Shootings At Connecticut Elementary School

[MATRIX 2]

That's already true for criminals yet crime still happens. If a thief is going to mug a lone person in an alley, how is anything changed just because the citizenry is now armed? The thief is still in charge of the situation and the other person is still in danger. Generally you're not changing anything here. I agree that in some scenarios it may deter a crime being committed, but I certainly wouldn't say it would be lowered by a large amount.

I think the best way to fix things is just to better our nation as a society and our culture.

Criminals prefer unarmed/defenseless victims. They want the option of least resistance. If the supposed victim were to resist with a weapon (lethal force) that is a very significant deterrent to a criminal.

Chances are they would rather live to commit a crime another day than continuing to deal with an armed supposed victim and possibly dying from that encounter.

[Rapture]

The constantly developing 'Me vs You' attitude these threads spawn gets old, guys.

Thinking that any one plan is going to stop crime is ridiculous. It just is. But wouldn't you(as a criminal) perhaps have a tint of fear on your mind if you walked into a bank to rob it, and know that there is a chance the teller could have a gun? Or one of the people in the bank? I know I sure as hell would.

I already agreed that I think it would deter some crime if more people were armed. That's just obvious. I'm simply stating that I don't think the difference will be as much as you think it may be. Crime will still happen very much on a similar scale as it does now. Criminals will adjust.

I can accept that the world isn't perfect - but it's hard when you could, theortically at least, eliminate or exponentially minimise these things in the first place. Though harder practiced than said; especially for nation like the US, where it is ingrainedinto their psyche.

Guns are a part of American culture, but I don't think that's to do with it. Again, a gun is only a tool. Primarily the root issue of crime is a failing economy and lowering educational standards. In these cases related to the thread - shooting sprees- the issue is typically a mental one. Unlike other modern nations the US shies away from universal healthcare programs, so not everyone can get the therapy of medicine that they may need. Between all that and our war on drugs, which causes gangs to form in areas of poverty, the whole thing is an unfortunate mess.


But that's trailing off-topic. Was it ever determined why this guy did what he did?

Criminals prefer unarmed/defenseless victims. They want the option of least resistance. If the supposed victim were to resist with a weapon (lethal force) that is a very significant deterrent to a criminal.

Chances are they would rather live to commit a crime another day than continuing to deal with an armed supposed victim and possibly dying from that encounter.

No, criminals commit crimes because it's a necessity for them. There is usually no other option.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Yes, some people are quite patriotic about their country, and when it is insulted it does strike a nerve. So I get a bit pissed and say things. Assuming that members aren't able to argue without getting passionate about the subject is far from a bad thing Admartian, if we all droned on without caring, it would be totally shit. lol

[admartian]

The constantly developing 'Me vs You' attitude these threads spawn gets old, guys.


Guns are a part of American culture, but I don't think that's to do with it. Again, a gun is only a tool. Primarily the root issue of crime is a failing economy and lowering educational standards. In these cases related to the thread - shooting sprees- the issue is typically a mental one. Unlike other modern nations the US shies away from universal healthcare programs, so not everyone can get the therapy of medicine that they may need. Between all that and our war on drugs, which causes gangs to form in areas of poverty, the whole thing is an unfortunate mess.


But that's trailing off-topic. Was it ever determined why this guy did what he did?

Yeah - that's the part which I dislike. Heck even trying to avoid generates a hateful response (see posts above).



You may be right. But to me, it's harder to get rid/change something when it's been there for generations and happens to be one of the founding principles of a nation/group/community etc. I can relate somewhat in regards to the Treaty we have here - to do with Maori and the Crown regarding asset rights etc.


Not read anything about that yet. All I know is that there was an argument then he went nuts. That blog post from the anarchist soccer mom really gave me an insight as to how these things can start/escalate.

[claud3]

So we are all cool and friends again

[admartian]

Yes, some people are quite patriotic about their country, and when it is insulted it does strike a nerve. So I get a bit pissed and say things. Assuming that members aren't able to argue without getting passionate about the subject is far from a bad thing Admartian, if we all droned on without caring, it would be totally shit. lol

I don't think anyone's insulted the nation though (save from claud3 post perhaps - to which he has apologised for - big of him - not many people; let alone those on the intrnet do that ).

