Shooting At US Uni

[gizmojumpjet]

#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.

Your agenda is showing. Shouldn't the goal be reducing violence, instead of reducing the number of guns? If you answered yes, why are you advocating grabbing guns instead of identifying effective methods to deal with the root cause of the violence?

Furthermore, it doesn't seem like you quite grasp how difficult it would be to rid the US of guns. Millions of people own many millions of guns, and if you think their hostile towards politicians who talk of assault weapons bans, imagine how hostile they'll be to politicians who actively promote making the ownership of guns illegal. People don't care much for spending their hard earned money on things only to have the gummint come and take them away.

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.

Here's a what-if for you: The populace of the USA decides to rise up against and replace the government because the government no longer represents them. What hypothetical group has the greater likelihood of success? Group A, which allowed themselves to be disarmed by the same government they're now trying to overthrow, or Group B, which still possesses millions upon millions of firearms? No, you can't kill a tank with a rifle, but you can kill the man standing next to it pumping the gas in. Without the rifle, well, you can throw bricks at him, I guess, until he shoots you with his own gun.

The point I'm trying to make is that the 2A still makes sense because 1) self defense is a fundamental human right and 2) an armed populace has a better chance of overthrowing an abusive government than an unarmed populace, even in the face of tanks and helicopters and armored cars. I get really tired of gungrabbers trotting out the tired old saw about guns are useless against tanks. It's like people haven't seen Red Dawn or something. You use your gun to shoot a man and take his RPG. THEN you kill the tank.

[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...

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.

You think it's hard to get drugs?

Reducing guns is the goal, and that can be met.

I thought reducing crime was the goal. So in actuality, what you want to see is just less guns, regardless of the legal status of who owns them.

So, after making life difficult for millions of people who've done no wrong, and adding untold amounts of police burden and taxpayer-funded beuracracy, what exactly do you want to see done about crime? You haven't necessarily addressed that issue yet.

[Coyote]

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.

In much the same way that small bands of people armed with rifles and shotguns inflicted no damage whatsoever against massed armies in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Vietnam...

[Nephtys]

Your agenda is showing. Shouldn't the goal be reducing violence, instead of reducing the number of guns? If you answered yes, why are you advocating grabbing guns instead of identifying effective methods to deal with the root cause of the violence?

Nonsense. Of course the goal of reducing guns is to reduce violence. But reducing violence by both limiting the means and the reasons behind them are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem like you quite grasp how difficult it would be to rid the US of guns. Millions of people own many millions of guns, and if you think their hostile towards politicians who talk of assault weapons bans, imagine how hostile they'll be to politicians who actively promote making the ownership of guns illegal. People don't care much for spending their hard earned money on things only to have the gummint come and take them away.

Oh, I know how hard it'd be to change the way things are. Gun Culture is a real thing for half of the country. But that doesn't affect the arguments in support of gun control.

Here's a what-if for you: The populace of the USA decides to rise up against and replace the government because the government no longer represents them. What hypothetical group has the greater likelihood of success? Group A, which allowed themselves to be disarmed by the same government they're now trying to overthrow, or Group B, which still possesses millions upon millions of firearms? No, you can't kill a tank with a rifle, but you can kill the man standing next to it pumping the gas in. Without the rifle, well, you can throw bricks at him, I guess, until he shoots you with his own gun.

The point I'm trying to make is that the 2A still makes sense because 1) self defense is a fundamental human right and 2) an armed populace has a better chance of overthrowing an abusive government than an unarmed populace, even in the face of tanks and helicopters and armored cars. I get really tired of gungrabbers trotting out the tired old saw about guns are useless against tanks. It's like people haven't seen Red Dawn or something. You use your gun to shoot a man and take his RPG. THEN you kill the tank.

This is a bit fanciful. There's two scenarios. Let's say the Government goes Fascist, and whatnot. It's resisted popularly. Scenario A: The sentiment against the Government is enough that there are extensive splits in the army, and a civil war. In such a case, it's the military rebels who are what matters in preserving government.

