[Black Wolf]

I don't really want to get involved with this thread, but I will give my perspective as another international voice - in my discussions with my friends on this specific incident, there's been a remarkable consensus. People sympathise with the immediate victims, but there's also a very, very real sense that, frankly, the US brings these incidents on themselves, and that they (along with other incidents of gun violence) are the price you, as a nation, have chosen to pay for lax gun control laws.

This gets linked every time there's one of these threads, but here we go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Firearm related deaths per 100000 people. Sort by homicides and check the numbers. If we limit it to anglophone countries with a lot of cultural similarities, the US is roughly 4 times higher than Canada, 18 times higher than New Zealand, 33 times higher than Australia and 75 times higher than the UK. And the idea that people who want to kill will find a way, guns or not, is also not borne out by the numbers. Murder rates generally (again, per 100000) are closer, but the pattern is fairly similar - Murder rates are 2.5 times higher than Canada, 3.5 times higher than the UK, 4 times higher than Australia and 4.5 times higher than NZ.

Guns are designed to kill people. By definition, then, they make it much, much easier to kill people than if you don't have access to a gun.

[NGTM-1R]

There was a rash of knife murders in the UK some years back. There was a real public backlash against it, but one thing that was done, was that the police offered to take in weapons no questions asked. Not a law, you only hand them in if you want to. A vast number of weapons were handed in, and knife murders dropped dramatically.

The murder rate is at its lowest in two decades. Violent crime has been falling the entire recession, in spite of the recession. Gun buybacks are a regular thing in pretty much every city and county in the US.

Gun control fell out of the legislative interest because these things were happening anyways, with or without it. The Democratic Party correctly perceived there was no percentage in fighting the battle as long as the murder rate and violent crime kept dropping. There probably still isn't.

[Aardwolf]

Responding to a general argument along the lines of "gun control laws won't stop determined criminals from getting guns":

This is true for most of the kinds of gun control being proposed, but only because there are already so damn many guns already in the country, and because more guns are constantly being produced or imported. Also smuggling, but meh.

[karajorma]

I've seen the same thing debated for over 10 years and no one has done a damned thing to prevent it. People should just start treating it as another tax.

Call it the 2nd Amendment Tax and move on.

[Nuke]

firearms are one of the few areas of american manufacturing that are still healthy. people who import guns need to be shot. buy american for ****s sake.

and banning guns wont make the insane people go away. they will just have to use other implements, like sharp things and molotov cocktails.

[Thaeris]

Lols...

Relevant to Nuke's post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s

[karajorma]

and banning guns wont make the insane people go away. they will just have to use other implements, like sharp things and molotov cocktails.

Who said I was talking about banning guns?

That's one solution. Better healthcare so that the insane people can get treated is another. Better training in gun ownership is a third.

The simple fact is that America isn't the slightest bit interested in coming together picking one solution or even bits of all the solutions and actually doing something that will make a difference. All you get is endless debate about gun control.

So like I said, it's a tax which your country is willing to pay. What I don't get is why we have to hear about you filling in your tax forms every few months. You've already decided you are willing to pay.

[Aardwolf]

Er... what? Figurative "gun violence = a tax" ?

Heheh... a tax... atax... attacks...          derp.

[BrotherBryon]

It doesn't help that we have a sensationalistic media culture around here either. I ask you what is the easiest method to gain notoriety in this country for the those who are not already in the media spot light and the answer is commit an atrocity. Check the ages of the individuals who commit such atrocities and alarmingly it winds up being people in their late teens or early twenties. Some thing is definitively wrong in our society where this sort of thing can happen as frequently as it does. Can we use some more tougher gun laws, sure but it doesn't address the underlying problems that drive such individuals to commit such terrible acts of violence in the first place.

[Nuke]

and banning guns wont make the insane people go away. they will just have to use other implements, like sharp things and molotov cocktails.

Who said I was talking about banning guns?

That's one solution. Better healthcare so that the insane people can get treated is another. Better training in gun ownership is a third.