And I don't thin it's insulting an nation when discussing a law of this nature. Sure it's an issue most associated with the States. But no one has said Americans deserve to die etc. If anything, quite the opposite based on those not wanting more to die.

[MATRIX 2]

The constantly developing 'Me vs You' attitude these threads spawn gets old, guys.



I already agreed that I think it would deter some crime if more people were armed. That's just obvious. I'm simply stating that I don't think the difference will be as much as you think it may be. Crime will still happen very much on a similar scale as it does now. Criminals will adjust.



Guns are a part of American culture, but I don't think that's to do with it. Again, a gun is only a tool. Primarily the root issue of crime is a failing economy and lowering educational standards. In these cases related to the thread - shooting sprees- the issue is typically a mental one. Unlike other modern nations the US shies away from universal healthcare programs, so not everyone can get the therapy of medicine that they may need. Between all that and our war on drugs, which causes gangs to form in areas of poverty, the whole thing is an unfortunate mess.


But that's trailing off-topic. Was it ever determined why this guy did what he did?



No, criminals commit crimes because it's a necessity for them. There is usually no other option.

Skip over to 2:30:

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

[J3ff3]

And if what you say was true (even for europe) why is switzerland doing so well with their high level of gun ownership?

Answer that.

most men are conscripted at 20, and provide some sort of military service until their mid thirties. yours do not.

as a standing militia their society is highly respectful of weaponry. they have learnt this over a few hundred years. yours have not.

they have virtually no crime, strict schools, low social mobility and strong ties in their communities. yours do not.

you think you could replicate this model? no?

well then its hardly an option for you, much like you believe strong gun laws aren't.

Again, a gun is only a tool..

yes, but its a more effective tool. and arguably easier to commit a crime with.



anyway, i don't really care that much. i personally just think that, other than 'liberty', there really isn't much reason to not try and clamp down on guns AND try other methods.

its not like i'm advocating gutting the arms industry. its just regulation to help weed out the nut jobs, and perhaps, as someone else mentioned, allow for greater responsibility when something does go wrong.

[Rapture]

Skip over to 2:30:

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

Because they have other choices: people who are not armed. Kwes was talking about if everyone was armed. That's entirely a new status quo. Criminals who live off of others will have to change and adapt to an armed citizenry, and they'll become more aggressive and less fearful in the process.

[MATRIX 2]

most men are conscripted at 20, and provide some sort of military service until their mid thirties. yours do not.

as a standing militia their society is highly respectful of weaponry. they have learnt this over a few hundred years. yours have not.

they have virtually no crime, strict schools, low social mobility and strong ties in their communities. yours do not.

you think you could replicate this model? no?

well then its hardly an option for you, much like you believe strong gun laws aren't.

It is possible. The thing you are forgetting is the US is a very big country. Some areas are very pleasant and have the same attributes you just listed for switzerland. Others areas are at the other end of the spectrum and are like warzones in a sense.

One significant difference is even in switzerland those that don't not like/care for guns understand how they work and respect them. That cannot be said for the vast majority of people in the USA with similar views. Until we are able to provide a basic/fundamental education about firearms to all people in the USA we can't say for sure that we are not able to model switzerland.

Odd how you think gun control is a viable option for us, but emulating switzerland is off the table.

Because they have other choices: people who are not armed. Kwes was talking about if everyone was armed. That's entirely a new status quo. Criminals who live off of others will have to change and adapt to an armed citizenry, and they'll become more aggressive and less fearful in the process.

Or perhaps they will stop committing criminal acts because the reward is too low vs the risk which is too high.

You said people are criminals because they have no other choices, that might be true for some individuals, but I bet that does not apply to the majority of criminals.

Also you claim relates more to thefts than other types of crime. Last I checked theft is just but one of many types of crimes people can commit, and there are fairly well off individuals who commit theft as well.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Because they have other choices: people who are not armed. Kwes was talking about if everyone was armed. That's entirely a new status quo. Criminals who live off of others will have to change and adapt to an armed citizenry, and they'll become more aggressive and less fearful in the process.