Scenario B: The army DOES NOT join with the rebellion, and they instead put down any possible chance of overthrowing the government. It'll be bloody, sure. But it's not exactly realistic that a bunch of self-armed militiamen are going to hold off the Army. Pretending that 'a guy with a hunting rifle is going to shoot a soldier then steal his rocket launcher to save the day' like in your argument isn't going to change the end result: One squashed rebellion.

In either case, the argument that the second amendment exists to protect 'freedom' isn't realistic. It sounds like a lot of 'taken-on-faith' self-justification for why something is what it is.

In much the same way that small bands of people armed with rifles and shotguns inflicted no damage whatsoever against massed armies in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Vietnam...

'Inflicting Damage on' soldiers and troops of foreign nations in unpopular occupations, with unstable conditions at home is not the same as overthrowing a tyranical government in your own civil war.

[Glocksman]

Civil War II aside, the fact remains that firearm ownership is an enumerated right in both the Federal Constitution and in many state ones.
If you want to overturn that right, then do it *honestly* by repealing the Federal 2A and/or its state level equivalents rather than by the patently dishonest tactic of 'reinterpreting' the 2A to fit a preconceived view.

Frankly, if you have to use 40,000 words to explain why 'people' when used in the 2nd isn't the same as 'people' when used in all other amendments, then you're wrong.

The Constitution was written to be the bedrock law that all other laws must conform with, not shifting sands that allow change at a whim.

[Darth Wong]

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.

In much the same way that small bands of people armed with rifles and shotguns inflicted no damage whatsoever against massed armies in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Vietnam...

Do you truly, honestly believe that these are valid analogies to a domestic rebellion, or did you just post that for rhetorical effect?

[Darth Wong]

As for the gun control issue, I'm curious: has anyone on either side of this debate ever tried correlating actual rates of gun ownership to gun violence? Most of the studies I've seen have to do with the passage of revocation of gun-control laws, but let's think logically about this: if a gun control law is passed and crime rates immediately shoot up, somebody is obviously either doctoring the numbers or missing some really important factor which is causing the change, because the effect of a new gun control law on the actual prevalence of firearms will not be that dramatic or instantaneous. Millions of people won't suddenly throw away their guns overnight just because a new gun control law passed. The level of trafficking in guns will not abruptly plummet.

In any case, I don't know why people keep asking what's wrong with our society, when murder rates have been dropping for the last 30 years. If one really wanted to prevent incidents like this in future, he would probably recommend free psychiatric counseling to troubled high school kids, but that would cost a lot of money, whereas ranting about guns or "media violence" or a loss of faith in God costs nothing.

[Beowulf]

Usually when a gun ban measure takes effect, the government sponsors "gun buy back" programs, which result in guns being taken off the street, sometimes after being stolen, used in a crime, and then sold to the government, at which point it gets destroyed.

Most studies which attempt to find a correlation between gun ownership and murder rate between different countries eventually find none. There are countries with high rates and high gun ownership, and countries with high rates and low ownership, and the inverse as well.

Ranting about guns causing violence is about as productive and true as ranting about video games causing violence.

[Broomstick]

#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.

The hell they won't - they'll just buy them from an illegal black market type dealer. Or they'll steal them, but probably just be able to buy them.

#3. Irrelevant. Reducing guns is the goal, and that can be met. Eliminating them cannot in the near future, given how entrenched they are.

There is almost one gun for every person in the US right now. Most of those are not on any sort of registry. How the hell do you intend to find all of those guns?

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.

The problem is that the college-level school shooters have been intelligent enough to build bombs if they wanted to do so. Some of the high school shooters, too. Hell, 30 years ago in my high school we had some kids build a pipe bomb and blow up an outbuilding on the school grounds (no one hurt that time). If people intent on mass mayhem can't get guns why wouldn't they switch to bombs?

For that matter, McVeigh could have easily purchased guns but he chose to blow up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City with truck bomb.

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.

Actually, if you know what to aim for, a hunting rifle might work pretty good against a helicopter... however, it still remains that the 2nd amendment is every bit as much a part of the constitution as any other amendment and good luck repealing it. It's not impossible, but it's damn difficult (as intended).

[Adrian Laguna]

In any case, I don't know why people keep asking what's wrong with our society, when murder rates have been dropping for the last 30 years.

