Weapons...

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Weapons kill.
So do many other things, cars being one giant mass murderer.
In sight of the Veirginia Tech tragedy, what is your current line of thougts w.r.t public access to weapons?

EDIT: Sorry, screwed up on the poll and no way to edit them. Second line should just be "NO".
Asher, why can't I delete my own post with no replies...?

 

[Asher Kelman]

I didn't see the poll!

I saw a TV news shot of bulldozers disposing of thousands of guns and rifles in Australia. Similarly U.K. does not allow handguns.

My impulse is that no one should have guns.

However, the U.S. consititution has built in rights to bear arms. The idea is to prevent the dictatorship of the govenment. In the Kremlin, over the past week, the Russian police outnumbered the protestors 5:1. If civilians were armed, I guess the police would have set up machine gune posts to make sure no one escaped.

So I'm not sure that civilians carrying arms protects democracy.

In Israel, people carry guns and I don't know what the history is of people going nuts and killing people except for the terrible tragedy some 15 years ago.

Asher

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Poll is like right there
I guess your vote will be NO

 

[Asher Kelman]

I have already corrected the poll and clarified it.

I voted against gun ownership, not because I don't want the right but more becasue there are too many uneducated poorly brought up people without the discipline to manage the guns.

Ideally, everyone should have to own a gun.

If everyone on an airoplane at least had a knife, the hijackers would not have taken over a single plane. Well maybe the first one!

The Swiss and Israeli's seem to be able to manage gun ownership.

Here in the U.S.A. we have a major problem. So for that reason I reluctantly voted against it.

Asher

 

[Paul Bestwick]

Here in Australia it is rare for a person to own a gun.......unless they are a farmer or work in the security industry. personally, I do not know one person who owns a gun, & I think my experience would be echoed by the majority of non rural Australians. I can see sense in the argument that if other students had guns then lives would have been saved as someone would have taken him out. However, I think the greater evil is unrestricted weapon ownership (compared to Aust)
From an outsider looking in, America truly seems to be a weird place. Having said that, I am actually a supporter of the States. My simplistic view is this : someone is going to run the world. Thank God, that someone is America given that current other option is 1) Muslim extremists, 2) communist dictators
3) assorted other megalomaniacs.
Past options include Hitler etc anon.
So give me America with all her positive benefits. Pity about all the crap, little bit like dust on a sensor.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Ray West]

Hi Paul,

to paraphrase Churchill - 'some dust, some sensor'...

The legal ownership of guns is relatively difficult in the UK, but still quite easy to get illegal stuff.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Charles L Webster]

I believe that "people kill people, not guns" but the easy availability of guns in this country makes it too easy for people to kill people with guns.

The VT tragedy probably would not have been prevented by making guns more difficult to obtain. Based on his 1500 page rant/screed sent to NBC, he believed that he was not responsible, and probably would have killed/hurt people by other means if a gun wasn't easily available.

America's culture of guns makes it too easy for 12-year olds to go out and whack someone they perceive as "dissing" them, with no regard for the consequences. Young people seldom have much regard for the consequences of their actions because they lack experience.

If ownership of all guns, hand- and long- was illegal in America, there would be fewer deaths by gunshot. It is a fact that most gun-related deaths are the result of disputes between people who know each other.

My $0.02 worth.

 

[Michael Fontana]

The availability of weapons isn't the only reason for these tragedies, but if weapons are arround, they get used, as every tool.

See, here in Switzerland, usually every man = soldier has his gun & ammunition at home, from 20 to about 45, as army is compulsory!

We weren't used to have these tragedies, but they' re coming up more often, in the last years. So we' re havin exactly the same discusion here. Probably it'l end up, the army keeping the ammunition, the men keeping the gun; which is sort of a farce, as it's easy to get the bullets.

Obviously, not everbody can handle critical situations in his life, so that's where the tragedy starts. Weapons in the hand of these people is a thing to avoid, IMO. But who makes he border line?

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Just thinking out loud.

I am convinced that this sort of massmurder will happen whether it is harder for individuals to obtain guns or not. I intend to think that politics and the public fail to adress the other big issues besides the discussion on guns.

