• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Admiral

solid state survivor
Also, the media has been wildly irresponsibile in their coverage of these shootings, probably contributing to the amount of copycat attacks happening. But I don't see Congress investigating that, or talking about regulating news coverage.

They probably wouldn't be able to get away with it, not for long.

Actually you will find some of those calling on the movie and game industry right now to be some of the staunchest Liberals. Hell even Chris Dodd, the former corrupt Congressman and now head of the MPAA is saying the Movie Industry is willing to talk about how to censor violence in movies.

Chris Dodd is dead weight and I think considering him a liberal is an embarrassment to that side of the political spectrum (keep in mind that this is a guy who considered the protests of the massively-overreaching Stop Online Piracy and Protect Intellectual Property Acts an "abuse of power"), and the same with anyone who calls out the film, video games and music industries. They are social conservatives in disguise. If video games, film or music had ANY contribution whatsoever, that's evidence of a much deeper problem with the person's psyche and not the piece of media, as many other stimuli could have triggered the "outburst." It is still an attempt to avoid discussing the real issues and pin the blame somewhere where it doesn't belong, and ultimately to win them brownie points with other social conservatives and gain re-election.
 

Chapter

hello, im back sorta
Guns should be illegal. When the 2nd amendment was made, it was for militias and what not. Not for things like modern times. If everyone had a knidfe to have, then instead of 20 people dead at a shooting, there would be 2, and 3 people with an injury. I mean, if guns were recalled, that would be a miracle! They should only be found at military bases and... what not.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Guns should be illegal. When the 2nd amendment was made, it was for militias and what not. Not for things like modern times.

The authors of the Constitution and that Amendment saw militias as basically the people as a whole, not a single group of people.

If everyone had a knidfe to have, then instead of 20 people dead at a shooting, there would be 2, and 3 people with an injury. I mean, if guns were recalled, that would be a miracle! They should only be found at military bases and... what not.

Really? Tell that to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman
 

BurningWhiteKyurem

Well-Known Member
And yet warzone like attacks happen in our school, as such we should take similar precautions to prevent them

That's taking a backwards approach to be honest. They're not even looking at (let alone exploring/researching) the root cause of the reason as to why people commit school shootings. Giving a teacher a weapon is simply a way to continue the cycle of violence...So now you have a cycle where you beget violence by fighting violence using violent draconian means. And people wonder why crime rates are (still) disproportionate in a country like the United States, where the culture promotes individuality and implicitly allows you to take the law into your own hands by taking away someone's life.

Take a look at the three cases of shootings/crimes that has happened:
http://i.imgur.com/TqXhG.jpg
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/another-4chan-user-gets-busted-fbi
http://i.imgur.com/HKeEr.png

If we really focused on crime prevention, we would be exploring such questions elicited from these three URLs as: 1) Why is there a need to be immortalized demonstrated by two of the criminals? 2) Why are people resorting to mass-killing in schools (this is a question that has never fully been answered even after Columbine). Blaming Video Games for the person's rampage is like blaming Twinkies for causing cholesterol when it is ultimately the person who decided to eat said Twinkies that put himself/herself in that situation. All it really does is reveal the frail human psyche that distorts the message given by these video games. At some point we need to look at what made it possible for a human to do something like this...then again, whenever the topic of mental illnesses arise, it's a very slippery slope to walk on.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Why is it school in particular these shootings happen at? Because school sucks. It's the only place kids are legally required to spend most of their time guided by other kids who aren't generally good models of maturity, learning meaningless trends about how to act and what to like, taking up time with distractions, and in the worse case getting bullied by other kids, while they learn mostly obscure information they won't use in their adulthood. And the only experienced adults around who can pass on wisdom, have to do it with each kid getting 0.1% of their attention because there are so many kids to handle at once.

If a child has a mental problem where they feel out of touch or angry, and they don't feel like anyone is helping them, school is probably the worst place for them. Any teacher telling them to do anything is just going to make them angrier, because if you felt ignored and abused, would you quietly do what you're told?

Besides looking at media coverage (with the internet nowadays, I don't think any news outlet needs more than two hours of television airtime to focus on a shooting) I think Congress should look into reforming the school system.
 

ccangelopearl1362

Well-Known Member
Hmm… One week after that grisly rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School, virtually every side of the American political spectrum is, perhaps in the interest of putting it as mildly as I can, supercharged. Perhaps there was a special point behind Congress’ relative silence, as opposed to clamor from the voting public, including political activists, I might think. One would imagine that other countries have expressed their condolences and concerns about this massacre, which could warrant a closer look at their separate contexts.:

Foreign Policy: Joshua Keating: Armed, but Not Necessarily Dangerous
Atlantic: Conor Friedersdorf: The U.S. Already Had a Conversation about Guns – and the Pro Side Won

