Did Someone Else Not Like Mondays?
17 04 2007Another shooting. Another tragedy. Another shocking, grief filled day. Another shooter goes on the rampage just shooting school kids, but apparently with purpose. Is it me or is there a sense of deja vu here? Haven’t we been here before? Recently?
The chorus of the song “I Don’t Like Mondays” based on killer Brenda Spencer, 17 (who, with a shrug, back in 1979, gave it as her reason for turning a gun on her classmates at her San Diego school) has been going round and round in my head since I heard of today’s shooting, the largest body count in a US school shooting to date.
We’ll never really know why of course, since the shooter also popped himself.
But unfortunately we can now almost predict how events will unfold from here: the analysis of the killer, the psychologists being wheeled out to delve into his mind and motivations, the attempted analysis of what really happened, the endless discussions about how it can be prevented from happening again, the grieving families who will have to endure their loss and seeing it broadcast over and over again through the media (and who will probably be pursued by the press for their stories).
Why? Because we saw it all the last time. And the time before that. And we’ll see it again the next time, when the next loser - who you can bet is probably already planning how he can beat the last shooter’s body count – sets out on another shooting spree, with every bit as intense media publicity.
Yet, even with the terrible events of Monday April 16th, with 19 school shootings to date, I still doubt that the US is going to do anything to change their gun laws.
Do you? I’d love to be wrong.
First time in my life I didn’t see the news and this news was broken to me by my bench partner at school and I must say I was really shocked to know that even he watches television. I thought he only studies books.
Anyhow I was partially right because he thought this was the first incident of its kind. I very well know it wasn’t and mercurior has listed so many above. I don’t know what’s gone into America’s kids and schools. Something like that should happen somewhere in some other country, not good ol’ America cause they’re so perfect. I think Bush should do something about this. While he’s busy killing terrorists around, his own countrymen are killing each other. And the people dying in here are kids a.k.a. the future of the nation.
I hate Monday actually, but that’s because of another reason. You have to go to school after Sunday and you have to give a test or two every Monday and that’s reason enough to hate it anyway.
Spare us the gratuitous America-bashing, ish. This is not an exclusively American phenomenon. Do these mean anything to you?
Dunblane
Beslan
Taber
Ecole Polytechnique
Maxim Michalik
Other societies produce equally f-ed up people who do stuff like this, so don’t sound so superior. It can happen anywhere. In fact, it has.
first off since the UK dont have a liberal gun policy, then we dont have gun massacresas often.,
but how is stating the fact that in all these gun crimes the majority are in america, 19 in 10 years, the uk one in 10 years, can you see a correlation.
I don’t think anywhere else in the Western world has the constant barrage of school shootings like we do. I just wonder how many people have to die before Congress stops taking the NRA’s blood money.
School shootings can and have happened in other countries, but nowhere near the scale and the number and the recurrence of those in America. I think that’s more than enough reason to single out the States. There is no comparison.
Ish - good points - unfortunately it isn’t the first of its kind, but what’s worse is that it isn’t the last.
Strawberry M - Good question. Sadly I think that it will be many more. The people and the powers that be (one and the same?) obviously think this is a price worth paying.
Merc - thanks for this chilling list. There was a time when America may have thought school shootings were rare. But when you look at the list of them, you can see they really are not so rare - as you say.
The thing is, you have a shooting, lots of kids get killed, everybody’s shocked, grieving, angry, it’s in the news, all the usual experts are trotted out to get “answers”, the media circus goes to town, everyone navel gazes for a while, the usual arguments on guns (and all the reasons not to do something about them) are batted back and forth, the powerful gun lobby sheds crocodile tears, lobbies, and keeps the status quo exactly as they want it. The incident then fades from our collective memory.
And then - surprise!! There’s another shooting - with a higher body count.
And then the NRA has a rally in the city where the last shooting occurred (as they did after Columbine and the Flint Michigan school shooting).
I’ll speak from my own American point of view. Many of you are right about this: we do need tighter gun laws to circumvent incidents like this from happening. Yes, it says right in out Constitution “The Right To Bear Arms”… that amendment doesn’t say anything about capping off whomever we want to.