We give our children at a very tender age into the hands of an educational institution. The purpose is that they will be educated and guided towards their intersests and talents, to become stable personalities, pursuing a professional and productive life in whatever discipline.

A system that is constructed in it's very fundaments to be selective is doomed to fail in many aspects.

I lived in the US for quite some time, but this is 10 years ago, so correct me if I am wrong, but if things didn't change, then it is safe to say that the best possible education is a matter of parental pay checks.

I honestly was stunned when I learned under what pressure 10 years old as well as the teachers are in the average and better school systems, I can only speak of such as I did not experience lesser well of school systems in my time there.

Heavy investments into education are paramount to enable a creative and healthy competitiveness. But I also think we have to be very cautious about that latter aspect, competition. Too easy this aspect takes over and becomes the only mantra to follow, and I think this to be wrong.

Violence in schools is daily concern, schools are guarded by armed personal, some have security proceedures as heavy as in airports. Something is very very wrong.

It goes deeper in deed, much deeper, the polarization in society is a major problem and our dance around the golden calf can only be short lived and does not provide the much needed depth about true matters of life in education.

One mind much more clever than I ever will be once said in my own words: " If you want to find out about the mental and social health of any given society, look to its education and health system first."

If we accept that we created a society where it becomes normal to pop a prozac in the morning to deal with the daily stress ahead, think twice. If we accept that our career moves are more important than to listen to our children and make time for them, and rather have them pop a ritalin instead as well, again, think twice.

Too easy we put them into boxes, label them ADHD and simliar, in the attempt to ridden ourselves from the responsibility as parents, not so intentionally, but often enough because we are strained to the limit with our ressources.

If we fail our children as parents on emotional, intellectual and personally I would like to add spiritual levels, there is little or nothing the educational system can do as it is. If the educational system fails our children, it is our backup as parents that is required in each indvidual case to change this.

I voted no, banning guns will safe lives, but ultimately we fail if we think this to be the only very inherent problem in urgent need to be adressed.

P.S. Hehehehe, if in Ireland guns would be as easily available as they are in the US, the Irish would be long extinct.... <grins>

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

First of all, I think the kind of tragedy that happened at VT, and previously at Columbine, cannot be controlled or prevented in any way. These are deranged people who want to do damage. If guns did not exist, they would use a home made bomb, poison, or anything else capable of killing a lot of people. So while this tragedy raises the discussion about gun control (which is good), I don't really think it has anything to do with gun control.

If the reason for allowing guns is that of protection against crime or an oppressive government then it would follow that most gun related killings should be in self defense (against crime) or in a civil war, right? Well, the vast majority of gun related killings are domestic in nature, so at the very least, the "right to bear arms" is being abused. If the citizens are abusing a right, should that right be withdrawn? In this case I think it should.

But do the American citizens really have the right to own guns? There are two issues to consider here: a) what is a gun? and b) the interpretation of the second amendment.

So, can you really apply the notion of a gun available in 1786 to today's world? I say no. This was a time of muskets! Even the revolver wasn't invented until 50 years later! Contrast that to today's submachine guns, automatic handguns, etc. On top of this, availability of guns in those times was not the same as today. Pretty much anyone can own a gun today, the cost is relatively minor.

What about the actual "right" so many people hold so sacred? Well, it is not so clear-cut is it? The courts have struggled with this amendment forever, and it is still not settled.

The amendment is usually quoted by (conveniently) omitting the first half of the sentence. The complete sentence is "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.". Now, I'm no legal expert (and even those who are disagree), but to me the right is related to the militia. What's more, relative to the bear arms meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service"*. In 1939, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. There is a good summary on this issue on Wikipedia here.

So should people not be allowed to have guns? What about hunters and sports shooters? All over the world, hunters and sports shooters have guns. Usually, this requires a license not but always. I think that with the current situation in the US, a strict training and licensing scheme should be involved, maybe even with psychological evaluations. Something has to be done!

But why is the US so overrepresented in the statistics over mass and serial killers? That has to be the focus of the debate, IMO.

* Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

First of all, I think the kind of tragedy that happened at VT, and previously at Columbine, cannot be controlled or prevented in any way. These are deranged people who want to do damage. If guns did not exist, they would use a home made bomb, poison, or anything else capable of killing a lot of people. So while this tragedy raises the discussion about gun control (which is good), I don't really think it has anything to do with gun control.