The differences between the countries in question are striking to behold, which could say something broader. Yemen and Saudi Arabia’s legal systems are typically geared toward acceptance of public gun displays, most often during public celebrations. While Kalashnikov rifles can vary in prices depending on their quality in the first country, bigger weaponry will depend on proper connections. The tribal violence destabilizing Yemen probably doesn’t help perceptions. On the other hand, gun shops are allowed for “anyone with cash and a clean criminal record” in Saudi Arabia, which one might imagine the House of Saud would approve for its own reasons. In Europe, the Swiss have provisions for military training and marksmanship, as well as surpluses in case new models are more available. Serbia has background checks and safety training guidelines, making AK-47s sold throughout the black market in that country the biggest problem for them, with somewhere around 900,000 unregistered weapons… as of January 2011. For America’s part, it would appear that this discussion has already been going across the airwaves for the last two decades, if not longer, and if there’s anything the National Rifle Association may have underestimated, I’d turn my focus to the mindsets of the people responsible for the gun-related incidents in question. Millions of Americans own some type of gun themselves, and if Gallup is any indication, that number could increase as time goes on.:

[IMG139]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n-k9vdg170sylv4thxvfsw.gif[/IMG139]
Gallup: Lydia Saad: Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

I won’t blame anyone for expecting higher percentages among Republicans, given the widespread view I’m picking up that it’s the NRA and the NRA alone that’s supposedly drumming up alarm about violence throughout this country. Maybe women and Democrats have arguments favoring increased gun availability that differ in nature from Republican support, such that Gallup concluded that a societal change in attitudes regarding gun ownership has been unfolding. If Republicans have the principle of an armed citizenry capable of fighting off, say, domestic mobs or foreign invaders – military or corporate – then Democrats could come up with a principle that more marginalized elements of this country’s population would need some way of defending their cultural identities against various officials actively targeting them, with the effect of locking them out. As tensions gradually escalate, it might be Hollywood that starts reflecting the collective mood, so to speak, in the minds and souls of many out there, such that we could be thinking in reverse about their ability to impact our sort of intellectual environment when it’s the intellectual environment that’s impacting their media output.:

[IMG139]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-with-trendline2.jpg[/IMG139]
Washington Post WorldViews: Max Fisher: Ten-country comparisons suggests there’s little or no link between video games and gun murders
Hill Hillicon Valley: Jennifer Martinez: Video game lobby breaks silence after Newtown shooting

Unluckily for the United States, we have a rate over three murders related to guns per 100,000 overall. The Netherlands spends much more on video games than China, with Australia, Canada, France, and Japan among the countries relatively sandwiched between both extremes represented. For whatever this is worth, the Entertainment Software Association, likely the first time I’ve learned of this group’s existence, made a similar point yesterday, making attention elsewhere more worthwhile.:

Asia Times Online: David Goldman: Terror and school shootings sides of same coin

As a matter of personal disclosure, Beslan was one of the first words to flash through my mind during the afternoon last Friday, and above anything else, both massacres have in common a toxic combination of death and destruction born from despair against life, modernity, or even both. Whether it’s an entire civilization or one single person, there is a growing constituency actively promoting and practicing purification through bloodshed and terror, ultimately making maneuvers randomly outlawing every sidearm or automatic rifle ever designed – by either President Barack Obama or House Speaker John Boehner – just about meaningless. To put it in a different way, the murderous impulses driving Adam Lanza remain as painfully evident as they were in, say, Anders Breivik or Ruslan Khuchbarov on a smaller scale… or Bashar Assad on a larger, more countrywide scale. Consequently, a society that actively promotes loyalty, generosity, honesty, laughter, kindness, and friendship would be our most viable course to pursue, and we could work from there toward a legal framework designed to streamline the availability of such weapons, which could bolster my instincts during the fiasco involving George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin earlier this year.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
That's taking a backwards approach to be honest. They're not even looking at (let alone exploring/researching) the root cause of the reason as to why people commit school shootings. Giving a teacher a weapon is simply a way to continue the cycle of violence...So now you have a cycle where you beget violence by fighting violence using violent draconian means. And people wonder why crime rates are (still) disproportionate in a country like the United States, where the culture promotes individuality and implicitly allows you to take the law into your own hands by taking away someone's life.

I have to disagree with you, it does not continue the cycle of violence IT STOPS IT. Schools are notoriously soft targets you have hundreds if not a few thousand people packed into a small building, in which you can inflict mass casualties and where the nearest armed police man is minutes away. That allows for mass slaughter and that is what these people want. Allowing teachers to have guns is to take away that advantage, those looking to slaughter innocent lives will suddenly find that shooting up a school is not the most efficient way.

Now I do agree we should look into what makes people crack and work to fix it, but at the same time we should not continue to leave our schools soft targets for crazy people.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
I will tell from personal experience that I have tried target pratice with a gun in a closed setting. They weren't lethal, but I will tell you that they are not easy to control, at least for me. Therefore, I stand to reason that video games are not "murder simulators" like people claim they are.

