|
Post by Erika on Nov 3, 2007 11:10:56 GMT -5
In the end, nothing is going to stop the crazy kid from shooting up the school, unless it's a change in the way that people are treated in school that prevents him from going crazy int hef irst place. I am NOT suggesting that any school shooting victim had it coming, but if these children weren't bullied by their peers and ignored by the teachers, how many of them would have turned out differently? School bullying is a HUGE problem in this country, to the point that many kids are made mentally ill or even suicidal over the abuse. However, there are things that can be done to eliminate the crazy kid's ability to go crazy at school. Where did he get the gun? Most likely from a parent or aquaintance. The Columbine shooters had a friend buy theirs. If there are more stringent policies on the aquisition of guns, then theyw ould have had a much harder time getting them. If there were tighter laws on how guns must be stored in the home (locked gun safe with only the liscenced holder(s) having access) then kids wouldn't be able to get dad's hunting rifle or pistol. You can bet that if the kids blew up the school with C4, we'd be appalled at "where the heck did they GET C4?" A gun-free zone at school does nothing to prevent the crazy kid. But I doubt that's the real intent. It's most likely aimed more at preventing accidents and giving non-crazy kids something to think about before they just BRING a weapon to school. As far as England is concerned, their crime rate isn't the relevant issue. It's the rate of gun crime. According tos ome quick Google-Fue, there were 27 TIMES more gun deaths in America in 2001 than there were in England and Wales in 2002. www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm A little more Googling and math on Homicide rates and populations (not all airtight as far as dates, but as a general idea) England has 1.5 homicides/100k people, and america as 5.6. That's pretty huge. So compared to us, with their tight gun control laws, not only are the gun deaths themselves greatly reduced, but the homicide in general is far lower.
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on Nov 4, 2007 12:27:47 GMT -5
As far as England is concerned, their crime rate isn't the relevant issue. It's the rate of gun crime. According tos ome quick Google-Fue, there were 27 TIMES more gun deaths in America in 2001 than there were in England and Wales in 2002. www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm A little more Googling and math on Homicide rates and populations (not all airtight as far as dates, but as a general idea) England has 1.5 homicides/100k people, and america as 5.6. That's pretty huge. So compared to us, with their tight gun control laws, not only are the gun deaths themselves greatly reduced, but the homicide in general is far lower. The following is purely speculation on my part: One thing that I've wondered in the past is if homicide rates are linked to population density. It seems believable to me that there will be more murders per capita in a city than in a small town--the environment is more stressful, there are more people there so you are more likely to get a group of killers, and it's easier to find victims and to hide when you are in a fairly anonymous urban environment as opposed to in a small town where everyone knows each other. If I'm right about that, it would explain the lower English homicide rate--they only have one real metropolis (London), where America has several. As an aside, here's an interesting article about gun control in Japan: www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm. As with everthing on the web, it should be taken with a grain of salt--I don't know who this guy is or why I should believe him. That said, his points do conform to what I know of Japan, the Japanese, and Japanese history. (Although he neglects to mention that, while in theory Japan "disarmed" after WWII, it (A) didn't do it out of "horror of war", but because America forced it to and guaranteed its safety with American military power and (B) that while Japan may have "had no army" for much of that time, it had an armed and highly trained "police force" that was, per capita, an order of magnitude larger than any other nations.)
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Nov 5, 2007 11:31:49 GMT -5
The following is purely speculation on my part: One thing that I've wondered in the past is if homicide rates are linked to population density. It seems believable to me that there will be more murders per capita in a city than in a small town--the environment is more stressful, there are more people there so you are more likely to get a group of killers, and it's easier to find victims and to hide when you are in a fairly anonymous urban environment as opposed to in a small town where everyone knows each other. If I'm right about that, it would explain the lower English homicide rate--they only have one real metropolis (London), where America has several. If Lore chimes in on this, her criminal justice studies may shed some light on statistics and crime theory. My speculation is that this is untrue, for two reasons. One is that there is a significant portion of violent crime where the victim and perpetrator are known to each other. Low population density doesn't factor in on if one person kills another over money, romantic entanglements, etc. I would also like to point out that when I'm watching crime shows on the discovery channel, nine times out of ten the setting is some little podunk town that never locks its doors. Conclusion: Lock your doors, people!