Again, many of us in America have been pushing for tighter gun laws. Many people I know (self include) don’t even own so much as a CO2 pellet gun, let alone a real one, and don’t want one. The problem we have is, whenever we push for tighter gun laws, hyper-pro 2nd amendment groups (like the vaunted NRA, among others) push back with their political lobbyists and green-greased palms screaming about the people’s Constitutional rights. If we didn’t have this kind of power play, it would at least be harder for potential nutjobs to acquire firearms.
You can blame many factors… and there are many that contribute to the violence in our society. You can’t single out one thing as a scapegoat. But you can be sure that we’ll keep fighting with each other for this change to happen. It won’t solve all the gun control problems; a determined maniac is going to get a gun come hell or high water. But it will definitely help!
As for the record severity of the situation, the gunman may have wanted to out-do history… or maybe he had planned this for weeks or months. Seeing as he’s more educated than most of the students in the other historical incidents, he may have had that benefit to thank in having a well-thought out plan to kill as many people as he could. Just my opinion.
@ Ish: quote… “Something like that should happen somewhere in some other country, not good ol’ America cause they’re so perfect”
… as an American, I took offense to this sarcastic remark. Many of us do NOT think we’re perfect. Personally, I think we can learn a great deal from other countries in a variety of subjects. Please choose your words with greater care; there are other kinds of us Americans than the “righteous” kind!
As a Canadian who loves the United States (I visit very often and have friends there) I can see what Chris W. says. Off topic — but we can’t paint all Americans with the same brush even though it may seem tempting sometimes (I’m no Bush lover either). Progressive Americans (and there are many — more than it seems from the outside looking at them through the media’s eyes) are the ones who are going to drive the changes needed. The pendulum will swing back.
On the shooting, I still have no words. But as a Canadian, my first thought was Ecole Polytechnique and then Columbine.
My second was such sadness for those poor students and their families. I didn’t think about gun control right away, I know it’s a very key issue but some part of me thinks that crazy people will always find ways to do horrible things. But I’m all for making it much harder for them to get the tools to destroy lives.
I tend to be one of the more liberal folks you will meet, but I just don’t buy the idea that tighter guns laws will do a bit of good. I honestly think it is a cop-out to blame guns, and I do believe that people kill people, guns don’t. For instance, prior to this incident, the shooter had a record that consisted of a traffic ticket. Nothing in his background would have limited his access to gun in many countries. Longer wait times? Sure…but again, it wouldn’t have mattered.
The real problems in society that are the real contributors include:
- Loss of identity among boys. Boys are taught to hate themselves in the U.S. and as the old saying goes, you can’t love others until you love yourself. Further, boys aren’t being taught proper coping mechanisms. Part of this is due to the fact that boys are taught to internalize while women are taught to express (this has always been the case). But it is also due to feminization of our school systems: the gold standard is female and male is considered bad, wrong, and stupid. Ironically, back in the day, it was female students that were taught that they were stupid. Now we need to work on empowering both genders!
- An overall increase in violence in the media. I’m not sure how to address this one. I believe strongly in the 1st amendment. I do think that we need to have strong, enforceable violence indicators (at all levels: TV, videogames, movies, etc). It’s pretty bad when sex is less acceptable then blowing someone away!
- Drugs, drugs, and more drugs. And I’m talking about the legal kind. If a kid doesn’t act a certain way when they are growing up, schools demand his parents put him (again usually boys) on drugs so they behave. Like it or not, kids will be kids and kids have a lot of energy. Drugs just mask the problem and in fact probably contribute to the loss in coping mechanisms since taking a pill isn’t really coping (it’s covering).
In my opinion, all of these problems - and probably a number of others - have a much bigger affect on everything from school violence to increasing dropout rates. Unfortunately, all of them are hard to address. Instead, it is easier to blame guns. By blaming guns, all you are doing is trying to treat the symptom. It will be much better to cure the illness.