I would also like to point out that in the clause of "the right to bear arms", there are a lot of weapons that can qualify as an arm. Whether it is a sniper rifle that can kill someone 200 km away, or a rapid fire machine gun that can fire 100 rounds, there are weapons that I do not think should be in a commoner's hand. I don't believe that every single type of gun needs to be banned, but I do believe in controlling high grade military grade weapons.

Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Dollars and guns are no substitutes for brains and will power”. Though I am taking it out of the context of the situation, this is my stance with the type of security are schools should have. We need to have trained cops in times of security measure and more safety precautions. When I saw a cop speak at this one talk, he spoke about many of the weapons he has at his disposal. Some were not lethal, but others are lethal albeit with limited use of the weapon of topic. However, a well trained officer would be able to properly use whatever force is in his disposal. He may not be able to defend himself from deadlier weapons, but like I said, those weapons are ridiculously too powerful in the public's hands.
 

BurningWhiteKyurem

Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with you, it does not continue the cycle of violence IT STOPS IT. Schools are notoriously soft targets you have hundreds if not a few thousand people packed into a small building, in which you can inflict mass casualties and where the nearest armed police man is minutes away. That allows for mass slaughter and that is what these people want. Allowing teachers to have guns is to take away that advantage, those looking to slaughter innocent lives will suddenly find that shooting up a school is not the most efficient way.

Now I do agree we should look into what makes people crack and work to fix it, but at the same time we should not continue to leave our schools soft targets for crazy people.

I don't know if it actually stops the crime from happening at all, in fact I'm leaning towards saying no for the following reasons:

1) To bring up comparable situations, U.S.A. is one of the few countries that allow that a citizen to utilize a weapon in order to ascertain their self-defense. In theory this should deter the criminal from committing a crime because the fact that their life is at stake inherently makes the crime more costly to commit rather than easier. In that case, if the fact that the citizens have a right to bear arms doesn't even deter criminals from committing crimes (after all when we see a person with a gun, we are naturally afraid for our life. That's the power it provides), then who's to say that the criminals won't be afraid of armed guards in a larger scale situation such as school shootings?

2) That brings me to my next point. Apparently, Columbine High School did in fact utilize the NRA's policy recommendation (prior to the Columbine Shooting) and hired law enforcement to secure the school. Then again, having armed officials on site didn't exactly work to prevent the Columbine massacre from occurring. All this suggests is a reactionary policy that waits for a crime to happen in order to be "effective" (if I may even use that term anyway since it appears contradictory). In fact, the Officer himself said that:

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.

After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

LaPierre said having armed security on the scene is necessary so someone is there to shoot back. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away -- or a minute away?"

But in chaotic situations, it's often impossible to identify the "bad guy," as Smoker said in his account of Columbine: "There was an unknown inside a school. We didn't know who the 'bad guy' was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who 'they' were."

"That's the point," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a press conference on Friday afternoon, denouncing LaPierre's solution. "There were two armed law enforcement officers at that campus, and you see what happened. Fifteen dead ... 23 wounded."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

So all you're really doing is attempting to match the manpower that the perpetrator has, there is no semblance of crime prevention that seeks to save lives or prevent the crime from escalating into insane acts. That's why I say it's violence begetting violence through the use of very draconian means.

Now I agree with your statement that something needs to be done, but I would look at it more from excluding unwanted people from entering the school. For instance, my school has a system where the Office is in complete control over who comes in and who comes out thanks to the locked door policy. In this way, they are able to exclude suspicious non-parental figures from entering their school. Now no policy is perfect, but I would rather prevent the crime by weeding out the unwanted and reporting them to police rather than take my chances on an armed guard that according to Columbine, may not even guarantee safety.
 
Last edited:

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with you, it does not continue the cycle of violence IT STOPS IT. Schools are notoriously soft targets you have hundreds if not a few thousand people packed into a small building, in which you can inflict mass casualties and where the nearest armed police man is minutes away. That allows for mass slaughter and that is what these people want. Allowing teachers to have guns is to take away that advantage, those looking to slaughter innocent lives will suddenly find that shooting up a school is not the most efficient way.

Now I do agree we should look into what makes people crack and work to fix it, but at the same time we should not continue to leave our schools soft targets for crazy people.

So people are just not going to attack a school because there is a cop there? People don't attack the schools for no reason. They often have a connection with it. And besides, how do you people fight fire in america? With more fire? (Don't be a smart *** and say something about forest fires) Because that is what you do.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
I don't know if it actually stops the crime from happening at all, in fact I'm leaning towards saying no for the following reasons:

1) To bring up comparable situations, U.S.A. is one of the few countries that allow that a citizen to utilize a weapon in order to ascertain their self-defense. In theory this should deter the criminal from committing a crime because the fact that their life is at stake inherently makes the crime more costly to commit rather than easier. In that case, if the fact that the citizens have a right to bear arms doesn't even deter criminals from committing crimes (after all when we see a person with a gun, we are naturally afraid for our life. That's the power it provides), then who's to say that the criminals won't be afraid of armed guards in a larger scale situation such as school shootings?