If the reason for allowing guns is that of protection against crime or an oppressive government then it would follow that most gun related killings should be in self defense (against crime) or in a civil war, right? Well, the vast majority of gun related killings are domestic in nature, so at the very least, the "right to bear arms" is being abused. If the citizens are abusing a right, should that right be withdrawn? In this case I think it should.

My thoughts exactly. In addition, the easy access will lower the threshold for using them, whether intentionally or by accident.

Bart

 

[Nill Toulme]

From this morning's Atlanta paper:

Man Shoots Wife in Tragic Mistake

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Ron Morse]

Kris Carnmarker wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I think the kind of tragedy that happened at VT, and previously at Columbine, cannot be controlled or prevented in any way. These are deranged people who want to do damage. If guns did not exist, they would use a home made bomb, poison, or anything else capable of killing a lot of people. So while this tragedy raises the discussion about gun control (which is good), I don't really think it has anything to do with gun control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I totally agree.

Thousands are killed or crippled every year by drunk drivers yet our law makers never mention banning alcohol again, Most of the law makers drink and often you hear of them having alcohol related accidents. Look at the famous Ted Kennedy for one.

Most of the people who want to ban gun ownership come from big cities where people in their families have not owned guns for a generation or more. I know many people who like to hunt or target shoot that are from big cities but I think that they are the minority. I worked away from home for MANY years to make the kind of living for my family that I wanted. I worked in Mass a lot. I brought a friend and his wife from Mass to my home for many weekends. They were terriffied of guns. I finally got them to try some target shooting. They enjoyed it so much that they bought a rifle, shotgun and pistol but leave them at my house in Maine to use when they come up to visit. I haven't hunted in years but love to target shoot.

Here just about everyone owns a rifle and many own several yet you very seldom hear of a firearm related death or injury. It is very common to hear gunfire on any given day. Everyone knows someone is target practiceing or checking their sights and not a single thought is given to it.

My father taught me to shoot before I was old enough to hold the gun up by my self. He also taught me that you don't point a gun at a person EVER, that you don't shoot any animal that you don't intend to eat and that a gun was very dangerous if not handled properly. All my friends were taught the same and I brought up my daughter the same way. My daughters boyfriend is from Mass and had never fired a gun before until two summers ago. He now loves to shoot. When I feel he has learned enough to safely be on his own with one I will give him a small caliber rifle with no worrys that anyone will be hurt.

The media only mentions gun crimes, never when a robbey was stopped or a burgulary into someones home was stopped with a gun.

I think a lot of the problem today is caused by what young people are brought up watching on TV and the movies. They watch people being slaughtered day after day with no thought of the consequenses in real life. Many of the most popular movies are filled with violence, people shot, throats cut and blown to bits. No one can tell me that doesn't have an effect on some of the people who have grown up watching that day after day.

In the end if people like this nut case at VT are bent on killing people they will find a way no matter what is available.

 

[Nill Toulme]

...The media only mentions gun crimes, never when a robbey was stopped or a burgulary into someones home was stopped with a gun.
...

Are you kidding? That sort of thing always gets huge play in the local media, both print and broadcast. It just doesn't happen nearly as often as all the other ways people get killed with guns, and when it does happen, it's hardly national news like the VT tragedy is.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Hello Ron,

no doubt, there are thousands of people owning guns all their life and they never caused any harm.

I am not qualified to critisize this:

My father taught me to shoot before I was old enough to hold the gun up by my self. He also taught me that you don't point a gun at a person EVER, that you don't shoot any animal that you don't intend to eat and that a gun was very dangerous if not handled properly.

But the thought has crossed my mind whether a child in this age, not fully grown, physically and mentally, really does possess the needed intellectual potential and matureness to be able to fully grasp the concept your father taught you?

Obviously your Dad did a great job engraving this in your brain, but am I so wrong to think that all children are different, and while it sticked to you, it might not stick to the next kiddo.

Personally I fail to see the point of teaching children that young the use of weapons. There are exemptions of course, living in a remote wilderness, hunting as a mian source of nutrition to name a few, but most of the time I would rather put a questionmark behind the teaching of weapons use.

