Gun Control

[tak]

You don't get it! With civilians having no gun (because they do what is legal), then crime can run amuck. And with your ideal police force, all they gotta do is kill any cop they see or stay out of range. You would have us sink to that kind of anarchy? I think not.

Anarchy? You mean anarchy in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore (and more)? I have never run into such anarchy, where civilians own no gun, and the police do not kill.

[Talmann]

But a) we already have guns, b) it is unlikely to remove all guns, and c) we value our gun rights too much.

[tak]

haha... if you are in a police state like Stinkapore, it wouldn't be a problem....

[PoD Gunner]

You would have us sink to that kind of anarchy?

Sadly, it looks like you have enough on your hands as it is. There are a lot of measures probably not-applicable to the US because of the present situation, mentality and the bigger dimensions. But something should be done, at least that's the way it looks like from here.
Myro dear, of course we do not live in the States, but that does not mean we cannot voice an opinion. I am sorry to see that arguing has become more important to you then reason and friendship.
Anyways, if you guys mean that the solution to the present crisis situation - that is if you do not consider a society where gangs fight drugs wars, where you can get shot while stepping on somebeody's propriety and children go around shooting their colleagues while asking them if they believe in the Allmighty (but which tries to regulate the wrongs of peoples over-seas in a poorly-argumented attack which aims at securing influence and exploitation) to be in perfect shape- is getting more guns on the street, turning your homes into fortresses or showing the children how to use an automatic pistol in case a neighbour would ever try to hurt him, I think you might be wrong. There's one certain thing, nonetheless. If somebeody is likely to ever conquer space while holding a revolver, it's the U.S.

[Delfos]

all true, still, if something must be done, what is it then? I do see that banning guns at sudden is not a very good idea, as for the comments originated about them say criminals will kill guys without guns, instad of guys with guns kill criminals (which isnt 100% true). Happens that in USA, the 'gun population' is so huge, that even criminals have them. In other countries of the world criminals dont have guns that easly, alot of the murdering is done by knife or spanking, ofc the majority is by gun, guns they stole somewhere, and therefore, is easier to track down a criminal with a gun. In USA, how can you distinguish a shooter with a civilian? both have guns...it's much more hard...what happens is that both are killed. A proof of that is the civilian murdering during US invasions, actually most of them were unarmed. Theres this sad fact about a guy that was rushing in an ambulance with people hurt inside and US army just turnt the van in a french cheese (like those with holes all over). Thats how i see US doesnt care for civilians, and it's a sad truth, i belive it's influence back from homeland=shoot everything that moves. Like the westerns.

[Talmann]

Life isn't like the westerns, you know. Even out in rural Texas people live in peace. And that fact disturbs me, I haven't heard it before. Can you site that, please? Perhaps there was other motives or reasons that that ambulance got shot at....

[Myroria]

I'm not saying you don't have a right to argue, I'm saying you don't know firsthand how the US black market works because you don't live here.

[Khablan]

With no gun to grab, there wont be killing, most probably theres more killing by the criminal side because you try to reach your own gun..

Criminals do not kill only when they fear for their own lives.  Criminals do kill unarmed people who are not threatening them in any manner.  Removing guns from non-violent citizens does not prevent them from being killed by a violent person.

i would knock him down with a baseball bat, maybe even break his skull, something awful, but i wouldnt kill him. ...  If i had a gun, i would probably shoot him...means kill him. Do you see the difference? If i'v a gun i most likely kill him, if i dont i have to knock him out, i dont have to kill him.

Shooting a firearm does not necessarily result in the target's death, any more than hitting him over the head with a baseball bat.  On the other hand, a baseball bat over the head certainly can result in death, just as shooting them with a gun can.  Knives can be used to injure and kill just like guns and baseball bats can.  So can a car antenna.

If the number of killings needs to be reduced, then removing the most popular weapon will not remove the motivation to kill - there will be other ways, and something else will then become the most popular method.  In order to reduce the amount of deaths, then we need to remove either the motivation for people to kill, or remove those people who kill.  Unfortunately, if that was a relatively easy task, there would be no killings at all.

If we had guns for all, the dead by shooting would rise drastically, to the point as it is in USA.