Ultimately, even if we would address all of the above (and go ahead and blame guns too) we will still have shootings. It should also be remembered that violent crime as a whole is FALLING in the US - not increasing. Sure these incidents get a lot of press, but taken as a whole, things are improving in the US (crime wise - don’t even get me started on our federal government though!).
guns are to blame for school shootings, if people didnt have guns, then they couldnt shoot, but i read ish’s comment as being a lot of americans are blind to the problems that exist, when the UK had dunblane, we brought laws in to combat it, but they just tighten gun controls, but it obviously doesnt work, because you are having more shootings.
i have heard so many ah gun school shootings are so rare, but when you put the list, its all, ah but violent crime is going down as if that excuses mass murder.
i heard a report that america has over 200 million guns in circulation, 200 million, are those really needed, to protect yourself. and before you say it i have friends and family in america my fiancee lives there, i have seen gangs of kids, 14 and younger carrying obvious guns, why.
are they so scared about other people with guns, or are they cowards who need to hide behind guns. who other people need bigger guns, to “protect” themselves, is an uzi a weapon for self defence, or is an ak 47 ok or hell even a minigun, where does it stop.
the idea that its not guns that kill people but people do, is a bit of a urban legend, if you didnt have a gun then you wouldnt be able to kill people with it.
lance its reported crime thats going down, not crime itself, because people are taking revenge into their own hands(with guns), because they dont trust the government, because they dont trust the police.
thats a wrong argument, if your a scientist, then, work this out,
a man has a gun, decides to shoot someone, he has the gun and bullets and kills them,
a man doesnt have a gun, he cant shoot someone,
so gun crime would go down. wouldnt it, theres the story about mary winkler, she shot her baptisy husband, witha shotgun, could she have shot him if she didnt have access to a gun.
parents gun cabinets, adults who have several guns, if you notice a lot of these children, had access to their parents guns, if the parents didnt have guns, then the kids wouldnt have access. Q.E.D.
part of the problem is that americans generally forget the crime, in a few months, people will not remember the massacre, until the next one, then this will start all over again. Guns are a way of life there, life is cheap.
so you are saying blame the people who use the guns not the guns themselves. but that is pretty blind, i state if there was no guns, no one would be killed by gun shots. its as simple as that. to make it easier for people to get hold of guns, whether its parents guns, illegal guns, that makes the incidences of GUN crime more.
that is a FACT, no guns = no GUN crime,
in the UK we have far far less gun crime, ONE (1) school shooting in 10 years, america, NINETEEN (19) school shootings in 10 years. the UK doesnt have the gun culture of america, now forgive if i am wrong (which i am sure u will tell me), BUT cant you see the very fact that americans can have guns and the UK cant, reduces the chances of serious gun crime in the UK.
or are you saying only criminals get guns, no child ever steals his parents guns, and uses them. ease of access, its not good blaming a child for a drug overdose, if the parents leave drugs out for it to eat. its the people who have the drugs, the guns that are to blame for these crimes.
i know you will say its not guns that kill people its people who do, but they wouldnt have the opportunity to kill with a gun if there wasnt a gun for them to use.
so technically following that guns dont kill, people do, can i arrest my neighbour for killing me with car exhaust, or is it a case of carbon monoxide doesnt kill, people do..
its the same argument, same rationalisation, but patently silly. but thats the whole point.
Of course, i will be told i am a fool, for not agreeing that everyone should be armed to the teeth, or i dont understand america, or that general argument guns dont kill people do. but then thats a lot of the american gun culture for you. just wait 2 months a year and there will be another school shooting, and the same arguments again. those who fail to heed the past are doomed to repeat it.
Chris - I thought the point of Ish’s remark was that Americans are not perfect… That’s what sarcasm is isn’t it?! But perhaps I missed that - it’s entirely possible…
I can agree that guns by themselves are not the sole reason for these shootings, there are of course many factors however the ease with which people can get hold of them and the sheer number of guns in the US (2.5 guns for every man woman and child I’m told) is a very big factor. And no, I wouldn’t want to tar every American with the same brush. Some want gun controls, but I think their voices are either drowned out or in the minority. It looks like the majority want their gun laws to remain as they are. That’s how it appears anyway.
But perhaps if more stringent checks had been done before Cho was sold his gun it might have revealed that he is a disturbed person. But, he was able to walk into a shop purchase it as easily as I would purchase a pair of shoes. Totally legal. His right to do so.