The only way to outgrow your fear of death is to experience it first hand. I doubt criminals would just become fearless killers. They would adapt, at most likely the lives of a few every month or year.

[Yuuichi]

most men are conscripted at 20, and provide some sort of military service until their mid thirties. yours do not.

as a standing militia their society is highly respectful of weaponry. they have learnt this over a few hundred years. yours have not.

they have virtually no crime, strict schools, low social mobility and strong ties in their communities. yours do not.

you think you could replicate this model? no?.

The problem is USA has religious from all over the world, and many do not believe in military service for various reasons. We are not a nation of one culture or religion, but of many from all over the world. No other country is diverse as ours which is why we run into so many problems because there is not one blanket solution for everything.

[Rapture]

The only way to outgrow your fear of death is to experience it first hand. I doubt criminals would just become fearless killers. They would adapt, at most likely the lives of a few every month or year.

And people will be be hurt and die. Criminals are not criminals because of choice, but because it's usually their only way to get by. They're not going to just back down because more people have guns. They only need to change how they approach their targets.

[J3ff3]

It is possible. The thing you are forgetting is the US is a very big country. Some areas are very pleasant and have the same attributes you just listed for switzerland. Others areas are at the other end of the spectrum and are like warzones in a sense.

One significant difference is even in switzerland those that don't not like/care for guns understand how they work and respect them. That cannot be said for the vast majority of people in the USA with similar views. Until we are able to provide a basic/fundamental education about firearms to all people in the USA we can't say for sure that we are not able to model switzerland.

Odd how you think gun control is a viable option for us, but emulating switzerland is off the table.

i think its unlikely, but eitherway better education is surely provided most efficiently, or at least thoroughly (as in provided to all), at a state or federal level. it goes hand in hand with the regulation of weapons that you seem to dismiss. otherwise how can you ensure that the education is ever provided?

the swiss get around it by forcing conscription or service in the militia.

[claud3]

Put it this way... the u.s has a amendment that the right to bar arms, other nations do not

I am going to flip the coin here.... I judged a country on it's way of doing things and it was wrong of me.
..
Because the UK or other countries are no different. Guns kill in the wrong hands and guns kill accidental... Thats life and we do what we do, get on with things

You are still going to get up tomorrow and have a kiss from you're girlfriend or wife, you are still going to say morning to you're kids or have a shower...

The world moves on like a black and white movie

All you get is words and no sound... Because silence is the best form of communication

[Completely Average]

No one said that. I was jstu posing the questions. Clearly there should be a restriction on what type of gun. BUt the pro-gun people have never been ever about compromise.

Any restriction on the type of gun undercuts the purpose of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

If you accept that the 2nd Amendment is there to guarantee the ability to wage armed rebellion then you should also accept that the weapons the people have access to should be comperable to the weapons that would be used against The People. Ideally, The People should have BETTER weapons than the government, which in many cases we do.


Without getting into a long winded, half page explaination, the classic "military assault weapon" that most people are afraid of is actually designed to NOT be very lethal. The caliber, ballistics, and abilities are restricted by the Geneva Convention. Hollowpoint and soft nosed ammo cannot be used in military weapons for instance. Current militaries around the world use the smaller and less lethal 5.56mm round instead of the 30.06 round that US forces used in WWII.

Despite the high profile mass shootings like this one, I would be FAR more afraid of a hunter with a good deer hunting rifle than a military style assault weapon, and owning quite a few guns of both styles myself, I can assure you that I have several hunting weapons with far greater range, accuracy, and lethality than you'll find in the military, short of an Anti-Material rifle. (And I could buy one of those too)

[MATRIX 2]

i think its unlikely, but eitherway better education is surely provided most efficiently, or at least thoroughly (as in provided to all), at a state or federal level. it goes hand in hand with the regulation of weapons that you seem to dismiss. otherwise how can you ensure that the education is ever provided?

the swiss get around it by forcing conscription or service in the militia.

It used to be taught in high schools in the past for example.