Not in the United States. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has the following to say:

# The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.

# In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.

# It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.

# From 1992 to 2000, the rate declined sharply. Since then, the rate has been stable.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is something of a minor nitpick, though. It's been 17 years since 1991, and that's a fairly long time.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is something of a minor nitpick, though. It's been 17 years since 1991, and that's a fairly long time.

I'd like an overlay of that graph with periods of recession, a line for median income of the lowest two quintiles, and another line for Drug War spending.

I'll bet the peaks of the crime rate line up with recessions, WoD spending peaks, and income dips.

Oh, and there's a douchebag off the port bow now, too.

[Coyote]

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.

In much the same way that small bands of people armed with rifles and shotguns inflicted no damage whatsoever against massed armies in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Vietnam...

Do you truly, honestly believe that these are valid analogies to a domestic rebellion, or did you just post that for rhetorical effect?

It's not an analogy to domestic rebellion, but a statement about the effectiveness of bands of motivated people with personal small arms being able to inflict damage on modern armies. Rifle-toting "peasants" would not be able to truly defeat a modern army in a decisive battlefield conflict, but in today's guerrilla war, you don't have to.

If the goals is political change, you don't have to storm the White House and put a new guy in charge-- you just have to make the political costs so high that the guy either resigns or is driven out by his own people. The Vietnamese naver made it to Washington, DC but they got what they wanted anyway; the Afghanis never got close to Moscow, but they got what they wanted...

[Darth Wong]

It's not an analogy to domestic rebellion, but a statement about the effectiveness of bands of motivated people with personal small arms being able to inflict damage on modern armies. Rifle-toting "peasants" would not be able to truly defeat a modern army in a decisive battlefield conflict, but in today's guerrilla war, you don't have to.

If the goals is political change, you don't have to storm the White House and put a new guy in charge-- you just have to make the political costs so high that the guy either resigns or is driven out by his own people. The Vietnamese naver made it to Washington, DC but they got what they wanted anyway; the Afghanis never got close to Moscow, but they got what they wanted...

Convincing an occupier to leave a foreign land is not even remotely analogous to convincing an occupier to leave his own country. These examples are NOT remotely applicable.

Want an example of guerillas trying to convince people to leave their own country? Try Israel. And remember that this wouldn't be just the Big Evil Government against the entire populace; there would be plenty of people on the fascist government's side (frankly, they'd probably be the gun-toters anyway).

[Broomstick]

At the time the 2nd amendment was written the US was a small, weak country with a lot of other entities around it (French and British holdings, hostile natives, etc.). Allowing the populace to bear arms allowed them to defend themselves against these threats and against invasion without the need to post official soldiers everywhere. Also, on the frontier hunting was an important source of food.

There were a number of reasons that allowing citizens to bear arms in the early days of the nation made sense. Does it still make sense? That's the question, isn't it? (Well, one of them, anyway) If it doesn't, then instead of piecemeal laws the Constitution should be amended - although this is not an easy process. Otherwise - a solution needs to developed that allows responsible people to possess firearms, while preventing them from falling into the wrong hands and perhaps banning weapons that there is no justifications for civilians to own. Although it is tempting to look for a one-size-fits-all solution the fact is that in some state - such as Alaska - the hunting and self defense (from dangerous wild animals) reasons still exist. What makes sense for New York City may not fit a cattle ranch in Montana and vice versa.

Meanwhile - the other problem still stands. Guns are not the sole means of causing death. I would not want to see guns replaced by another weapon and the killing continue. What the hell happened in society that this sort of thing is becoming more common? It is not a mere matter of access to weapons - Americans have had such access for centuries.

[Darth Wong]

Meanwhile - the other problem still stands. Guns are not the sole means of causing death. I would not want to see guns replaced by another weapon and the killing continue. What the hell happened in society that this sort of thing is becoming more common? It is not a mere matter of access to weapons - Americans have had such access for centuries.

The problem is that any solution to those social problems is not more palatable to American right-wing politics than gun control.

[Broomstick]

Right - actual stigma-free mental health care and a decent social safety net is more evil than mass death to the right-wing wackos. Yeah, I know.