Personally, I've lived in the US all my life, in many different places.  I'm 43 years old.  I have never been shot or shot at.  I've never personally seen anyone shot or shot at.  None of the people I know have ever been shot or shot at, aside from those who served in wars.  There are some areas in the US where crime is high, and that's where much of that happens.  I avoid those, as do most people.  In the town where I live, people generally only lock their doors when they go on vacation, and there's more far risk of dying in a car accident than by being shot.  There is an average of ZERO murders per year in my county (that's county, not country).  The fact that high-crime areas do exist drives up the overall per capita rate for the nation, but that does not mean that the rest of America is necessarily a dangerous place to live.

it's the same thing as the 'far west' with cowboys and all, its how they show us and how we see it in USA.

Don't believe everything you see in the movies.  They're fiction, stories that someone wrote, and do not necessarily have any similarity to reality.  The Old West hasn't existed for awhile now, and it wasn't like the movies generally portrayed it even when it did.  The purpose of movies is not to give an accurate historical portrayal.  It is to provide entertainment for profit, and since sensationalism sells, that's what's produced.

[Delfos]

neva said it said it was in the movies, and we'r talking again that its not all US, but it's about numbers, i would never guess which areas in US would have greatest murder rate, and i do know it's not everywhere. Same goes when some americans say Iran is evil and they are all fanatics and all that. Actually i belive only a minority is 'evil/fanatic' aka musslim extremist, the TV likes to show the minorities as majorities, because minorities yell louder than majorities.

But the 2nd amendment is for all USA, thats why theres we generalize, if there must be a fix to the 2nd amendment it must affect all USA, it's not because where you live that the law cant be enforced. right?

Im grabbing your example, do you feel the need to have a gun where you live? i mean, for what (specially myroria) they tell, you need a gun to protect yourself, do you need a gun where you dont need protection, more than the police is protecting? if you have weapons you will probably hunt with them, not for protection...not for shooting at criminals in sight, right?

[FeherTigris]

Khabian (mentioning knives, baseball bats and so on as weapons to kill): but please these tools require direct contact and force. Firearms require no direct contact and you don't feel the force you use. Actually you feel much less responsibility. Baseball bats and knives generally are NOT used to kill strangers (people the killer does not know), firearms YES.

But I have an idea: it looks to me that so far we thought that the would-be-killer is blocked by the potential that he/she can loose his/her own life. After these shootings (and BTW the suicide bombers) it turns out that this is not a blocking factor anymore (they kill themselves - no problem). So we have to put sg. again at the stake to block them. What should it be? I have my own suggestion but am open for other suggestions.
My suggestion: have a person who signs 'responsibility' for the person who wants to have a gun. If the owner commits 'lethal sin' but kills himself/herself then the 'responsible person' should face the civil consequences (not the penal ones; think of injured peoples, police costs). I know this does not reduce the number of weapons (the father signs it for his son/daughter) but he/she should know that it is not the end of the story if he/she commits suicide after mass-murder and somebody who trusted him/her is betrayed by this. It can stop such lonely killers like the VT guy. A kind of control: not by the state but by your own family or friends.

[Talmann]

a) please, people kill with knives all the time. Now, more times than not it is 2nd degree (not planned, crime of passion) but when they use a knife they normally stab more than once, to ensure the death of the victim.
b) Having people responsible for other people's problems is crazy talk. You would be entangling innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. And again, you're ruling out the black market. The VT guy bought those guns before they knew he was supposed to be going to a mental hospital, therefore he seemed an okay guy to sell to.

@Delfos- We know it's the minority of Muslims are extremist, that's why most of Iraq doesn't mind the US being there (last time I checked). But the media likes to report everything and strech it for as far as it can go. And actually, sometimes the ghetto isn't enforced very well due to "civil rights". In fact, they let a guy get away in East LA after a half-hour police chase with 30+ cars on him and getting him down to rims and overwhelming evidence against him (he threw crack out the window, for pete's sake). So where you live can determine how strict the enforcement is, unfortunately.