It is a gamble for criminals no doubt, but if they had a choice of say robbing a home that they knew the owners were armed, vs ones in which they knew the owners were not armed, which one do you think they would choose?

2) That brings me to my next point. Apparently, Columbine High School did in fact utilize the NRA's policy recommendation (prior to the Columbine Shooting) and hired law enforcement to secure the school. Then again, having armed officials on site didn't exactly work to prevent the Columbine massacre from occurring. All this suggests is a reactionary policy that waits for a crime to happen in order to be "effective" (if I may even use that term anyway since it appears contradictory). In fact, the Officer himself said that:

Both of those are officers who were OUTSIDE the school, no where does it say those officers were posted inside the school to prevent such a tragedy. The first one that shot, decided to call for backup instead of pursing the offender into the school.

So all you're really doing is attempting to match the manpower that the perpetrator has, there is no semblance of crime prevention that seeks to save lives or prevent the crime from escalating into insane acts. That's why I say it's violence begetting violence through the use of very draconian means.

Saying Violence Begts Violence in this situation is to assert that the shooter is going to commit the crime for the mere fact there is a armed policeman or cop involved.

Now I agree with your statement that something needs to be done, but I would look at it more from excluding unwanted people from entering the school. For instance, my school has a system where the Office is in complete control over who comes in and who comes out thanks to the locked door policy. In this way, they are able to exclude suspicious non-parental figures from entering their school. Now no policy is perfect, but I would rather prevent the crime by weeding out the unwanted and reporting them to police rather than take my chances on an armed guard that according to Columbine, may not even guarantee safety.

You realize that system was in place during the latest massacre and that did not stop the shooter

7 tyranitars said:
So people are just not going to attack a school because there is a cop there? People don't attack the schools for no reason. They often have a connection with it. And besides, how do you people fight fire in america? With more fire? (Don't be a smart *** and say something about forest fires) Because that is what you do.

There is a difference between fighting fire, and smart protection. Should we disarm all police officers because that way we are not fighting fire with fire?
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between fighting fire, and smart protection. Should we disarm all police officers because that way we are not fighting fire with fire?

I don't call not disarming civilians smart protection.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I don't call not disarming civilians smart protection.

For those living out in the country in which they have to deal with the very real threat of wild animals. Or those living in the inner city where they have to worry about some one breaking down the door and robbing or raping them. Disarming civilians is NOT smart protection.
 

Akiyama

Awake me if Ash wins
. . . . . .
I disagree that the moves of government to limit gun ownership of their people can be justified. The worst school killing in America was a bomb in 1927. Even then, so many more would have died if the rest of the bombs went off. Given how smart I heard Adam was (a techno nerd, rumor says), he could have done a truck bomb, he could have run over kids as they walked home before exploding as well. But there's also arson. . .

Besides, a government disarming its population or banning possession of firearms is an act of aggression. It invades property and forces people to comply or be killed or arrested. Whereas, my use of assault rifles to stop a bad guy entering my home (or killing others) does not invade people's property (unless I miss and hit someone unintended, then I would be in trouble).

Why do I disregard the charts, the tables of crime data by nation, the gun crime rate in each nation? Because they mean nothing to me.

Why? Because the suburbs I live in have guns next door, the door two doors over, and spread out everywhere. I remember only one murder in my years (19 of them) in this area, a murder-suicide by some loser that killed his wife and kids. The only thing concerning me here is the formation of gangs, that might change things for the worse here, but the guns have always been here.

Then, because some shooter kills kids on the other side of the USA, people want to disarm me, my neighbors, and family? It's theft, it's banned by one of the Ten Commandments. Here is what you're supporting if you dare to call for gun bans and confiscation: theft. I mean, you wouldn't attempt to disarm your neighbor, why do it with the assistance of the police and the army?

For those living out in the country in which they have to deal with the very real threat of wild animals. Or those living in the inner city where they have to worry about some one breaking down the door and robbing or raping them. Disarming civilians is NOT smart protection.

Well yeah, gun free zones are victim disarmament areas.

So people are just not going to attack a school because there is a cop there? People don't attack the schools for no reason. They often have a connection with it. And besides, how do you people fight fire in america? With more fire? (Don't be a smart *** and say something about forest fires) Because that is what you do.

My university has its own armed police force. It works by making bad guys value an easier target higher over a hard target (making it harder to do crimes in the first place where the security is). For the schools, I do encourage them to allow teachers to conceal carry. That is, if the school board allows it. I don't like how the NRA suggested all schools use guards for security, they could have suggested schools consider both methods and use either or both.