[Darth Wong]

This attitude flows from their black/white view of morality. As they see it, you do not judge actions; you judge people. This is why God is good when he slaughters every man, woman and child on Earth except for one family, but Saddam Hussein is evil when he gasses Kurds. And Japanese officers are evil when they use waterboarding on American POWs in WW2, but American interrogators are good when they do the exact same thing at Guantanamo. Rather than judge actions, they judge the person.

Where this comes into play with social justice in the US is that the idea of spending money to improve crime-ridden areas strikes right-wingers as helping evil people, and they won't stand for it. To them, it's all about judgment; nobody deserves help until they show that they are morally righteous, and the kind of areas which most need help have not yet demonstrated that they deserve it.

That's why their response to any crime problem is always "More harsh punishment! More pain! More degradation!" It's also why they always accuse liberals of being "soft on crime" or "soft on terror". They can't conceive of any solution which does not involve hurting the bad people, because they care more about fighting some mythical battle between good and evil than about solving real social problems in such a way that fewer people suffer. For them, a "tough" solution will always be better than an effective one.

[Adrian Laguna]

What the hell happened in society that this sort of thing is becoming more common? It is not a mere matter of access to weapons - Americans have had such access for centuries.

What? The homicide rate has been stable for eight years, and had been dramatically declining for the eight years before that. Did you not see my post earlier? Though you are kind of right in a way. I'm pretty sure there is more gun control now than in the 50s, but the homicide rate was lower then.

[Broomstick]

My point was not the number people murdered but the method - school shootings of this nature do seem to becoming more common and the death counts appear to be rising. Well, first, one needs to do some research to make sure that's an actual trend and not a media induced perception. But if that is the case that is worrisome - again, what good does it to to trade forn of homicide for another?

[His Divine Shadow]

How about a media induced trend?

[Jadeite]

I should add that I believe gun control to actually work against social equality. Gun laws are inevitably targetted at the working class, and tend to target the middle class by their nature. For instance, the automatic weapons ban. Despite the fact that very few murders in the US were ever committed with an automatic weapon, they were 'banned'. Of course, they weren't actually banned, just so heavily regulated that only the wealthy can afford them ($20,000 for a license, IIRC). Gun control laws remove the ability to personally protect oneself, and remove consumer choice, while still ensuring that the wealthy can protect themselves. San Francisco's sheriff's department for example, only issues about ten CCW permits a year, IIRC, and they always go to VIPs and personal friends of the sheriff.

[Davey]

That may be sensible, though it's pretty pathetic that the US is the only country on earth where this is even remotely necessary. But I can't see most university faculties going along with it. They'd be massive protests, strikes, walkouts etc.

What about in Israel? I've heard they're trying to arm teachers over there to discourage terrorists.

[Executor32]

And here comes the inevitable: Jack Thompson's decided to rear his ugly head again. What a massive surprise.

[K. A. Pital]

I once wrote the following about gun murders:

Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

This has more subtle and longer effects. The arms in legal circulation are the primary source of illegal arms (for US - 70% stolen guns are US guns, most other legal foreign guns and only a small percentage comes overborder as already illegal guns), which are stolen from owners (in the US, for example):

Reducing the amount of guns to steal, the rise in the illegal arms trade will stop and then decline, until, if that is to happen, one day all arms are out of circulation, and then the illegal gun market will be in severe shortage. In an relatively uncorrupt government, where you cannot steal guns from cops and army, this will lead to a decline in arms stolen.

So of course, there will not be immediate effect. People are so god damn short-sighted.

Essentially the deal is: overall arms circulation => illegal arms circulation. However, measures will not take immediate effect:
1) needs to have the illegal gun volumes to decline via wear and deterioration
2) needs to have overborder illegal gun traffic to be controlled, so that there's no replacement of the deteriorating illegal gun park, or at least so that this relacement rate is lower than the gun deterioration rate.

In a nutshell, yes, gun bans work, but only if people understand what they are doing, why, what are the consequences and how long it would take for them to manifest.

If people are idiots who expect an immediate and drastic homicide reduction, they're not going to see it.

[ray245]

I want to ask the pro-gun people...what is the benefit of owning a gun anyway?