I really would love to better understand the underlaying motivation to teach a child usage of a tool designed to take a life. This is not meant cynical by no means Ron, I suppose I just do not get it.

I could never see myself teaching a child to shoot, considering that In 1995 a firearm was the weapon used in about 7 out of 10 murders in the United States. And there is more, in 1994, there were 39,720 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 13,593 people were murdered with handguns; 20,540 committed suicide by using firearms; 1,610 people were killed accidentally with firearms; and the remaining 3,977 died from other firearm-related incidents including self-defense; justifiable use of force by a law enforcement officer; and homicide using a firearm other than a handgun. About 1.3 million violent crimes were reported which included the use of firearm, more than 86% of them involved a handgun.

An estimated 150,000 people are treated annually in U.S. hospital emergency units for nonfatal gun-related injuries and approximately 80,000 require admission for in-patient care. Cost estimates range from $1.4 billion to $4.0 billion annually in direct medical costs and $19 billion annually in indirect costs, such as lost future earnings, permanent disability, etc. An estimated 86% of gun shot victims receiving medical treatment in hospital emergency units are uninsured or insured by Medicaid, so tax payers bear most of the cost of their medical care.

A few sources:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Statistics-1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept of Justice; 1995

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Handguns used in more than one million violent crimes; the use of semi-automatic guns in murders is increasing. Press release, July 9, 1995

Rice DR, MacKenzie EJ. Cost of Injury in the United States: A Report to Congress. San Francisco: Institute for Health and Aging, University of California; Baltimore, MD: Injury Prevention Center, Johns Hopkins University; 1989.

General Accounting Office. Trauma Care: Lifesaving System Threatened by Unreimbursed Costs and Other Factors. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Health for Families and the Uninsured, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office; 1991. Publication no. GAO/HRD-91-57.]

Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: National Survey of Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; 1997. Common Core of Data [public-use database]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept of Education; 1994

However, I am fully aware that number chrunching alone does not solve this dispute on gun ownership as it is a complex issue in deed.

I think a lot of the problem today is caused by what young people are brought up watching on TV and the movies. They watch people being slaughtered day after day with no thought of the consequenses in real life. Many of the most popular movies are filled with violence, people shot, throats cut and blown to bits.

The media.... well yes! The brutalisation of kiddos through the media is a huge issue and we must ask ourselves what values we really want our kiddos to learn in the most crucial stage of their development, before we put them in front of the idiot box to have 2 hours of "peace", you know what I mean. The consume of this BS has an effect in deed, and there it goes again, it is parental responsibility most of the time, isn't it?

I also intend to think the subject on it's own should not be discussed without another aspect, in the last decade alone 2 million children killed; 4-5 million disabled; 12 million left homeless; more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents; some 10 million psychologically traumatized.

A staggering ~30 million children's life ruined by guns, frankly I'd rather teach this in case a child would show an interest in using a weapon!

Child soldiers are increasingly involved as cheap labour and cannon fodder in armed conflicts.

This is a another reality of guns, and last not least, we should not forget the financial interests of the weapons lobbies behind all this. ....Death=Profit.... and photographers such as Tom Stoddart probably would shoot flowers or landscapes if we had less weapons produced, marketed, and sold in this world....

http://www.tomstoddart.com/iwitness.html

 

[Nill Toulme]

Well spoken Georg.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

It is a matter close to my heart as I have lost my best friend in the USA due to the fact that his mentally ill wife shot him 8 times with a smith&wesson, a sixloader I might add, so she reloaded in her state of mind.

Tom was alive for at least another 2.5 hours, his wife shot herself in the head after she attacked him, and the police did not enter the trailor, because they heard sounds coming out of it. These were the sounds of Tom giving knock signs that he is still alive.

They did not enter the trailor for the better part of 1.5 hours, they just had it surrounded with a phletora of cops for that time.

The reason they did not enter you ask? I can give you the inofficial reason that you will never read anywhere.

Tom was native american, Lakota, or in other words, as I remember vividly a post over a bar in Sioux City, "No Prairie Niggers", this was the reason they did not go in. If they would, they might have saved his young life, who knows. I am sorry to be so direct on this, but there is no other way explaining those attrocities.