[FeherTigris]

Talmann: please read again.
a) I told they kill with knives people they know because of direct contact. nobody said knives are not used to kill.
b) I'm sure many victim's families are looking for responsible people for this guy's problem. The other day the English professor appeared on CNN 'I already reported problem in 2005 based upon his writings but nobody listened to me'. But you're looking now, AFTER the problem (sorry, this is 32 dead people, not a 'problem'!).
Furthermore: nobody said that we can avoid buying guns (unless making it illegal). But it is when you want to use this way we need sg. that stops you. Your own death does not stops you. Then what? You should come up with sg. to answer this.

Yeah. I don't want to find a solution for all killing. I know black market, organized crime and so on. My suggestion is just to avoid (more probably) when everyday people get mad and start to use a gun like a toy.

Society is not a set of individual people but a responsible community. You personally are responsible for the laws of your society unless you expressed your protest but were defeated on a vote, in which case your responsibility is restricted but not nullified. (IMHO)

[Solnath]

FT, if you're going to kill yourself, why would you care about the feelings of those left behind, especially if they're important to you seeing as you're already going to hurt them?

[FeherTigris]

'Going' is the key word. You have to make your decision when you are still alive (before killing others and yourself). And at that point you really do count that you don't want to betray people who trusted you. As far as I can imagine, these people first cut all ties to anybody else to create their own rules. This would be a tie they cannot cut: it becomes more and more important and binding as they get closer to their act of misusing their gun.

I have another idea which is a little bit similar: this is about death penalty. As most probably everyone knows death penalty is issued by the state (just as any other sentence). As a citizen of the state I can feel that I myself kill that criminal (I 'agreed'). I don't want to feel that (I myself against death penalty in any case) together with many other people so this is why many nations drop death penalty. But we can get a workaround for this:
- the state never issues a death penalty but defines (in the penal code) crimes when death penalty is allowed
- in a case the judge decides whether death penalty can be applied (opens only the option)
- when the option is open somebody should personally come and say: 'I want the death penalty to be executed'. should be repeated (let's say in 72 hours) and cannot be made anonymous and should say it to the criminal personally.
legally it lifts the burden from me (the state is free of killing anybody in my name), morally it does not allow people just to wish anybody else's death without any responsibility. of course the person who wanted the death penalty should live 20-30-50-70 years with that. I don't expect people to stand proud 'I wanted the death of him' except some rather exceptional case.

[Delfos]

theres a bunch of suicides, as styles i mean, they are not all equal, you got Hannibal's Suicide, so thatt he romans couldnt get him alive, you have 'regular' suicide, when person is not happy with his life, mostly he rather be dead than alive, normaly to end some kind of pain (i defend that people have the right to euthanasia), theres suicides like the Columbine guys..i'll quote from a familiar gun game Unreal Tournament, those suicides are known as God Like, where you immortalize your doing by it, which carries the message you want to deliver...and you must agree, those guys are immortalized, theres even a great movie called Elephant, theres references all over the world, etc.

How i and most people around here see death penalty: the law isnt enforced, the criminal isnt being led to justice, what happens is that you take another life, and the criminal isnt making up for the crimes he commited. A reasonable way of putting him up his crimes is to lock him up, even if its till the rest of his life, with hard labor or whatever. Prisons being comfy or not, it's not the questions, a prison is to lock people that are a threat to others, normally taking away the rights and needs of that person, so he's exactly excluded from the society, he isnt free, thats what matters. If you lock a person to the rest of his life in a prison, that person wont kill again, no need to end his life, everybody has the right to live, even those who dont have rights like others who are in prison, life is an human right. Whenever you kill someone you'r violating the human rights, why do you think saddam was accused of violating human rights? Still he claimed innocence, since those who he killed were (for them) criminals, so it was like the american death penalty. To die/death penalty is to free of prison, plus it's against human rights, thats why we dont have it.

This issue comes with gun control, we dont have guns, because guns are made to kill, baseball bats are made to play baseball, knife are made to slash or cut things, not necessarily people. Can you play baseball with a gun? or cut things? Only thing else you can do with gun is shooting sports (i love this winter sport called Biathlon), and hunting, excepting for shooting sports, guns are made to kill, plus the guns in those sports are slightly different from normal rifles.