Lance - I personally think it’s more of a cop out to say, the usual “guns don’t kill people, people do..”Since a gun doesn’t jump up and kill someone, one cannot deny the argument. It’s convenient - as a reason to simply not do anything about guns of course, but IMO flawed, even though I see where people are trying to come from. Guns are lethal. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Mass shootings are usually the work of a fairly disturbed person, but killers are not always mentally disturbed.
You are correct - in that in the wrong hands they are no less lethal - but the fact that they are available without restraint is what makes someone who, if they couldn’t get hold of one, and probably would not have used one as their weapon of choice, decide to use it. They then go and murder 30-odd people. It is probably true that if someone is determined to kill someone, it’s hard to stop them. But it can be made more difficult for them to do. By restricting their tools.
We are talking about opportunity. Isn’t restriction - of some kind - a worthwhile price to pay to prevent more killings?
Guns are easily available in the US and is legal to both buy one and own one. If that stays the case, so be it - as long as it’s accepted that there will be more mass shootings. Let’s not pretend that a change is really wanted. Compare the number of school shootings in the US with other countries, compare their gun laws and you have a big piece of the pie.
I think it’s really interesting that you regard doing anything about guns or guns laws is seen as “punishing law abiding citizens.”
And good luck with weeding out the evil people and fixing them at source. I suppose that’s another way of saying prepare for more shootings
.
Jim - Your comment had nothing to do with the post nor the other comments in this thread. While I know you wish to evangelise and share your thoughts on God and the Bible… this blog really isn’t the place to do it and I don’t encourage it. Feel free to comment in any of the conversations here, but please keep it relevant or they won’t be allowed. My disclaimer’s pretty clear - take a minute and check it out :).
Mercurior - this has to be the the best part….
“Mr Markell, 58, has a well-rehearsed answer to whether he feels any responsibility for the 33 deaths. He doesn’t.
“We’ve been here eight years and sold 16,000 guns,” he said. “Six have been used in the commission of a crime - four murders and two suicides.
“But they’ve been used hundreds of times to protect people. What happened here was an aberration.
And I’m absolutely convinced that when he bought this gun, it was not on his mind to do what he did. You just don’t wait five weeks.”
Really? Myself, I think the killer had the thought on his mind and got a gun to carry it out. But, then we will never know, will we?
Lance, I think your question was intended to be rhetorical but yeah, I think there are many other confounding principles. It’s not just because guns are more prevalent.
If someone wanted to go and buy a gun here they could. It’s not hard — all the gangs seem to have them. Two people were shot on my street last year. But the most thugs (not that I know any but I’m guessing based on what we know from the papers) don’t seem to running around with guns and they can get them.
From what I understand, there are a lot of theories about why there are big violent crime differences between the nations you mentioned.
And I still think crazy people will always find ways to do horrible things. Making it harder to get guns is a good idea sure but there’s much much more to it than that as Lance noted. A crazy person without a gun is aperhaps a crazy person with a knife, a car full of explosives or a vial full of acid. Who knows?
There will be no overwhelming demand for gun control in the US as a result of this incident.
Of course, as is always the case with incidents such as this, it’s sparked a debate about gun control in the States - but note that this is mostly outside the States, like Europe and Australia. This incident will change nothing, and in a few months, there will be another one, and the circus will start up again with exactly the same script. Right now, CNN is busy “looking inside the killer brain…”.
Besides, there’s an election coming up. Which might be one way to explain the Democrats (almost) deafening silence, when ordinarily they would have been jumping up and down pointing fingers at the Republicans. I mean, they have done so for less.
But no. Gun control puts voters off in the much coveted swing states, so no one wants to risk that happening. Best say as little as possible.
Europeans and Americans are going to be poles apart on this - as they were the last time around, and as they will be the next time.
The question is: Where will next bloodbath be? Another university? A high school perhaps? A college?
I’ll throw a different explanation or perspective out there and side with Mercurior while I’m at it.
The US violent death rate is absolutely due to the proliferation, legal or not, of guns. It is the only meaningful difference between the US and the other countries mentioned, but I’d like to throw out the idea that gun usage, while it is deadly, actually requires less actual “violence” than beating someone up with a weapon or your hands/fist, or using a knife. The latter kind of violence is much less common in people, and demands that you touch and interact with another person, and even put yourself at risk of harm in doing so. Think about the kind of personal rage and violence you need to physically step up to a person and beat them up, or connect with them with a knife: you have to actually feel what you are doing, and it’s a pretty intimate encounter. You need to look someone in the eye, in other words, and most of us can’t do this.