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on Nov 6, 2007 17:39:58 GMT -5
The following is purely speculation on my part: One thing that I've wondered in the past is if homicide rates are linked to population density. It seems believable to me that there will be more murders per capita in a city than in a small town--the environment is more stressful, there are more people there so you are more likely to get a group of killers, and it's easier to find victims and to hide when you are in a fairly anonymous urban environment as opposed to in a small town where everyone knows each other. If I'm right about that, it would explain the lower English homicide rate--they only have one real metropolis (London), where America has several. If Lore chimes in on this, her criminal justice studies may shed some light on statistics and crime theory. My speculation is that this is untrue, for two reasons. One is that there is a significant portion of violent crime where the victim and perpetrator are known to each other. Low population density doesn't factor in on if one person kills another over money, romantic entanglements, etc. I would also like to point out that when I'm watching crime shows on the discovery channel, nine times out of ten the setting is some little podunk town that never locks its doors. Conclusion: Lock your doors, people! I'd be interested to hear whatever she has to say. And you're right that much violence involves people that know each other...but plenty of violence, and especially manslaughter / second degree murder are between people who DON'T--a burglar and homeowner end up surprising each other and one ends up shot; one gang member shoots another; a drug dealer shoots at cops and gets killed for his stupidity, etc. These kinds of things happen far more often in cities than in small towns. As to your last point...Erika, my respect for your intelligence is extremely high, so I'm just going to pretend that you did not attempt to use "crime shows" as a source of real-world knowledge...even ones that are on the Discovery channel. Bad admin, bad! Do it again and you'll be required to write a five-page essay entitled "Sixty-Eleven Ways That Television Is Not An Accurate Represetation of Reality".
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Nov 7, 2007 14:20:14 GMT -5
I always take everything I see on television with a grain of salt. However, I'm not talking about Law and Order here. The shows I used to watch (not so much anymore, cuz seriously, law and order makes better tv) on the Discovery chanel or MSNBC are documentaries of actual crimes, and the people they talk to are the actual law enforcement or forensic proffesionals involved. The fact that the dramatic reenactments are cheesy does not change the fact that X crime happened at Y location involving Z individuals. It's not something I would quote in a scholastic paper, but this is hardly a scholastic paper.
Also, the comment about podunk towns and locking doors was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
|
|
|
Post by Masoob on Nov 7, 2007 20:39:25 GMT -5
Two people just got hosed at a stoplight in Vancouver today. That makes four this week, Drug dealing gangsters evidently, so not just a random killing.
Also a kid in finland killed 8 classmates (today I think) which apparently is unheard of in Finland.
Just the lastest gun news
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Nov 7, 2007 23:10:06 GMT -5
There was a double homicide a block over from where I live a few months ago. Also drug related. So again, we're looking at criminals who wouldn't follow the gun control laws, not law abiding citizens.
That's all I have to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on Nov 8, 2007 13:37:36 GMT -5
I always take everything I see on television with a grain of salt. However, I'm not talking about Law and Order here. The shows I used to watch [...] on the Discovery chanel or MSNBC are documentaries of actual crimes, [...] Also, the comment about podunk towns and locking doors was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. My comment was intended to be somewhat playful but that may not have come through. I take your point about these being legitimate documentaries of real crimes; I'm still very reluctant to treat them as any kind of reliable data from which valid conclusions can be drawn. Even with the best of intentions, it's hard to provide any kind of real context in the frame of a one-hour show. Ok, so (e.g.) some guy killed his mother-in-law in Nowheresville, TN back in 1989. How does that extrapolate across the country? What was the general crime / violent crime rate in this town? Is there a nearby city that crime might bleed over from? Is this town at a particular point on a particular highway that makes it a convenient stopping point for drug trafficers on their way from A to B? etc Lore's comment about a drug-related double homicide being down to "criminals who wouldn't follow gun laws"...I wonder what the gun death stats would look like if you took out: A) Accidental discharges B) Self defense, police shootings of those shooting at them, etc C) Habitual criminals shooting other habitual criminals (e.g. turf wars, drug pushers shooting other drug pushers, etc) This would leave you with just the cases of gun violence done by "ordinary people". I suspect the numbers would be very low. Edit: That should have said "just the cases of gun violence where either the shooter or the victim was an 'ordinary person'." It seems to me that this is really the statistic that we should be concerned about...if habitual criminals shoot each other, I'm not too bothered. If I am at risk of being shot, or if my friends or family are at the risk of being shot, I'm bothered. I just don't think I'm facing that risk on a day-to-day basis. (Obviously, if I do something stupid like wander down to the bad parts of Newark with $100 hanging out of my pockets, my risk goes up tremendously. At that point, however, shooting me is not a crime, it's an exercise in gene pool hygiene.)