But I don't prefer to kill bad guys more often, so I would like to know why these killings occur. Drugs? Does the help offered by these meds make people worse? I heard that already, so I'll throw another out:

Adam Lanza had talked about joining the Marines since he was seventeen. Jacob Roberts, who shot up a mall in Oregon, likewise wanted to join the Marines. Too bad for them that they never did. They would not have had to kill themselves after killing civilians. They could have done so in Iraq or Afghanistan while wearing a Marine uniform and be lauded as heroes defending our freedoms by fighting terrorists "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here."
by Mr. Vance at http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/129109.html

It's a correlation. Perhaps it does suggest that they valued the lives of the people over there as dirt. Did they also value their community as dirt once they felt rejected or isolated? Did they then, since they felt okay to kill those valued as dirt, go shoot up places filled with dirt? I don't know for sure if that's it, but they must have felt okay for some reason to kill a lot of people. But, I can be a bother by throwing out more:

“Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.”
– Murray Rothbard
1.10 Taoism in Ancient China

I do wonder if this cause would be unseen in the killer's mind if I asked him what drove him to kill. Maybe if I directly asked him . . . but I suppose this cause plays its role by making him feel better about killing masses. After all, if he played games like Modern Warfare, I bet he did so because that's his thinking: Killing enemies endlessly is fine. Would he boo at the mention of using the Golden Rule with other nations? What is his thinking, why is he thinking that way?

Guns should be illegal. When the 2nd amendment was made, it was for militias and what not. Not for things like modern times. If everyone had a knidfe to have, then instead of 20 people dead at a shooting, there would be 2, and 3 people with an injury. I mean, if guns were recalled, that would be a miracle! They should only be found at military bases and... what not.

I'll go get my 3-D printer. Besides that, cops can be thugs, and so can people in the army. Now you may laugh at that, but the police are corrupt in Mexico, so you're better off going to help your wife with a bodyguard if she's being stalked by a group of men. (Plus I wouldn't be surprised if some of the upper class illegally carried guns.) Stalin was a crazy guy, killed millions with his army and police you know, same with Hitler.

Really, I'm not putting trust into the state for defense. In addition to that, you'll likely have no problem killing me if I refuse to hand over guns?

Edit: *Just wanted to add that I meant personal protection against other humans. I know there has been mention of protection against animals and as someone who lives in a rural area, I get that. However, I don't see why you couldn't just use a hunting rifle for that.
I don't see why people need those fast cars that zoom down city streets either. V-8 engines? It's a monster! And those cars costing over $30,000? Stupid! Everyone needs only a Honda Civic. But you know what? Whatever my opinion, why should I stop people from owning these dangerously fast cars? So why should I take assault rifles away from good people? I mean, there is a value the owners attach to this rifle just as is attached to a great car.

So no, I don't approve of seeing goods taken off market because they are "unneeded." That makes life less fun by doing that. I have wants, people have wants. You may not understand the desire for an assault rifle just as I don't understand the want for a fast car, but I am not going to have the government ban fast cars.


Oh, and there's talk about the NRA's police thing. To be honest, that could backfire for schools. I mean, secure it might be, but I expect drug raids and dominance to flow into the schools. They're police, and they're going to protect but do their other jobs anyway. Such a great way to make kids submit and be afraid of police (the state) though...

Some in my area do not respect the lack of crime and the amount of guns present and likely are calling for gun control. Some may feel the NRA's policy is best for all school as well. But I am bored of hearing the suggestion for top-down methods to fix things. I would prefer that the schools do what they see is best for student safety.

Though really, I would like to see the end of required schooling in America (end of public schools too), but that's another debate, another day. So have fun with my ideas, it's a start.
 
Last edited:

ccangelopearl1362

Well-Known Member
New York Times: Gaps in F.B.I. Data Undercut Background Checks for Guns

Talk about limitations. One might think that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would want to get up to speed on safeguarding any gun stockpiles it has against criminal activity, but it seems that its database has a few holes. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maryland have yet to provide “comprehensive records” of prohibited buyers, such as people who’ve been involuntarily committed, tested positive for various banned drugs, or demonstrated a history of domestic violence. There was a Supreme Court ruling 15 years ago preventing federal officials from forcing state officials to participate in this background check system, and Virginia stepped up its participation after the Virginia Tech massacre. There’s a waiting period of three days after which certain businesses disregard purchases if the FBI can’t complete the background check, and all this is just a look at preventing criminal access to guns. Judging from a recent analysis of gun sales, millions of individual customers could already be thinking far ahead of both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign.:

Reuters: Mass shootings tend to lift gun sales, data shows

Reuters contacted several gun shops throughout America, and at least one in New Hampshire reported an almost continuous stream of calls asking about… the AR-15. While difficulties exist in tracking actual gun sales, background checks might not even need to result in such results, making them useful clues. The checks in the weeks after 15 mass shootings since 1999 – in which “at least five people were killed” and “the event received sustained media attention over a period of days” – rose by an average of 19% over checks during other months, holding even after 2006. University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld assessed that more people are concerned about rising violence across American society, and one couple explicitly cited the Newtown rampage as their main reason for deciding to buy a gun now rather than in the future. Walmart reported a 76% increase in gun revenue and a 30% increase in ammunition revenue during the first half of its fiscal year, while Smith and Wesson reported doubled value in its shares before Newtown. If numbers reflect cultural trends, whether in one direction or another, then the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School may be only the beginning.:

American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord: Abortion and Newtown: The Culture of Violence

The starting quote, from one Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra, sounds reflective enough: “We live now in a culture that not only does not respect life, but discards it like trash”. From 1863 until 1972, there were 36 rampages not related to school, which jumped to 54 in total in 1973. Whereas the Brady Campaign and other similarly-minded groups have focused on the National Rifle Association’s presence in Congress, more and more Americans are suspicious of… Planned Parenthood. John Paul II stated his worry that societal trends would push us toward increased difficulty in determining good from evil regarding “the basic value of human life”, but judging from the trends I’ve tracked, even that assessment was too optimistic. There are multiple fields at work here, but the principle(s) could remain the same.
 

BurningWhiteKyurem

Well-Known Member
It is a gamble for criminals no doubt, but if they had a choice of say robbing a home that they knew the owners were armed, vs ones in which they knew the owners were not armed, which one do you think they would choose?

That's a weird and simplistic question to ask, because on one hand the obvious answer is that 10/10 times the criminal will go after the unarmed civilian. But we'd be fooling ourselves if we think that criminals only go after people without weapons. There are of course other criminals who target armed civilians even if the cost is high, because they perceive that the goal is worth the high cost. What a criminal believes as "costly vs. beneficial" is arbitrary no matter how sensible our assumptions and predictions may be. That is why it is more complicated than we think.

Both of those are officers who were OUTSIDE the school, no where does it say those officers were posted inside the school to prevent such a tragedy. The first one that shot, decided to call for backup instead of pursing the offender into the school.

From a couple of anecdotes and logs, it happened at lunchtime when the cops had been in a patrol car eating lunch. Otherwise, they were in fact working inside the school. Additionally, they were also exchanging shots. At that point the officer was essentially attempting to neutralize the threat (the only problem is that he was outgunned, by 2 teenagers wielding assault rifles). Therefore, it would be quite baffling on the officer’s behalf to chase the gunmen into the school instead of calling back-up. Clearly he was overpowered, what chance would he have against two assault rifles with the users who had no regard for human life? That is fighting a losing battle.

Then again, if at least one shot hit the gunmen, we would be singing praises instead of criticizing since the cop would be doing his job “effectively.” Instead, the Columbine boys went back into the building and took more casualties. At that point it was too late, the boys already did their damage. What good were the officers going to be? Even in a situation where the officers were inside the school, they’d have to deal with the chaos of evacuation and trying to pinpoint where the perpetrator is. If you ask me that’s a lot of time for criminals to kill.

If you’re going to advocate crime prevention wouldn’t you rather look at the ways that makes a criminal snap to be doing school shootings in the first place? Tell me how an armed guard/police officer is going to do that if it’s just a reactionary policy aimed towards “stopping the criminal from going on a rampage and taking more lives,” rather than “seeking to prevent the criminogenic situation that allowed this person to act out.”

Saying Violence Begts Violence in this situation is to assert that the shooter is going to commit the crime for the mere fact there is a armed policeman or cop involved.

It's not only that. It also suggests that you're going to fight violence through violent means. All that results from that is a cycle of continuing violence. I fail to see nor understand how that is going to prevent appalling crimes like these in the first place if all we're doing is just killing each other to neutralize the “other.” Especially when the other has already offed himself/herself. Now how do we deal with all these lost lives? How do we make sure that something like this never happens again? If the answer is to add more manpower, then all that results from this is a continuation of the dominant culture’s message that teaches people that lives are no longer valued, they can be discarded at will for the sake of alleviating our fears pertaining to crime.

You realize that system was in place during the latest massacre and that did not stop the shooter

In the midst of these media coverages of the Connecticut shooting, I have been unable to find out how Lanza ever got an opportunity to get inside the school (perhaps someone here could enlighten me). But I did say that no policy is ever perfect, of course criminals are going to find a way to circumvent these policies and laws (otherwise we would be living in a perfect and secure utopia). I could say the exact same thing in that having police officers/armed guards at Columbine and Virginia Tech did nothing to stop the shooting or save any lives. But that discussion would be leading nowhere towards providing a viable solution to ending mass killings.