A gun, on the other hand, doesn’t necessitate such closeness; without even touching or feeling the humanity of the person or people in front of you, you can mow down large groups as though they are just vague targets, and completely detach yourself from your actions and their effects. Although the end result is devastating, there is no real threat of violence to you, no actual contact if you are using high-powered weapons. I think that’s why it’s so easy to do- it requires no involvement in a direct manner, and it’s easy to be desensitised if you don’t have to actually feel the person you’re harming.
People would have to struggle with harming someone with their hands or with a blunt or sharp weapon. A gun is just too easy, in comparison.
Just my 2c (Canadian) from a different angle.
-AM
With all respect mercurior, your argument continues to circle the same pseudo-science drain. To even suggest that guns kill people without delving into the bigger picture is not only disrespectful to the millions (yes millions) of adults the world over who own guns responsibly, but it smacks of totalitarianism. Let me guess, you never owned a gun…and you probably have never been around guns. You probably have never even fired a gun. And you probably think that those who have done all of the above are conservative nutballs.
How many people die every day from car accidents - yet we don’t outlaw cars or even work that hard to make them that much safer.
How many people die every day from famine? Yet we do very little to try to lift people out of poverty.
How many people die of diseases? How many people die in war?
Please, the numbers for violent crime are going down - end of story. Are we living in a perfect world? No…but I would rather risk a bit in life then live in a bubble.
Interestingly, I have a pertinent example: the police contacted a friend of mine today to to let him know that a woman who was stalking him had attempted to buy a gun. What did the police do? They served her with a restraining order, and disallowed her purchase.
Let’s see…since you continue to bring up the UK/US comparison suggesting that guns are the ONLY reason why there are more shootings here…let’s bring up some confounding issues:
nothing will ever be done about guns, because guns are such a part of american culture, can i have a grenade launcher then, its for self protection, i wont blow up buildings honest guv.
quite a lot of americans, cant see a problem with arming the entire country, i have listened to arguments saying, well the students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, so they could have kill this boy before he killed people.
but making it easy for everyone to carry guns, means more disturbed people will have access to the guns, and so kill people.
so lance, could i have a grenade launcher for self protection. could i have a surface to air missile as well.. self protection, to stop home invasion, to protect myself from madmen with guns.
…
(1) There is a much larger urban population in the US. Much of this urban population suffers from the same problems I already discussed with the addition of a complete loss of the family unit where responsible fathers are almost non-existent, and the only male role models rap about shooting someone.
(2) Along with (1) is the so-called “gangster culture” that glorifies violence, death, and armed rebellion..
(3) Along with (2) is a celebrity culture in the US which glorifies the quest to get on TV. I know that if I kill a bunch of people, I will end up on TV and since this is the US, the whole world will watch.
…
There, that’s three more aspects that contribute to the problem - again, beyond guns. These sorts of things get a lot of press, and since I live in a rural college town myself just a few miles away from VTech, the massacre is particularly upsetting, but I don’t for an instant believe that infringing on the rights of responsible adults is the way to address the problem. The correct way would be to figure out how we can fix the cultural problems that we have that lead to the these terrible, horrible events.
As a pacifist, I am appalled at the idea anyone taking another person’s life, and I am 100% in favor of taking illegal guns off the street. But to remove someone’s right (whether to own a gun, abort a fetus, or speak his/her mind) is just wrong. Let’s make sure current laws are enforced before we start making new ones.
Suggestion: since neither of us are going to see eye-to-eye, let’s do this from a different angle…is there a common ground from which we can start..
It’s funny - you keep talking about some mythical “gun culture” as if I as an american see guns every day, and that everyone around me is carrying one. You remind me of a french post doc I knew in grad school. When he first got here he literally walked around in fear of guns. That’s until we finally took him out to the bar and he realized that his paranoia was completely unfounded.