I can say the word hate had a new meaning for me on this day.

Tom was the most gentle and warm person you can imagine, deeply caring for his ill wife and his children.

She bought the smith& wesson the very same day in town in a shop where the keeper knew about her problems. I guess he could not bare to not make the deal.

 

[Nill Toulme]

I'm sorry for your loss.

On a barely related note, you might be interested in many of the novels of Louise Erdrich, which deal with reservation life in an astonishingly poignant and penetrating way.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Interesting in deed.

http://www.booksense.com/people/archive/erdrichlouise.jsp

http://birchbarkbooks.com/aboutus.html

Thanks Nill!

 

[Vivek Khanzode]

I voted for the last choice. I think that in modern developed nation like ours, there should be no guns in the hands of general public.

The examples of Switzerland and Israel are quoted by many who favor no gun control, and I don't have any data on the gun related deaths in those nations, but the tens of thousands of gun related deaths per year, here in the USA, I think are bad enough.

The statistic that would shed immense light on whether gun control works or not, is the number of gun related deaths per 1000 people in the population across the western world (or even the whole world).

-- Vivek

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Something I remember often when I see the news these days....

The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Taka (the Great Spirit), and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us.

This is the real peace, and the others are but reflections of this. The second peace is that which is made between two individuals, and the third is that which is made between two nations. But above all you should understand that there can never be peace between nations until there is known that true peace, which, as I have often said, is within the souls of men.

Black Elk - Oglala

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The statistic that would shed immense light on whether gun control works or not, is the number of gun related deaths per 1000 people in the population across the western world (or even the whole world).

I found this chart for the European Union as per 2003 (numbers are relatively stable since then):

and I know from national statistics that for the Netherlands (Nederland), of the 1.2/100,000 inhabitants' murder/manslaughter victims per year, approx. 1 quarter is caused by fire-arms. The USA murder/manslaughter rate per 100,000 was 5.7 in 2003 (source FBI), but I have no comparable fire-arms percentage.

Bart

 

[Michael_Stones]

"First of all, I think the kind of tragedy that happened at VT, and previously at Columbine, cannot be controlled or prevented in any way. These are deranged people who want to do damage. If guns did not exist, they would use a home made bomb, poison, or anything else capable of killing a lot of people."

Here's some more musing on this part of Kris's thoughtful posting.

First, although it's true that mass murder incidents of the VT type cannot be anticipated, this does not mean that their frequency or scale are not amenable to control or prevention. At least in a statistical sense, such incidents vary with geography (e.g., country, state or province) and time in history. Surely this implies that control and prevention are possible although not without some sacrifice. We submit to security checks in air travel without too much grumbling because we believe that mass muder incidents of that type are amenable to control and prevention. It's a question of what and how much sacrifice a society is willing to bear to reduce the frequency and scale of VT type incidents.

Second, it may be a cop-out to classify mass murderers as deranged. If the term deranged implies insanity, most modern mass murders are not psychotic (or disorganzed in forensic terminology). If deranged implies that the person is evil, psychopathic, or sociopathic, I'm not sure that the term adds much that is useful.

Third, guns are easy to kill with compared to other means of destruction. It's unlikely that the VT murderer would have been able to kill 32 people if armed only with a knife. Although Timothy McVeigh used a bomb, as did terrorist groups in Europe and elsewhere, and a Japanese murderer used poison, these people had a quasi-political motivation. These killers were not 'deranged' in the same way as the VT or Columbine killers. Without guns I suspect that the latter incidents would have been much smaller in scale had they occurred at all.

Finally if the rationale for the right to bear arms is based on the need for a strong militia in the USA after the War of 1812, that justification is as dead as the dodo.

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Michael, I can't really disagree with anything you say in your post. Just let me clarify my rationale a bit.

Surely these kind of events can be prevented, if we where to accept the restrictions in freedom that would be necessary. But are we, realistically, willing to do so? I don't think it would be worth it. That's not to say that individual events can not be prevented without such drastic measures. Maybe the parents, faculty or peers should have seen something was not right with the attacker. From the news reports I've seen, his English professor did think something was not quite right with him.