In terms of offering solutions we do have to look at it from many intersecting ways:
1) Security of the school - How effective is the system at weeding out unwanted, non-parental figures from potentially damaging their school. At the very least it would in theory prevent threatening figures from committing mass shootings.
2) The criminal - Why did the criminal resort to doing this? What was his motive/desire? Could we have in any way helped the criminal to prevent such acts from happening? - I should also add that mental illness is a slippery slope to walk on. It is easy to blame the mental illness rather than look at the big picture.
3) The weapon - What was the modus operandi of the criminal? Is the weapon too common? The reason I brought these up is because I cannot fathom how it is legal for a civilian to own a semi-automatic…I mean handguns would be pushing it for me but semi-autos and anything more powerful is asking for trouble. Powerful guns should only be in the hands of the military/specialized police forces such as SWAT etc.
4) The Law - How effective is the law in terms of making it harder for the criminals to commit crimes? Do we need to implement a gun ban? (My position would be no but I’m only writing questions as a means of eliciting discussions for solutions) How do we better our laws so that nothing like this happens again?
 
Last edited:

Akiyama

Awake me if Ash wins
1) Security of the school - How effective is the system at weeding out unwanted, non-parental figures from potentially damaging their school. At the very least it would in theory prevent threatening figures from committing mass shootings.

I suppose it might work to a point. Even armed teachers can't detect airborne poisons and chemicals designed to kill, same with bombs, until they go off. Maybe even undetected arson? I do seek to stop the causes of these killers because if violence will get worse, then it doesn't have to be with guns if the killer is suicidal anyway. Why? Because, while I would prefer to be in a guarded school over a unarmed one in a violent place, I would like to not have the violent place at all. I mean, I can see schools taking safety seriously by putting in guards and allowing firearms to be concealed legally, but the situation isn't preferred since there is a threat of aggression implied nationwide that makes people need these firearms more. I prefer to own guns for the fun of shooting them at targets and for their style, not for fear. (murder-suicide mass killings to deal with? I'd like to stop some causes for this madness, but the answers for the causes are not really known.)

2) The criminal - Why did the criminal resort to doing this? What was his motive/desire? Could we have in any way helped the criminal to prevent such acts from happening? - I should also add that mental illness is a slippery slope to walk on. It is easy to blame the mental illness rather than look at the big picture.

I know a guy with Aspergers, he wrote a lot, and I am puzzled by Adam's murders since this guy I knew had a worse life. Adam had a mom who cared enough to take him to shoot, the guy I knew suffered with his sister inside the house all day. I do not have the answer for why the two came out so differently. EDIT: In fact, I don't know what illness he had, so who can say for sure mental health played a role? I guess the thinking leading him to the killing played a more certain role.

Adam wanted to be in the Marines. Did he see a way in releasing stress by shooting bad guys over there? Did he feel rejected by his community and mom? Did that make the community a bad community worth killing since it is the enemy to him? Something made him okay with killing children and his mother. His thinking made it so. He dressed like a solider last Friday, perhaps he did view himself as a solider fighting enemies.

What to do about such a thing. . . Perhaps this is a side-effect of the War on Terror and of praise toward soldiers. This may be manifesting itself in the demand for war games like Battlefield because the thinking brings out the desire for these things. I do not play them anymore because I thought, look at all those fathers I'm killing, gee.

3) The weapon - What was the modus operandi of the criminal? Is the weapon too common? The reason I brought these up is because I cannot fathom how it is legal for a civilian to own a semi-automatic…I mean handguns would be pushing it for me but semi-autos and anything more powerful is asking for trouble. Powerful guns should only be in the hands of the military/specialized police forces such as SWAT etc.

It only takes a brain to do it. What havoc could I do with a truck and a fake fire drill? No. These bans will not change anything except in the methods. Amount dead? That's a matter of brains and planning along with how much the killer is willing to lose.

But for the point about weapons, really, I'm asking for trouble by having assault rifles? I mean, you can't understand how it's legal to have an assault rifle, but I bet it's because the rifle doesn't affect other's life and property simply by being owned. I can value the assault rifle for its looks, my bragging to others, and of how well it stops invaders at my home. I only shoot .22 LR these days in single shot rifles though, so I actually don't value these assault rifles that much. It's a right for them to buy and keep these rifles, I'm not taking away their rights or their rifles by supporting bans and confiscations (theft) from these good people.

4) The Law - How effective is the law in terms of making it harder for the criminals to commit crimes? Do we need to implement a gun ban? (My position would be no but I’m only writing questions as a means of eliciting discussions for solutions) How do we better our laws so that nothing like this happens again?

My best guess is that the laws can't stop them. Not even banning guns from parents with mental child will prevent this or similar killings. America could imprison every mental person, but that's a waste, so few mass killings from so many. And the power grab of being able to declare a foe insane and thus send him to prison could also occur. I would like to see if the drugs used by the shooters makes things worse and if the people's thinking could lead to violence. It goes against the drug industry, and the war industry though, so I don't know how far it will go.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
That's a weird and simplistic question to ask, because on one hand the obvious answer is that 10/10 times the criminal will go after the unarmed civilian. But we'd be fooling ourselves if we think that criminals only go after people without weapons. There are of course other criminals who target armed civilians even if the cost is high, because they perceive that the goal is worth the high cost. What a criminal believes as "costly vs. beneficial" is arbitrary no matter how sensible our assumptions and predictions may be. That is why it is more complicated than we think.