The issue is there are people who have such an irrational fear/hatred of guns that they believe nothing good can come of them. These people become very uncomfortable if they are in the presence of a gun. Hell some even take issue with police/military being armed. They unfortunately have a lot of power and are able to influence and shape our society in various ways.

In addition the people I mentioned above don't bother to properly inform themselves about guns to back their views. They are perfectly happy to run with any drivel that suits their agenda even if it is factually incorrect or based on lies.

It may shock you (and others here) but in addition to gun/hunter saftey being taught in high schools it was not uncommon in the past for high schools to have shooting teams, who practices in/around the school. (weapons were present in/around the school) Also during the hunting season it was not uncommon for students to have guns/ammunition in their cars in the school parking lot so they could go hunting after school ended. In those time's shooting like the one in CT were rare. Guns have been prevalent in the US for a long time. And you didn't have the prevalence of these sorts of acts then as you do in more recent history.

The culture changed, and because of that we have become more violent as a whole.

[claud3]

teenagers will be teenagers

[Completely Average]

And people will be be hurt and die. Criminals are not criminals because of choice

And people will be be hurt and die. Criminals are not criminals because of choice.

Yes they are, and to claim otherwise is just blatantly false. That's the sort of false apologistic nonsense I would expct from a hardcore liberal with ZERO education or experience on the subject.

Criminals CHOOSE to be criminals. No one forces them to be. They CHOOSE to be criminals because they simply do not want to be any different. They don't want to have to go to school, to learn a trade, to get a job, or to behave. To them, it's simply easier to commit a crime to get what they want.

I tell you what. Name me just one person living in the US who was forced against his will to be a criminal. Just one. Go ahead and try.





And as for how criminals react to an armed population vs an unarmed one.....

Since changing their laws in 2006, gun sales in Virginia have increased by 73%.
During the same time frame, gun crime has DROPPED by 22%.


Quite simply, criminals look for easy targets. A mugger, car jacker, burglar, thief, robber, or rapist doesn't want to die for their crime, so they will try to pick targets that are unlikely to resist and are easily overpowered. When criminals have to worry about grandma packing a 44 magnum, they aren't likely to try to commit a crime when grandma is around. The more people that are armed and able to resist, the less likely a criminal is to try to commit a crime.

For all of their faults, criminals do have a sense of self preservation.





The most dramatic example you could possibly come up with is looking at Cuidad Juarez and El Paso. Sister cities that are separated by nothing more than a narrow river and a couple of fences.


El Paso allowed Conceal Carry, allows 12 year olds to have hunting licenses, and has the Death Penalty.
Cuidad Juarez bans all guns, doesn't allow anyone to hunt, and has no Death Penalty.

El Paso has the lowest murder rate of any major city in the US at just 0.8 per 100,000 people.
Cuidad Juarez has the highest murder rate in North America at 148 per 100,000 people.


The murder rate in Juarez more than doubles the worst city in the US, which is post-Katrina New Orleans.


BTW, do you even know which US cities have the highest murder rates?

New Orleans, Louisiana
Baltimore, Maryland
Detroit, Michigan
Newark, New Jersey
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington DC
Oakland, California
Buffalo, New York
Kansas City, Missouri
Cleveland, Ohio


How about the 5 cities with the lowest murder rates?

El Paso, Texas
Plano, Texas
Lincoln, Nebraska
Honolulu, Hawaii
Yuma, Arizona

Now compare those two lists with the types of anti-gun laws they have. The more restrictive the anti-gun laws, the higher the murder rate. Why? Because the victims cannot fight back.

[claud3]

Why show info you are lost in mate... do you know what youhave posted

[Rapture]

Yes they are, and to claim otherwise is just blatantly false. That's the sort of false apologistic nonsense I would expct from a hardcore liberal with ZERO education or experience on the subject.

Criminals CHOOSE to be criminals. No one forces them to be. They CHOOSE to be criminals because they simply do not want to be any different. They don't want to have to go to school, to learn a trade, to get a job, or to behave. To them, it's simply easier to commit a crime to get what they want.