With regards to the weapons used, I agree that there is a reason for these attackers to use guns and not poisons or bombs. It is probably because the attacker wants to to see the deaths up close; they want to be there in person, so to say. Poisoners and bombers are often called cowards, but it is not only that. The motivation is often political, and as such there is no need for them to see the massacre in person. However, if guns did not exist, wouldn't he use bombs or poisons instead (knives are too inefficient)? I'm just speculating though.

Finally, I used the word deranged colloquially. I'm not a criminal psychologist and will leave the correct terminology to them

 

[Asher Kelman]

P.C. Politcal correctness and religious strictness of "Ethics".

"First of all, I think the kind of tragedy that happened at VT, and previously at Columbine, cannot be controlled or prevented in any way. These are deranged people who want to do damage. If guns did not exist, they would use a home made bomb, poison, or anything else capable of killing a lot of people."

Why do we ignore these obviously sick and troubled people. Maybe we are more concerned with cheering the footbal or basketball teams or getting some quota met.

I do think that the P.C. (political correctness) doctrine of the workplace and the university put boundaries on commonsense.

With Syphilis cases, it is routine to have health workers track and trace back previous contacts so that they can get treatment, as the long-term effects are disastrous on the person and society.

With HIV infection, we adopted policy, misguided IMHO, that placed a blanket of ignorance around the issue so that HIV spread unchecked.

With mental disease we have taken the latter route. Instead of integrating mental health into medicine fully, it is still regarded as bound by much stricter ethics of disclosure and intervention.

In this particular case, a professor, reading his work, tried to warn authorities but was rebuffed! The psychiatrist interviewed afterwards was in total denial.

Instead of stating that

"Sadly we let down society by not making the tools to intervene in a timely fashion." just repeated the national anthem of "patient privacy"!

If we don't own the problem, we cannot even begin to address it.


Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

it may be a cop-out to classify mass murderers as deranged. If the term deranged implies insanity, most modern mass murders are not psychotic (or disorganized in forensic terminology). If deranged implies that the person is evil, psychopathic, or sociopathic, I'm not sure that the term adds much that is useful.

You are quite correct obviously that "deranged" is not clinically accurate. However the person anyway showed extreme focus on an imagined wrong of such proportion that dimensionality and measurement of values and relative worth in choice was unbalanced and no longer valid. His conclusions were made without empathy and carried out with ruthlessness.

So I would say that in the time period involved, he was indeed driven by sociapathic and psychotic forces, which were by all standards, evil.

I have no problem with the term "deranged" since we are using it in merely colloquially. As Winston Churchill declared, "I speak English as it is spoke!"

As to guns, I like them and hate them.

Here, guns would have protected the students! But so would an open attitude to psychiatric needs where this man's issues should have warranted intervention.

Even without these measures, how about a simple lock on a door or a police force that is properly trained.

How about not assigning blame to cops that waited 2 hours and failed to lock down the campus?

Asher

 

[Vivek Khanzode]

Hi Bart

Thanks for the data. Although, I cannot understand all the names, most of them are identifiable. I am assuming that the chart represents "gun related deaths" and not "murders". I think it is probably the latter and not the former.

Assuming that the number of gun related deaths is 50% of the 5.7 figure in the US, the number is still higher than all the nations except the first 3 in the chart!

 

[Klaus Esser]

I believe that "people kill people, not guns" but the easy availability of guns in this country makes it too easy for people to kill people with guns.

The VT tragedy probably would not have been prevented by making guns more difficult to obtain. Based on his 1500 page rant/screed sent to NBC, he believed that he was not responsible, and probably would have killed/hurt people by other means if a gun wasn't easily available.

America's culture of guns makes it too easy for 12-year olds to go out and whack someone they perceive as "dissing" them, with no regard for the consequences. Young people seldom have much regard for the consequences of their actions because they lack experience.

If ownership of all guns, hand- and long- was illegal in America, there would be fewer deaths by gunshot. It is a fact that most gun-related deaths are the result of disputes between people who know each other.

My $0.02 worth.

Hi Chas!

I fully agree with you.

