[Swamp_Thing]

Not again?!?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6964215/

There must something in the water, in America. Something that makes ordinary people pick up a gun and start spraying...

Now, if there was gun control in the US, chances are this man would not have a gun to go postal with. I wonder how many more post offices, malls and restaurants will have to be shot to pieces and how many more have to die, before gun control starts getting the discussion it deserves.

[01010]

This is a bigger issue than simply gun control, there are a lot of angry, depressed, confused and unsatisfied people out there and the problem stems from what western "culture" has evolved into, people are bankrupt mental health wise, products of barrages of advertising in every form of media, misinformation from vast media monopolies, lies, hypocrisy, a lack of spirituality (which is a very different beast to religion) and a vast consumer culture that's making whores out of us all.

You address these problems and maybe you can stop the rage that these people are feeling, the pure anger at being ousted by a society that demands conformity and uniform.

Of course, he could just be a definite crazy. Who knows?

[Primus]

Maybe the president should.. Oh yeah..  ..Hopefully the next president will make a few gun control laws...

[Turnsky]

Guns don't kill people, wanna know why?.. sit a gun onna table, and no matter how much you dare it to shoot you, it just sits there..
a firearm is a tool, like no other.. which, in the hands of the intelligent and incompetant alike, can be a truely dangerous tool indeed

therefore, guns don't kill people... idiots kill people.

but yeah, some more strict gun licensing would help. heck, look at australia, our gun laws would make many an american weep tears of blood, because they won't have their precious semi-auto firearms to hunt animals, throwing natural selection out of balance.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by 01010
This is a bigger issue than simply gun control, there are a lot of angry, depressed, confused and unsatisfied people out there and the problem stems from what western "culture" has evolved into, people are bankrupt mental health wise, products of barrages of advertising in every form of media, misinformation from vast media monopolies, lies, hypocrisy, a lack of spirituality (which is a very different beast to religion) and a vast consumer culture that's making whores out of us all.

You address these problems and maybe you can stop the rage that these people are feeling, the pure anger at being ousted by a society that demands conformity and uniform.

Of course, he could just be a definite crazy. Who knows?

Stop or restrict the 'picking up a gun part' and you have at least a partial solution, though.

[Unknown Target]

You want to know why this happens?
Because of all those damn M-rated games. These grownups got their hands on 'em when they were kids, and BLAMMO!










For the humor-deficient amongst us, that was a joke.

[01010]

Obviously, however, if someone really wants to get hold of something, they can. I don't think that gun control should be the only issue when faced with problems like this, because, at the end of the day a gun is just a weapon, if you ban them it's still easy enough to get a knife and go on a stabbing spree if you were that way inclined.

I think more should be done on addressing the reasons why these people react to society in this way rather than letting them get this way and only stopping them on the last hurdle.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by 01010
Obviously, however, if someone really wants to get hold of something, they can. I don't think that gun control should be the only issue when faced with problems like this, because, at the end of the day a gun is just a weapon, if you ban them it's still easy enough to get a knife and go on a stabbing spree if you were that way inclined.

I think more should be done on addressing the reasons why these people react to society in this way rather than letting them get this way and only stopping them on the last hurdle.

There's 2 things there, though;

1; they have to work harder to get a gun, even on the black market.  That makes it more difficult or at the least longer, and thus makes this sort of thing require more consideration and gives greater time for the planned crime to be detected.... if it's a nutcase on a rampage, maybe it forces them to wait long enough for them to come to their senses.

2;  A knife is less dangerous than an automatic weapon, or indeed any gun.  A gun can fire >6 bullets from long range, a knife requires close range use.

Yeah, we have to tackle the reasons these things happen, but can it really hurt to remove as many of the 'tools' used in them?  Because there's almost always going to be some nutcase who slips through the net, in which case you need the damage control.

[01010]

I was agreeing with you on the damage control don't get me wrong, I do agree that guns should be more controlled definitely but I do get annoyed that this is all people seem to focus on, because if someone is determined that someone else is to blame for their problems and they are determined to hurt someone, they will, regardless of the weapon they get hold of.