It is true it is not absolute, however I think we could both agree that a criminal would choose the unarmed house over the armed house the vast, and I mean VAST majority of the time.

From a couple of anecdotes and logs, it happened at lunchtime when the cops had been in a patrol car eating lunch. Otherwise, they were in fact working inside the school. Additionally, they were also exchanging shots. At that point the officer was essentially attempting to neutralize the threat (the only problem is that he was outgunned, by 2 teenagers wielding assault rifles). Therefore, it would be quite baffling on the officer’s behalf to chase the gunmen into the school instead of calling back-up. Clearly he was overpowered, what chance would he have against two assault rifles with the users who had no regard for human life? That is fighting a losing battle.

Calling for backup and then going in and trying to hunt down the two gunmen gives the kids much more of a chance to survive than to allow the gunmen to continue to go through the school unmolested. I mean that is just common logic.

Then again, if at least one shot hit the gunmen, we would be singing praises instead of criticizing since the cop would be doing his job “effectively.” Instead, the Columbine boys went back into the building and took more casualties. At that point it was too late, the boys already did their damage. What good were the officers going to be? Even in a situation where the officers were inside the school, they’d have to deal with the chaos of evacuation and trying to pinpoint where the perpetrator is. If you ask me that’s a lot of time for criminals to kill.

When they reentered the building to kill more people, did a magical force field come up? If not then what was preventing the cop from pursuing the suspects inside to try and stop them from taking more innocent lives?

If you’re going to advocate crime prevention wouldn’t you rather look at the ways that makes a criminal snap to be doing school shootings in the first place? Tell me how an armed guard/police officer is going to do that if it’s just a reactionary policy aimed towards “stopping the criminal from going on a rampage and taking more lives,” rather than “seeking to prevent the criminogenic situation that allowed this person to act out.”

I see no reason why we cannot do both

It's not only that. It also suggests that you're going to fight violence through violent means. All that results from that is a cycle of continuing violence. I fail to see nor understand how that is going to prevent appalling crimes like these in the first place if all we're doing is just killing each other to neutralize the “other.” Especially when the other has already offed himself/herself. Now how do we deal with all these lost lives? How do we make sure that something like this never happens again? If the answer is to add more manpower, then all that results from this is a continuation of the dominant culture’s message that teaches people that lives are no longer valued, they can be discarded at will for the sake of alleviating our fears pertaining to crime.

Okay I am sorry but this is utterly wrong, having a officer shoot down a crazed criminal is not going to have another person step up and take his place. Such criminal's are their own creature and it takes a mixture of circumstances to push them this far. I just cannot see where you came up with this idea. I mean if we had shot the Sandy Hook shooter dead, would his other wise sane brother step up to avenge the death of his psychotic brother? No of course not.

In the midst of these media coverages of the Connecticut shooting, I have been unable to find out how Lanza ever got an opportunity to get inside the school (perhaps someone here could enlighten me). But I did say that no policy is ever perfect, of course criminals are going to find a way to circumvent these policies and laws (otherwise we would be living in a perfect and secure utopia). I could say the exact same thing in that having police officers/armed guards at Columbine and Virginia Tech did nothing to stop the shooting or save any lives. But that discussion would be leading nowhere towards providing a viable solution to ending mass killings.

In terms of offering solutions we do have to look at it from many intersecting ways:
1) Security of the school - How effective is the system at weeding out unwanted, non-parental figures from potentially damaging their school. At the very least it would in theory prevent threatening figures from committing mass shootings.
2) The criminal - Why did the criminal resort to doing this? What was his motive/desire? Could we have in any way helped the criminal to prevent such acts from happening? - I should also add that mental illness is a slippery slope to walk on. It is easy to blame the mental illness rather than look at the big picture.
3) The weapon - What was the modus operandi of the criminal? Is the weapon too common? The reason I brought these up is because I cannot fathom how it is legal for a civilian to own a semi-automatic…I mean handguns would be pushing it for me but semi-autos and anything more powerful is asking for trouble. Powerful guns should only be in the hands of the military/specialized police forces such as SWAT etc.
4) The Law - How effective is the law in terms of making it harder for the criminals to commit crimes? Do we need to implement a gun ban? (My position would be no but I’m only writing questions as a means of eliciting discussions for solutions) How do we better our laws so that nothing like this happens again?

The answer to that is, we are going to have to go down the path of forced institutionlization. Sometimes locking people up and throwing away the key, that is really the only way you could control them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top