Anyway, common ground. In a perfect world, what laws/regulations would you like to see enacted? Do you want to see the removal of all guns, or do you take a more liberal view? I’ve never said espoused total anarchy or no background checks or anything of the like. In the state I live in, both state and federal background checks and holding periods are the norm for the purchase of hand guns. I am fine with that approach. Would it have caught the VTech shooter? Probably not as he did not have much of a criminal history. But again, do we expect to stop all would-be shooters? Again, probably not. There are nutballs everywhere. What are your thoughts? What would you like to see?
ok, i would like to see a longer investigation procedure for a start, maybe have a training session before you finally get a gun you learn when to fire and when not to fire, that way the instructor can determin if that person will be a good person or a bad, or at worst it will put a warning on that person, this person should never be sold a gun, and if they were caught with one, lock them up and fine them, and stop them from ever owning another legal gun or buying one.
this lad bought a gun in 10 - 15 minutes, and he was armed. and ready to kill. make it a week, deep background check as if they were going to work with children, then a training course maybe 3 days, how to shoot, how to keep it safe, how to disable rather than kill, or kill if necessary.
and make a note of the gun details, photo id, the works. it wouldnt stop the real criminals, but it would put barriers to stop the really bad nutters.
and make sure someone doesnt stockpile 37 guns and 400 boxes of bullets, i would consider that a warning. the heavier weapons, i would like to be even tougher to buy.
thats what i would like to see (i worry because my fiancee lives in a place with a hell of a lot more guns, and i see gangs walking down the street with obvious bulges under their jackets, there has been a few shootings near where she lives, so yes i am worried, and i hate the idea of her being shot. so make it tougher to get the guns, make a record of who owns what, and what they buy put it on a computer database to stop them from buying here and there until they have hundreds of guns.
in the UK, you have to apply for a licence if your a farmer and own shotguns, thats every year, and they have to investigate that the guns will be kept in a safe place a locked cabinet, if they dont have it, then they wouldnt be allowed a gun, and may be arrested and fined.
Ann- Marie - thank you for this very interesting perspective.
Like Mercurior I’m of the opinion that the number of guns and their ease of access in the US is at the root of the high rate of gun crime… Thinking about what you’ve said - you can’t be distant and kill with a knife, but you can with a gun. With a knife, you have to get close and personal and be able to overpower the victim. Completely opposite with a gun. You can just wander from spot to spot (or from classroom to classroom in this case) picking people off like rabbits. Easy to do. And the killer can remain distant and cold.
Lance - “you keep talking about some mythical “gun culture” as if I as an american see guns every day, and that everyone around me is carrying one”.
I don’t think that anyone here thinks every American carries or owns a gun. Nor is that what I believe is meant by a “gun culture”. (Although having said that there is a whole movie industry that has been built on precisely that idea and no-one seems to have a problem with it).
The key difference is, unlike other countries, if most Americans wanted to own a gun they could do so. Many do. And since - unlike in other countries - the legality of a gun (or several guns) is enshrined in the Consitution - like free speech - as an inalienable right, there is, at the very least a gun “sub-culture”. Just try even suggesting taking them all away… Guns - or people having guns - are just part of American culture, like apple-pie, baseball, and hanging chads.
Lance - Even if - at a very long stretch - I could buy your “why don’t we ban cars” argument… you are comparing famine and disease as correlation? They have absolutely no correlation whatsoever.
Instead of spending the $billions on guns, what about putting it ALL towards helping those who are starving and victims of famine? Or disease research? Oops, can’t do that, because guns are more important”. That would never fly Perish the thought.
its the idea that guns should be there for everyone, the idea that its ok to have a weapon built just to kill, thats a gun culture, at least in the mind of any country that doesnt have this culture.
but if you read the second amendment of the constitution, if doesnt say that every single man woman and child should have a gun. it talks about militia’s
i QUOTE ” 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.”
all this gun law, is based on a comma, and where it goes.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5
Sorry, been a busy few days. A number of VTech-orietented events have taken up my time this weekend.
In any case…mercurior - Ok, that is quite a list. As I expected: we do see eye-to-eye on several points. As long as no law impinges upon an adult’s right to bear arms, I’m fine with background checks and potentially even some training. Admittedly, training is a bit tougher since who would pay for it? Should tax payers? Should the buyer or the seller? But, I think something could be designed. There would also be some question about how much training would be needed.