The simple fact is that America isn't the slightest bit interested in coming together picking one solution or even bits of all the solutions and actually doing something that will make a difference. All you get is endless debate about gun control.

So like I said, it's a tax which your country is willing to pay. What I don't get is why we have to hear about you filling in your tax forms every few months. You've already decided you are willing to pay.

a tax on guns would be somewhat problematic. thats like putting a tax on free speech. its just something that does not work under our constitution. it would take an amendment to get rid of it. and as someone has mentioned, the democrats, being the main gun control party, have lost interest in that cause. perhaps they will pick up on it again given recent events. all your other ideas are valid and would be a lot easier to implement, but it hasn't happened yet. im rather disappointed this turned into a gun control thread, because there are other aspects of the issue that always end up getting overshadowed by the gun control debate.

[Flipside]

Yup, as I've said before, guns had an impact, but not a causal one. The bigger issue here is the fact that 'School Shootings' have been imprinted into the American culture by the Media barrage they receive.

The Columbine shooters, with the help of various News agencies have achieved everything they wanted to achieve and more, they not only became the anti-heroes they wanted to be perceived as, but the coverage has even served as 'inspiration' to other deranged people.

It's a vicious circle that America has been dragged into, and the only way out I can see is not to deal with the problem after the shooting starts, but to deal with it beforehand.

I think part of the reason Switzerland take mental health so seriously is because everyone has guns, but a country where it's cheaper to buy a gun than pay for psychiatric help is recipe for disaster.

[IronBeer]

a tax on guns would be somewhat problematic.

kara's referring to a "tax" in human lives.

@karajoma, I no longer really have the heart to get deeply invested in this discussion, but isn't the argument that "if only there were fewer guns in circulation, these violent crimes wouldn't happen with such frequency" a near-perfect example of reductive logic? Further, are not the cultural differences between America and non-American Western societies sufficiently large to necessitate a solution unique to the American situation? However, I agree with the general gist of your recent points; Winston Churchill once said that "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, once all other options are exhausted". I guess we haven't exhausted all options yet. (I admit I'm ignoring the other points of your recent post, I just don't want to do a point-by-point response/rebuttal)

If I'm not making a lot of sense, I apologize. I delved into this topic and related depressing issues a bit too deeply as of late, and I just don't have the heart to really discuss these matters. If this is going to turn into a gun control thread, I'm going to contribute just a bit and I'll be done. Here's my fraction of a cent: the American gun control "debate" (or "public discourse" as I prefer to consider it) is hamstrung by a refusal by each side of the aisle to accept a respective axiom. The conservative faction must accept that guns are *weapons*, and when used properly, have no purpose other than ending lives. Whether those lives are human or not is malleable. (And don't even start on "sport/target shooting". All firearm-related activities eventually lead back to developing skills to use said firearms to kill- full stop.) The liberal faction must acknowledge that people are fully capable of committing violent crimes without firearms, and in plenty of cases, without proper weapons at all.

No, I don't have some witty closing one-liner or "tl;dr" for those who won't read this thing. I'm done.

[karajorma]

kara's referring to a "tax" in human lives.

Indeed, it's a tax in innocent lives. And it's one that Americans seem quite happy to pay since neither side seems willing to compromise in the slightest.

Further, are not the cultural differences between America and non-American Western societies sufficiently large to necessitate a solution unique to the American situation?

Now that I agree with. And it's something that both sides need to stop doing. The gun control side point at the UK, the pro-gun side point at Switzerland and Canada. Both are fundamentally silly arguments since none of those countries are the same as America.

Basically, it comes down to this. The great American public can not be trusted with guns. It's that simple. Now I'm not being anti-American cause I'll be the first to admit that the British public can't be trusted with them either. We faced that issue after the Dunblaine Massacre and for the Brits the easiest solution was to simply get rid of them. The Swiss solved it by national service and increased training with guns until they could be trusted with guns. That said the Swiss have a reputation for being somewhat boring, maybe that solution alone wouldn't work for America. Maybe the solution isn't even gun related and instead requires better mental health and anti-gang spending.