I tell you what. Name me just one person living in the US who was forced against his will to be a criminal. Just one. Go ahead and try.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. By 'choice' I'm stating that the poor, uneducated, and dependent are more likely to commit crimes because sometimes it's necessary for them. You need to understand their lifestyle and why they make those decisions. Typically a person who's financially and socially stable doesn't wake up in the morning and consider breaking into someone's house or mugging another person just to get by.

The subject of the rest of your post was already addressed.

[Yuuichi]

This was very good and well written. If you do not have same beliefs I understand, but please do not bash it. Just bite your tongue on this one please. No this is not me who wrote it.

‘Twas' 11 days before Christmas, around 9:38
When 20 beautiful children stormed through heaven's gate.
Their smiles were contagious, their laughs filled the air.
They could hardly believe all the beauty they saw there.
They were filled with such joy; they didn't know what to say.
They remembered nothing of what had happened that day.
"Where are we?" asked one girl, as quiet as a mouse.
"This is heaven." declared a boy. "We're spending Christmas at God's house."
When what to their wondering eyes did appear,
But Jesus, their savior, the children gathered near.
He looked at them and smiled, and they smiled just the same.
Then He opened His arms and He called them by name.
And in that moment was joy that only heaven can bring
Those children all flew into the arms of their King
And as they lingered in the warmth of His embrace,
One small girl turned and looked at Jesus' face.
And as if He could read all the questions she had
He gently whispered to her, "I'll take care of mom and dad."
Then He looked down on earth, the world far below
He saw all of the hurt, the sorrow, and woe
Then He closed His eyes and He outstretched His hand,
"Let My power and presence re-enter this land!"
"May this country be delivered from the hands of fools"
"I'm taking back my nation. I'm taking back my schools!"
Then He and the children stood up without sound.
"Come now my children, let me show you around."
Excitement filled the space, some skipped and some ran.
All displaying enthusiasm that only a child can.
And I heard Him proclaim as He walked out of sight,
"In the midst of this darkness, I AM STILL THE LIGHT."

Written by Cameo Smith, Mt. Wolf, PA

[admartian]

Any restriction on the type of gun undercuts the purpose of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

If you accept that the 2nd Amendment is there to guarantee the ability to wage armed rebellion then you should also accept that the weapons the people have access to should be comperable to the weapons that would be used against The People. Ideally, The People should have BETTER weapons than the government, which in many cases we do.


Without getting into a long winded, half page explaination, the classic "military assault weapon" that most people are afraid of is actually designed to NOT be very lethal. The caliber, ballistics, and abilities are restricted by the Geneva Convention. Hollowpoint and soft nosed ammo cannot be used in military weapons for instance. Current militaries around the world use the smaller and less lethal 5.56mm round instead of the 30.06 round that US forces used in WWII.

Despite the high profile mass shootings like this one, I would be FAR more afraid of a hunter with a good deer hunting rifle than a military style assault weapon, and owning quite a few guns of both styles myself, I can assure you that I have several hunting weapons with far greater range, accuracy, and lethality than you'll find in the military, short of an Anti-Material rifle. (And I could buy one of those too)

I get what you're saying. But a bullet is still a bullet. And a military rifle can still output a higher and afster amount of rounds than your regular hunting rifle can. Unless of course you're worried about the guy long range picking off people.

BUt with these cases, aren't they 99% of the time at close or medium range? save for that Washington sniper.

And the main concern is about volume and efficiency of these killing tools. Not so much what can kill you at which range?

I get that plays into efficiency in war etc.

But in these cases, wouldn't that be a moot point? (these shootings being carrie0 dout with the point to get as many people as possible; therefore military grade being more dangerous)?

I dunno; not a gun expert (feel free to do one of those douchey internet things and cutting every line and responding to each sentence; with this particular one! Not saying you are though; just something I see on the net a lot ) But to me, in these instances, volume/ability to fire off successfully and ability to conceal (and less directly, ability to carry more of these weapons) is the issue.

If we were talking a very specific case which would suit the point though, I would agree with you.

[THUGGEDOUT]

Seeing that they are now bringing video games into it, couple articles saying he was "into violent video games...Call of Duty...".


Tap-a-hoe

[claud3]

Video games easy target