset to say more.

The university's president, John Peters, echoed that view saying the police had rehearsed for such an eventuality.

Mr Peters said there had been an outpouring of support from around the United States and the world following the attack.

As the university tries to come to terms with killings, counsellors have been arriving from neighbouring colleges to assist in the grieving process. A candlelit vigil is planned for this evening on the campus.

It had been reported earlier that Kazmierczak had killed six students before committing suicide, but DeKalb County Coroner Rusty Miller has revised that figure, saying that five students, not six, were killed.

Mr Miller said there had been confusion about the status of a patient being treated in a different county.

The shooting comes 10 months after 32 students and staff were shot by a student at Virginia Tech University in one of the worst shootings ever at a US school.

[Nephtys]

I haven't seen a single pro-gun argument that has not sounded a lot like self interest, or a thin attempt to cover up either irrational fear, or instant anger. 'Fuck you', is not a reasonable argument. Neither is 'you can take my gun when I am dead'.

The plain, simple and incontrovertable fact is, if firearms were banned, they would be harder to get. Particularly for people with no real resources, such as disturbed teenagers. Nobody is going to wound 19 people and kill 5 with a damn knife rampage. If you dispute this, you're dillusional. A gun is the most common way large-scale murders like this shooting are committed. I'd like to seriously see reliable statistics on how many violent gun criminals are foiled by gun-wielding citizenry.

Again, self defense from the Government? The second amendment can be better interpereted as the right to form REGULATED MILITIAS, which is a lot different than a shotgun over every mantle. If each state wants their own national guard with jets and tanks, sure. So then New York can't annex Pennsylvania into the Empire State Empire. But given that this bit was written back when muskets were cutting edge military technology and a bunch of farmers could hold off the British Army, I think this is a *mite* bit dated now?

[Sidewinder]

IIRC, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the US governmental leaders wanted an army that could fight off the British Army, but didn't want to pay for all the guns such an army needed. They were hoping the average American citizen would buy guns and spare the government the expense. (See here.) BIIIIG difference compared to now.

[Glocksman]

Again, self defense from the Government? The second amendment can be better interpereted as the right to form REGULATED MILITIAS, which is a lot different than a shotgun over every mantle.

Apparently you failed English in high school and don't know what a subordinate or prefatory clause is.

The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

The operative clause (the right of the people...) isn't limited by the subordinate clause.

For more examples of amendments similarly phrased, read here

The plain, simple and incontrovertable fact is, if firearms were banned, they would be harder to get. Particularly for people with no real resources, such as disturbed teenagers. Nobody is going to wound 19 people and kill 5 with a damn knife rampage.

Unlike your misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment, this is a logical argument.
However, you overlook the number of lives saved and crimes prevented via legally owned and/or carried guns each year.
Is the tradeoff worthwhile? I think so, but I'm sure you'd probably disagree.

[Coyote]

Here's something else to consider: Shooter was OFF HIS MEDS.

The plain, simple and incontrovertable fact is, if firearms were banned, they would be harder to get.

Like marijuana, heroin, cocain...

[Jadeite]

I haven't seen a single pro-gun argument that has not sounded a lot like self interest, or a thin attempt to cover up either irrational fear, or instant anger. 'Fuck you', is not a reasonable argument. Neither is 'you can take my gun when I am dead'.

Since when does self-interest not matter? The simple fact is that gun control is not worth the trouble. Let's say that some sort of sweeping ban that manages to loophole its way around the 2nd Amendment gets passed (something like the bullshit AWB, but actually "effective"), and citizens are required to turn in their weapons.

1. Criminals aren't going to do it.
2. You've just pissed off the middle class and any politician that voted for the new law just committed political suicide.
3. You've created hundreds of thousands of new criminals because many states do not have gun registries and thus no way to enforce the new law.

Congrats, you've managed to start a new War on Drugs. To be quite frank, the "But it'll save lives!" argument doesn't really matter much to me, because at some point, policymakers must put a value on human life.

The plain, simple and incontrovertable fact is, if firearms were banned, they would be harder to get. Particularly for people with no real resources, such as disturbed teenagers. Nobody is going to wound 19 people and kill 5 with a damn knife rampage. If you dispute this, you're dillusional. A gun is the most common way large-scale murders like this shooting are committed. I'd like to seriously see reliable statistics on how many violent gun criminals are foiled by gun-wielding citizenry.