I'm not going to say a knife is more dangerous or equally dangerous to a gun, it's not, it's a completely different kind of weapon, used in a far different manner, it's easy(er) to conceal a knife both before and after use, it's silent and whats more, in a crowd of people, who's to know who is doing what. Look what happened at the Notting Hill Carnival a few years back. Not even mentioning the fallability of the user of a gun, aiming a gun is nowhere near as easy as T.V and movies make it out to be, especially an automatic (though I respect your intelligence enough to think you already know this).

Personally I'd like to see a study into the mindset of people that do go "postal" because I've never seen one and I bet there would be a hell of a lot of similarities in the mindset and situations of the people that do these things.

So yeah, gun control is necessary most certainly, however I think it's the smallest part of a much longer chain of things that need to happen.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by 01010
I was agreeing with you on the damage control don't get me wrong, I do agree that guns should be more controlled definitely but I do get annoyed that this is all people seem to focus on, because if someone is determined that someone else is to blame for their problems and they are determined to hurt someone, they will, regardless of the weapon they get hold of.

I'm not going to say a knife is more dangerous or equally dangerous to a gun, it's not, it's a completely different kind of weapon, used in a far different manner, it's easy(er) to conceal a knife both before and after use, it's silent and whats more, in a crowd of people, who's to know who is doing what. Look what happened at the Notting Hill Carnival a few years back. Not even mentioning the fallability of the user of a gun, aiming a gun is nowhere near as easy as T.V and movies make it out to be, especially an automatic (though I respect your intelligence enough to think you already know this).

 

Well, yeah.  I mean, this guy emptied a clip and only (only!) hit 2 people... but on the whole I think guns used in this way are more dangerous.  Even thinking of the (certified) loony who ran naked in a church and attempted to massacre the congregation with a samurai sword - he didn't actually kill anyone IIRC. I'm not sure it would have been the same situation with a shotgun or even pistol at that range, but in this situation I think a gun is definately more dangerous because it's easier to shoot at (even if you don't hit) someone than stab them; and that makes it harder to stop the person shooting, because you can't get close as easily.

Of course, a secondary arguement for gun control is that if you legislate or even ban weapons and shooting ranges, then you're in a better position to stop people becoming lethal with a weapon, and maybe also detect those who wish to be.

What I'm thinking is, you have 2 parts.  One is the person, and the other is the weapon.  The former will be longer, and harder to 'correct' than the latter (whilst more important), but you need both to be safe.

[Swamp_Thing]

Most of the times, these attacks are not premeditated. They happen almost instantly.  Some guy snaps, grabs his gun from the closet, and goes on a killing spree. But if the gun is not there, by the time you get your hands on one, you would be hopefully out of your homicidal rampage.
Guns don´t kill, people do, that´s right. But the convenient presence of a gun eliminates that time period a guy would need to reflect on his actions. With a gun present, you immediatelly jump into action and do your thing. But if you have to go look for one, there´s a chance that you would cool off and think about it with a more clear head.

Gun control isn´t enough by itself. Even if you instated the most severe gun control today, it would take maybe decades before  you rid the country of the millions of existing guns. And that´s why gun control hasn´t been implemented yet. Presidents want their actions to bare fruit almost immediatelly. They would never risk a public uproar knowing that the fruits of their labour would only turn up long after he had stepped out of office.
But if no one takes that first step, there´s no way to solve this.
I find it hard to believe that it´s just a coincidence that the countries where such rampages happen are also those where guns are much more widespread.

You can´t help it if people go crazy, but you can make sure they aren´t armed when they do.

[Thrilla]

But what you don't understand is that people in America have a very different view.  It's just like soccer.  Most Americans with the exception of watching thier little kids playing soccer, hate professional soccer.  Why?  THat's just the way it is.  You think they are going to get rid of guns in America or limit them in derastic way?  Hell no.  You got the NRA, NAHC, etc that won't let that happen plus a very large market that would be hurting.  Not just the hunters, but the competition shooters as well.  And then you also have this.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 Yes, people say it is out dated, but it is still part of the Bill of Rights.  Something that shouldn't be touched.

