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.

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.

In any case, if you want to debate this amendment we can do so, but we won’t get very far.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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..

(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.
…

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.

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:

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

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?

And I know, several people on this board will say look at crime rate differences between countries. Well again, is the only difference between the US, the UK, France, and Canada the fact that guns are more prevalent in the US, or are there other confounding principles involved?

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?

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?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=W1YNSIBSQDTOTQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/18/wcampus918.xml

30,000, yes thirty thousand, are all these people deserving to die, can you imagine if it was in a war, but this is every year, 30,000 lives gone. snuffed out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=W1YNSIBSQDTOTQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/18/wcampus1718.xml

Cho paid $571 (£285) for the chunky black Glock - a police favourite and one of Mr Markell’s biggest sellers - with a credit card in a 10-minute process Mr Markell describes tellingly as the “instant background check”.

Cho produced a Virginian drivers’ licence, his alien residency card and a cheque book printed with his address. The accompanying call to the state police to check his history can delay a sale for up to three days, said Mr Markell.

so in 10 minutes, he had a gun, 5 weeks later he kill 32 people. should it be that easy to buy a gun, which he legally did.

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.

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,