Perhaps they might just switch to bombs? After all, these people are usually suicidal anyway. They might actually manage to rack up higher kill counts.

Again, self defense from the Government? The second amendment can be better interpereted as the right to form REGULATED MILITIAS

You have a shit ton of court precedent against you on that one. Also, every male of military age in the US is already considered part of the "militia" by law.

which is a lot different than a shotgun over every mantle.

Too bad for you that's not how the courts see it, eh?

If each state wants their own national guard with jets and tanks, sure.

They already do.

So then New York can't annex Pennsylvania into the Empire State Empire. But given that this bit was written back when muskets were cutting edge military technology and a bunch of farmers could hold off the British Army, I think this is a *mite* bit dated now?

No, I don't think it's dated at all, I think it's one of the more valuable amendments because of the trust that it forces the government to have in each citizen. Only after one has committed a felony or become mentally unstable do they lose that trust, in much the same manner that our court systems operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." I also wouldn't really discount the effectiveness of muskets either, they were pretty deadly for their age, both due to projectile size and force, and the poor quality of medical care.

[Coyote]

There's also the costs: police forces, already overworked, would then be burdened with chasing after literally millions of new "criminals" who've not, actually, done anything truly wrong. The lost man-hours in police duties, the tax costs, and the added burden to the court system-- all for what amounts to truly arbitrary reasons.

There's also no proof that gun control works: states with gun control have high murder rates, and states with almost no gun control have very low numbers. Idaho is an armed camp compared to most states; the murder rate here was a "record" 16 last year (and only a few of those murders were from guns).

There are many factors in the murder rate-- availability of guns is very low on the totem pole of reasons.

[Glocksman]

There are many factors in the murder rate-- availability of guns is very low on the totem pole of reasons.

Indeed, but attacking the socioeconomic factors that primarily drive the rate would be both expensive and politically costly in terms of convincing others to support them.

Hence we have people who should know better promoting gun control as a first resort instead of the last (repealing constitutional amendments is difficult for a reason) resort after all other alternatives have failed.

[Nephtys]

Here's something else to consider: Shooter was OFF HIS MEDS.

The plain, simple and incontrovertable fact is, if firearms were banned, they would be harder to get.

Like marijuana, heroin, cocain...

Exactly. It's harder to get cocaine now from some shady alleyway, than if it was sold in well-marked cocaine stores and kept in people's houses over the mantle.

Since when does self-interest not matter? The simple fact is that gun control is not worth the trouble. Let's say that some sort of sweeping ban that manages to loophole its way around the 2nd Amendment gets passed (something like the bullshit AWB, but actually "effective"), and citizens are required to turn in their weapons.

1. Criminals aren't going to do it.
2. You've just pissed off the middle class and any politician that voted for the new law just committed political suicide.
3. You've created hundreds of thousands of new criminals because many states do not have gun registries and thus no way to enforce the new law.

Congrats, you've managed to start a new War on Drugs. To be quite frank, the "But it'll save lives!" argument doesn't really matter much to me, because at some point, policymakers must put a value on human life.

#1 is a non-issue. Of course criminals aren't going to do it. But overt muggers and criminals aren't the only ones causing problems with guns. It'll also make it MORE DIFFICULT for a potential criminal from getting a gun, as they sure as hell won't be able to buy one.

#2. Some politician's career is irrelevant to 'should or shouldn't we'.

#3. Irrelevant. Reducing guns is the goal, and that can be met. Eliminating them cannot in the near future, given how entrenched they are. It will still however, reduce access for those who wish to use guns to hurt other people. See angry teenagers again.

Perhaps they might just switch to bombs? After all, these people are usually suicidal anyway. They might actually manage to rack up higher kill counts.

If bombs were easier and better for mass-killing, why aren't they using them now? Oh wait, home made bombs are finnicky, some people don't have the knowledge to do it, and so on.

You have a shit ton of court precedent against you on that one. Also, every male of military age in the US is already considered part of the "militia" by law.

I'm not talking about precedent for that interperetation. I'm talking about the fact that it can be quite well argued that the second amendment made sense back when a rabble of citizens with muskets was effective against british or government soldiers with muskets... but nowadays, hunting rifles aren't quite the same against modern government armored cars or helicopters or whatever.