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Nov 8, 2007 15:33:04 GMT -5
I think a lot of crime gets cut out if you're not looking at A B and C. Thank goodness. And of course the vast majority of people that own firearms don't go nuts and shoot people. Which is why I don't have a problem with people owning them and would rather just see very firm policies in place to cut down on accidents and hopefully reduce the chances that legitimate guns wind up in unsavory hands.
I do think that if the overall number of guns in the country were reduced, there would be fewer tricking down into the criminal element (barring nonsense like aqquiring them en masse from dealers, etc.)
And then there are automatic weapons etc. Now, THOSE, in my opinion, have no place in the general public. Unless one is on-duty military personel, I don't think there's any reason to have it.
|
|
|
Post by Whitehawke on Nov 9, 2007 12:04:04 GMT -5
And then there are automatic weapons etc. Now, THOSE, in my opinion, have no place in the general public. Unless one is on-duty military personel, I don't think there's any reason to have it. I think a better question is "what's the reason to ban it?" IANA expert, but my understanding is that the vast majority of firearm fatalities (accidental or deliberate) result from handguns, not long guns or automatic weapons. I can think of several reasons why people should be allowed to have automatic weapons, the best of which is the previously mentioned "so if there is ever cause for an insurrection, the disparity between the citizen's weapons and the army's weapons will be marginally narrower."
|
|
|
Post by etchasketch on May 22, 2008 23:07:07 GMT -5
Old adage... Never bring a knife to a gunfight. Only exception is if you're as good as "Red" (James Coburn's character in The Magnificent Seven), and that is Hollywood not reality.
Firearms in the hands of an educated and careful citizenry are no threat. However, in the hands of criminals and idiots, they are a travesty. No one can stop criminals from getting their hands on them, because there are always those persons who will smuggle firearms in from outside of the country should a complete ban ever take place.
I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
|
|
|
Post by mayhemzero on Jun 5, 2010 12:36:18 GMT -5
Well, as someone who was picked on in high school and played Doom, I can tell you, the makeup of the person has a lot to do with whether they'll shoot up the school or not. I had a lot of easy access to guns, yet I never once considered going on a shooting spree. I just shrugged it off and kept pissing people off. That said, I believe there is a place for guns in school. In the security staff's hands. I really feel that this would keep a lot of tempers in check. Having a gun, I heard from my firearms instructor, makes you appear twice as tall and 4 times the weight in a fight. What he's saying is, no one wants to mess with a guy with a gun, even if they've got a gun themselves. But I saw an interesting post on the last page. What about a revolution? Certainly, the government is getting bigger and bigger. What if, eventually, this becomes a dictatorship? Then, we'll want to revolt, and it'll certainly go a long way towards that end of overthrowing the corrupt government if we already have weapons. Sure, we won't have the training, but neither did the American Colonists, and look at what happened. The Americans kicked the British out of their country by using guerilla tactics and ambushes. And no, I don't posses a weapon these days, though I do have a company weapon that is only used on those sites which require me to be armed. Anyways, thanks for giving me a chance to air my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 5, 2010 22:53:59 GMT -5
Honestly, and this was pointed out by someone way back in thread-land, the notion of arming ourselves in case rising up against the government becomes necessary is utterly pointless.
First, lets completely set aside any discussion of the possibility of the US becoming a dictatorship, and the difference between revolutionaries, domestic terrorists, and your average weapons-stockpiling nutjobs building compounds in the woods. We shall assume for the moment that it is indeed necessary for ordinary citizens to take up arms agains the government.
The ordinary citizens are boned.
Look at the colonists. They had muskets. The British also had muskets. Now, revolutionaries would have personal firearms, and possibly some automatic weapons and minor explosives. The armed forces have all of the above, plus everything from tear gas to jets that drop bombs. The difference between what ordinary people have available to them vs what the military has is so vast that the notion of a violent coup actually working is nigh impossible.
|
|
|
Post by mayhemzero on Jun 6, 2010 8:58:10 GMT -5
Yes, but I respectfully disagree. The revolutionaries would have the advantage because the military wouldn't know where they were. They could hide behind the general public, the ones who weren't revolting, and they could take opportunistic attacks. Just like the American Colonists did against the British, and just like the terrorists are doing against our forces now. Let's face it, in any straight-on fight, the terrorists are pretty much screwed, too. And the Afghanis resisted the Soviet war machine, right? Just playing a little Devil's advocate.
|
|
|
Post by Lore on Jun 6, 2010 20:46:20 GMT -5
Ah, yes, but we out number the military by a buttload. That might give us an advantage, si?
|
|