What America needs to face is that something needs to be done besides both sides shouting at each other until they are blue in the face.

[Flipside]

Also, if you consider that, on the same day, someone was arrested in Oklahoma for trying to arrange a massacre in his school, it shows evidence that something is going very wrong somewhere...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20121215/NEWS/121215009/Police-arrest-suspect-Oklahoma-accused-plotting-school-attack

[BengalTiger]

Absolutely. This man was evil and/or psychotic, and the media cannot be held responsible for his actions.

Last night I heard a talk show host say that there might have been less people killed if the teachers were armed. What are your thoughts on this?

I'd go as far as claiming the shooter would just go somewhere else if the school was a potentially dangerous place.

The crazy shooters often want to play God.
They pick a group of targets who they will have total control over- they decide who lives and who doesn't.
When they get confronted by a good guy with guns, they either surrender or commit suicide as they no longer have absolute power.

It's very rare a shooter goes somewhere where people are likely to have weapons when planning mass murder.

No one has guns, not even the cops.

All of your other fallacies aside, are you trying to convince anyone that this is a good idea?  What do British police do if they come across someone who does happen to be packing heat?  Wave their truncheon in his general direction?

I think the procedure was to call SWAT and shoot a random Brazilian.

As for the per capita gun deaths:
Let's compare gun deaths based on gun crime and accidents alone, and not by grand totals.

In 2010 the NYPD alone shot and killed 8 people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/nypd-had-fewest-fatal-sho_n_807862.html

Which was a record low...

FBI in 2010- 387 people, down from 414 in 2009.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-on-shootings-by-police-not-collected-134256308.html

I'd say that an estimate of 1000 criminals getting shot by police per year in the US won't be too far off.
Add more in lawful self defense by non-police (don't know how many though)...

I'd also like to filter out shootings done by people who shouldn't be in the US in the first place, but that would be politically incorrect.

To be fair, do the same for the UK, although with unarmed society and police the numbers won't be as significant.

P.S. Let's also leave gun control for a week or two, that's not really what this thread is supposed to be about.

[Flipside]

I think the procedure was to call SWAT and shoot a random Brazilian.

Nice way to emulate exactly the kind of behaviour that was being criticized....

[karajorma]

I'd say that an estimate of 1000 criminals getting shot by police per year in the US won't be too far off.

Why are you estimating when you could simply look for statistics? 10 seconds on wikipedia found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Sure it's a little old but I doubt the murder rate has reduced to 1/10th what it was in 2004 so even a large fall still means a lot of deaths. Are you going to claim that those are all self-defence? Or even that the majority are?

[headdie]

No one has guns, not even the cops.

All of your other fallacies aside, are you trying to convince anyone that this is a good idea?  What do British police do if they come across someone who does happen to be packing heat?  Wave their truncheon in his general direction?

I think the procedure was to call SWAT and shoot a random Brazilian.

All force areas have dedicated and trained for purpose Firearms officers scattered about their regions, though short of incidents involving reported firearms the preference is to use tazer when the officers are deployed, though if you decide to wave a gun about expect to see G36K's pointed at you in many areas.

[karajorma]

I think the procedure was to call SWAT and shoot a random Brazilian.

Nice way to emulate exactly the kind of behaviour that was being criticized....

It's not like a 5 second search of wikipedia won't find the American police doing the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

I deliberately picked that one from this list cause it's a nice example of how owning a gun can get you quite legally shot in your own house. I also do have to wonder how many of these people also legally owned their guns.

[Mika]

I'm not entirely sure whether the assumption that the school shooters are looking for a feeling of power over others is entirely correct. I tend to view these incidents more as break up of a person's behavioral limitations which may be caused by environmental factors or just a lack of medication. If it seems that the environment is completely immoral and arbitrary, they could be responding in kind. It is a very difficult subject, especially because the perpetrators are typically not caught alive - they are the only ones who could say where it all went wrong. The scariest thought is that these people could be former good people whose moral fabric has been torn down.