Right: it´s obvious, that the bad guys always will get the weapon they want to get.
But the major problem in my opinion is, that guns and especially handguns have a symbolic feature - they seem to act as kind of icons. See the pictures of this guy from the VT - he dresses like Lara Croft: black wrapped holsters, black gloves, black guns, black Ray Ban . . .
They lern it from the cinema and tv, how the "cool guy" look like - and they´re NOTHING without this symbol of power and would like to walk arround and looking "important" and bloody cool.
If they were applauded for they´re outfit - i bet, nothing bad would happen . .

But they are only little fearful crabs - and they know it. And the people laugh over them.

And then there is this loaded gun they just bought as easily as a yoyo in the shop next door . . .

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart

Thanks for the data. Although, I cannot understand all the names, most of them are identifiable. I am assuming that the chart represents "gun related deaths" and not "murders". I think it is probably the latter and not the former.!

I'm sorry for the Dutch language legends, the European Statistics (also in English) site wasn't responding. Actually the chart heading is indeed (translated) "9. Share of victims to murders and manslaughter in the European Union, 2003". Of those I know that approx. 25% (of the rather average 1.2 per 100,000 total for the Netherlands), so 0.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, are fire-arms related in the Netherlands.

From the USA FBI site statistics can be downloaded as a spreadsheet and it has a similar column (if I recall correctly) called "Murders and involuntary manslaughter", 5.7 per 100,000 in 2003, so 4.75x the relatively average 1.2 number for my country.

The only thing I don't know is how many of the 5.7 are fire-arms related. If it would be the same 25% then all we can only conclude is that the USA is having relatively more murder victims than many European countries. If there is a ratio figure available for fire-arms related murders/manslaughter, then one can conclude if e.g. the easy access to fire-arms also leads to relatively more (or less) fatalities.

Bart

 

[Ray West]

My take on this, is very similar to Ron Morse's, except I was taught rifle shooting at school, at 13 years old - army cadet force.

When my son was 15 years old, I bought him an air rifle, and taught him, virtually the same as Ron's father taught him. I legally own a number of shot guns. I live in a rural area. However, in the UK, in order to get a licence, there is a fairly strict background check, and the police firearms inspector checks the storage arrangement, and the guns are registered. The licence has to be produced to purchase guns or ammunition. Over the past twenty years or so, the restrictions/cost of licence has increased. There are areas which need improvement, and as I mentioned earlier, there are a number of 'off ticket' weapons out there, but they are decreasing. None the less, the more recent 'gun massacres' Dunblane/Hungerford have been committed by murderers with current gun licences, it is difficult to detect this type of person before the event. (In the same way one of the most recent known serial killers, Dr Harold Shipman is estimated to have killed 487 people over a period of 25 years before he was caught, but a number of folk came forward after the event who thought they had detected something wrong...)

I have looked for statistics on the web, and many of the sites have an axe to grind, both for and against gun ownership. One thing is apparent - as usual, the USA is well out of step with the rest of the world.

I think part of this is connected to the social make-up of the population of the USA.

The 'fairest view' I have found, with statistics which seem to be about right - cross checking with other sites - is here http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
a Canadian site. The statistics are a few years old, and I think the sectarian shootings, in N Ireland, are now much reduced.

Now, over here, in the UK, we have a certain view of our European cousins - the Spanish/Italians are hot blooded - but look at their low gun related death rates. Also the Swedish/Belgian/Dutch, always considered placid - similar figures. I do not think these countries accepted migrants or immigrants as readily as the USA. The interesting one to me, is the suicidal Fins - high level of gun ownership, but low homicide figures. I think, in the context of this discussion, that perhaps a clearer picture can be got if suicide deaths are not counted. I think, if one is suicidal, then a way will be found, and although suicide is usually painful for relatives, if there are any, I think shooting oneself is far fairer than involving a train or lorry driver in your demise.

I always find it interesting that the USA harps back to the constitution when it suits them, for the daftest reasons. We can go back to the Magna Carta, and some of those laws still stand, but not the ones that do not much apply to today's society. The Canadian site I quoted, appears to be well balanced in the most part, imnsho.

Any chance the USA will get in step with everyone else in the so called 'civilised world, sometime soon??

Best wishes,

Ray