That doesn't mean just Militia, National Guard, that means everybody.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Thrilla
But what you don't understand is that people in America have a very different view.  It's just like soccer.  Most Americans with the exception of watching thier little kids playing soccer, hate professional soccer.  Why?  THat's just the way it is.  You think they are going to get rid of guns in America or limit them in derastic way?  Hell no.  You got the NRA, NAHC, etc that won't let that happen plus a very large market that would be hurting.  Not just the hunters, but the competition shooters as well.  And then you also have this.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 Yes, people say it is out dated, but it is still part of the Bill of Rights.  Something that shouldn't be touched.

That doesn't mean just Militia, National Guard, that means everybody.

Why shouldn't be touched?  Surely it's completely unecessary for that purpose?  The US is completely free from the threat of invasion (the only armies large enough to threaten are an ocean away), and surely US democracy isn't so weak as to require mobs?

And aren't amendments to the Constitution withdrawable anyways?  Such as Prohibition, for example?

Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment dates from a very different time (1791); this is before the concept of a national police force came into force (in that age governments were also very laissez faire in their attitudes, I believe; so policing would be a local rather than national issue).  And, of course, shortly after independence (and thus aware of the danger of invasion, be it from the UK or maybe even from former allies such as the French? this is complete conjecture, of course).

It's also ambiguous as to what militia means in that context; you'll no doubt notice the regulated part of that - which implies to me either a formally organized pseud-military group (such as the TA, or police; IIRC at that time there was no intention of a formal standing US army in the manner of the more war-like european/colonial powers), or some form of control over who had arms.  From what i understand, the only Supreme Court decision regarding the 2nd amendment (US vs Miller, 1939) ruled that only the right to bear military weapons was protected by the second amendment, and that these weapons had to be for use as part of 'the common defense' (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174).

[Janos]

Here's what "militia" means.. It's not very vague. Basically it's the armed populace (men), who also know how to use their weapons.

/derail

[Thrilla]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Why shouldn't be touched?  Surely it's completely unecessary for that purpose?  The US is completely free from the threat of invasion (the only armies large enough to threaten are an ocean away), and surely US democracy isn't so weak as to require mobs?

And aren't amendments to the Constitution withdrawable anyways?  Such as Prohibition, for example?

Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment dates from a very different time (1791); this is before the concept of a national police force came into force (in that age governments were also very laissez faire in their attitudes, I believe; so policing would be a local rather than national issue).  And, of course, shortly after independence (and thus aware of the danger of invasion, be it from the UK or maybe even from former allies such as the French? this is complete conjecture, of course).

It's also ambiguous as to what militia means in that context; you'll no doubt notice the regulated part of that - which implies to me either a formally organized pseud-military group (such as the TA, or police; IIRC at that time there was no intention of a formal standing US army in the manner of the more war-like european/colonial powers), or some form of control over who had arms.  From what i understand, the only Supreme Court decision regarding the 2nd amendment (US vs Miller, 1939) ruled that only the right to bear military weapons was protected by the second amendment, and that these weapons had to be for use as part of 'the common defense' (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174).

It is part of the Bill of Rights.  Amendments 1 through 10.  I think they are unchangable.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Turnsky
therefore, guns don't kill people

Wappers do

Sorry

[Clave]

They passed some rules in 1791, and decided that they could not be changed, ever?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Thrilla


It is part of the Bill of Rights.  Amendments 1 through 10.  I think they are unchangable.

So the older a rule is, the less it is open to change?  I would think that would be flying the face of progress, especially for a nation which repealed slavery and (much later on) segregation much later after they were written.

Originally posted by Gank

Wappers do

Sorry

pffffffftttttttttt.......

[Zarax]

Well, they can always be changed...
Maybe it's 2nd republic time for the US too?

[Ford Prefect]

I vote for more vacation time. Americans are ****ing workoholics, and they really need to cut it out. It's unhealthy, and it drives those of us who want to enjoy life absolutely crazy.