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.
I apologize, Delfos. I misunderstood what you were saying in that earlier post.
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?
That's a very good point. In my own home, we just have hunting rifles, and a shotgun for scaring wild animals away from our garbage cans or the gardens. I haven't owned a handgun for many years, but most people in my town do. Mine is a rural area, and the police would have quite a drive to get here if anything did happen. And as is common in rural and farming communities, people here have a tendency toward preparedness and self-reliance anyway. A situation where it might be needed is extremely rare around here, but people feel better when they're prepared for the possibility anyway. And then there are the gun collectors, some of whom never even use them for any purpose - it's not an uncommon hobby here.
With all these guns around in all our homes, our murder rate is still zero. That's enough proof for me that the real solution would be removing the motivation to kill, rather than removing one possible method of doing so.
This issue comes with gun control, we dont have guns, because guns are made to kill
Another excellent point, and one that helps in understanding the thinking behind both sides of the issue. Because where I live, people look at it differently - handguns are made for defense, a tool for made for a specific purpose, which is why our police carry them. And that puts them in the very same category as knives and baseball bats, in our minds; any of those can be used by criminals for a purpose other than which it was intended.
On the other hand, most people in the US who are against gun control are also against things like machine guns becoming legalized - to us, THOSE are the ones made for the purpose of killing, not the handguns. Those who do want that sort of thing legalized here consider it a civil rights issue - "don't tell me what I can and can't own as long as I'm not doing anything illegal with it".
Khablan (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.
Speaking in terms of the psychology behind it, guns are a more popular choice for attacking because there's less chance of physical contact, and therefore less chance of getting icky blood on you, and less chance of being physically overpowered. So you're absolutely right there. But knives are also routinely used in attacks as well - they're easier to get at any age, easier to conceal, and they're silent.
Those who have a history of violent crime are less likely to feel squeamish about direct contact with the victim. Those types are the ones we need to deal with in order to best reduce crime rate, because they're the ones who are most likely to repeat the crimes as well as escalate to more serious ones. They're also the ones least likely to be stopped by gun laws, since it will give them no motivation to stop committing the crimes, and they can either use other weapons or get guns by other means.
killing him wont make him regret doing the crime.
I personally wouldn't grant a mass murderer the relief of dying this year if I can make his life a living hell for fifty more.
To me, "making him pay" or "making him regretful" is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, the goal is to: 1) remove the threat to society by removing the perpetrator, and 2) preventing this sort of crime from happening in the first place. Not that I don't think such comments belong here - just pointing out it's a separate issue. Personally? I don't care whether he learns a lesson. I don't care whether he's miserable. I don't care about payback - what's done is done. He's warped, and he's a danger, and I want him out, period. But then again, I've never been a victim of such a crime, and never personally known anyone whose loved one was involved. If I had, then I might feel differently on that.
If somebeody is likely to ever conquer space while holding a revolver, it's the U.S.
Only if we still have a Texan president. (Sorry, I can't help thinking of him as a pompous cowboy.) lol
Hell, you could even make it a reality tv show!
Good lord, please not another one! There's too many as it is! lol
Aaaanyway...
On the subject of murder-suicide: That is a completely different type of crime. The perpetrator has a totally different mindset, and therefore it doesn't fit well into any general discussion on whether gun control will reduce the overall murder crime rate.
Those people don't think the way other people do. When a person has reached the point of deciding to kill themselves as well as a large number of other people, that is very unique psychological state, and you simply can't apply would work in average situations. These people will NOT respond to things the way others would; their values are different, their priorities are different. The things that matter to them are different.
They're in a state of psychological disassociation, and all emotional ties that they once had to other people are now dissolved. They have emotional attachments to NO ONE. They do not care what happens to anyone else after they're gone, and that includes their families, because they no longer have those emotional ties to them. Thus, the threat of repercussion to family members will not affect them; they are already too far gone to care what happens to anyone.
In the past, guns, poison, bombs, and other things have been used for such massacres, so gun laws would not remove the possibility of such a thing happening again. Bombs can be homemade out of ordinary things, and poisonous substances will always be there. And of course, guns would still be available through illegal means, which would make them more difficult to obtain, but not impossible.
So how do we reduce that threat? The ONLY successful way would be to recognize those people who are approaching that point, and deal with it before it happens. It won't matter what sort of weapon was being contemplated; the threat will have been removed. Obviously not an easy thing to do.
Since we've seen an increase in such incidents at schools in recent years, let's take a look at that. It would seem to present an ideal place to keep an eye out for kids who exhibit signs of psychological problems. Yet the vast majority go unnoticed. If the ratio of teachers to students was higher, then it would give more opportunity for teachers to pick up on the subtle clues. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Public schools have increasingly become more like factories. The overwhelming majority of teachers are there for the paycheck. Those who entered the field with optimistic ideals soon become defeated and resigned; if they try to implement new methods in their classrooms that are not standard practice, the system fights them. Any such out-of-the-ordinary means that are more successful than the standards makes the other teachers look bad and puts pressure on them to do better. Children start nagging for them to do the same; parents begin to complain because the other kid's teacher is doing such-and-such, why won't my kid's? Therefore, it is resented, and complaints generally become strong enough for the administration to force the teacher to stick to standard practices. That leads to the new, idealistic teachers to either adopt the same attitudes as those who've been in the field longer, or change their field altogether.
Because the majority of teachers are resigned, they are that much less likely to be motivated to be alert for subtle signs of psychological problems. If a kid isn't an immediate problem in the classroom, there is little need to pay close attention to him. Kids come along, stay in their classroom for a semester or two, and then move on. Other kids come in to take their places. Teachers don't get to know their students very well; there's a lot to do in a day, and too many kids to really know any of them who don't particularly stand out. If there is a note in a kid's school record from a former teacher who noticed something out of the ordinary, the new teacher is not likely to be particularly alert for problems that aren't overtly obvious; they're more concerned with doing day-to-day tasks and keeping the immediate troublemakers under control.
This latest incident at the university is a perfect example. The boy had shown what would seem to be obvious signs all through his life. Family, neighbors, teachers, and classmates all noticed his pronounced oddities, such as his utter lack of ability to operate in a social level, and his total inability to form bonds of friendship or love. If that isn't a huge red flag, I don't know what is. And yet he was not prevented from getting to this point.
I am not saying that the schools are to blame; on the contrary, my point in mentioning schools is that they would be the ideal place to introduce a better filtering system in order to recognize such problems before they snowball into similar incidents. The problem with that is that the system would need to change in order to do that effectively. Teachers, as things stand, are not equipped for that responsibility - even if they were given sufficient training in order to recognize certain behaviors as symptoms, there isn't enough time to do that well even if they sincerely wanted to.