Now, in terms of a list of gun owners… I don’t agree with that one - in general. The reason? Because I don’t believe that people should be assumed guilty and that’s what could happen whenever lists are generated. For instance, you as a 22 caliber gun owner shouldn’t be interviewed every time a crime is committed using a 22 caliber gun. So if a list were created (and some states do have them I believe) we should be careful not to assume guilt of everyone on that list.
Another issue I may have is the idea that “stock piling” is bad. One person’s stock pile is another person’s collection. Who sets the number and why? Is it arbitrary? Can one apply for exemptions? Why are stockpiles of legal guns bad (especially assuming that the buyer went through background checks and training).
mercurior - The suggestion that the 2nd amendment doesn’t guarantee the individual’s right to bear arms is just bunk. Of course it does. Keep in mind the context of the amendment: the people had just rebelled against an oppressive british government..they had an inherent mistrust for government. This is why we have a scheduled change in government every 2 to 6 years depending. Now the 2-party system has successfully corrupted this to an extent, but then we saw what happened this past November.
In any case, if you want to debate this amendment we can do so, but we won’t get very far.
Britgirl - So the reason why the U.S. is bad is because it is more free? It is bad because I as an american can buy a gun? Is that what a gun culture means?
Interesting. I don’t think that this gun culture exists as you define it since guns are not a big part of my life - nor the lives of my friends. I think the gangster culture - and its associated glorification of violence - that I already mentioned is much more significant.
What concerns me more is that you don’t buy the cars argument. We as an international culture need to learn keep things in perspective. You are much more likely to die in a car accident then you are by a hand gun. You are probably more likely to be killed by crossing the street. This is analogous the Bush’s fight against terrorism. While terrorism is certainly evil, it does not warrant making up lies to attack a foreign country. It also doesn’t warrant taking the rights away of americans out of fear (as is being done time and again is one is accused of being a terrorist). I hate to say it, but you are being kinda like Bush here by not understanding basic risk analysis. In terms of famine and disease, my statement still holds: many more people die of these issues (by far) then guns.
And your last point about spending billions on guns vs. famine/disease. If I read this correctly, you are suggesting we can only spend money on things you deem worthy? I respected your point of view right up until you said that. I am a scientist in the pharma industry. Of course I believe in investing in curing diseases and helping people. But I also do not believe that you or anyone else should tell me where I am allowed to spend my money.
“Britgirl - So the reason why the U.S. is bad is because it is more free? It is bad because I as an american can buy a gun? ”
Lance - Your are free to disagree with anything I say. But firstly, if you want to make a point of anything I said please take care to read what I wrote and not rewrite it as your own interpretation. I have nowhere said you, the US or any other American is “bad because you can buy a gun”. I have no idea what you mean by “the US is bad because it is more free…” Pardon?
Two - because you and your friends don’t own a gun that does not mean the there isn’t a gun culture or subculture. You may not have eaten apples or held a baseball bat either they are still a big part of American life. Perhaps you understand culture in the narrow sense, i.e. “if you don’t do it, or your friends don’t it can’t be.”
Three - your car argument is still stretching it I think. Let me put it a different way since it appears you missed my point the first time around. Imagine taking every car and transport vehicle off the road and see whether society, would be able to function. No more cars. Now, imagine taking handguns away in exactly the same way ( except for the police and essential services perhaps) and see whether society will be able to function.
So you think I don’t understand basic risk analysis from your example of terrorism and that makes me like Bush… your analogy is a poor one since I don’t recall saying that American rights should be taken away.
Five - My statement that disease and famine have no correlation still stands. Of course more people die from famine and disease. But how does that become an argument for keeping guns?
Six - my last point you did indeed read incorrectly. I was not saying we should only spend money on things I “deem worthy” You have no idea of what I do or do not think is “worthy”. Managing to turn a suggestion, nay, a “how about” question that the $billions spent on guns could be spent on famine or other things into
” me telling you where and how you are allowed to spend your money” is a strange twisting of what I said. Especially as you were the one who brought up famine and disease in the first place.
Rest assured I really could care less, nor am I interested in telling you or anyone else where or how you are allowed to spend your money.