steps we can take on gun control

[Simplex]

If you just raise the price of bullets, people will still get them cheaper from the black market. Also, you made sport shooting a lot more expensive in the process. You can't take a comedian's point of view on a situation seriously.

pretty interesting article

He brings up some good points to add to this.

[Epyon9283]

Originally Posted by gummybear

I really don't see what the Americans are bitching about gun problem when they open gun shops like candy stores.

Are you serious?

[no common sense]

People are creative, even the crazy ones. Even if all the guns magically disappeared a madman could get in a car and kill plenty of pedestrians. In close quarters knives and sharp objects are very effective. How about background checks and a waiting period for buying box cutters? Heck New York is going to ban baseball bats. I also found this article of a shooting that ended differently. "After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January...in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. " Interestingly the AP headline omitted the fact that the students were armed. "Jan. 16, 2002: Graduate student Peter Odighizuwa, 42, recently dismissed from Virginia's Appalachian School of Law, returns to campus and kills the dean, a professor and a student before being tackled by students."
I don't like the idea of people selling away my freedom for a false sense of security.

[Furudanuki]

Originally Posted by gummybear

Want to solve the gun problem but still allowing people to bear arms? Use the Christ Rock solution, make each bullet $5000US a pop, people will think more than 3 times before pulling that trigger.

Chris Rock is a comedian. He is also apparently unaware that most people who do any serious amount of shooting load their own ammunition. They certainly don't pay retail price for it. I used to burn through a couple of thousand rounds a month when I shot competitively, and I wasn't even close to being hard-core. Chris Rock should stick to comedy.

I really don't see what the Americans are bitching about gun problem when they open gun shops like candy stores.

Is that your personal opinion, or can you document that assertion? And is your knowledge of American gun shops based on experience or something you saw in a Michael Moore movie?

[steelbound]

I live in a city that for most of the 90's was ranked in the top three for murder rate based on murders per 100,000. We still are in the top 10 for the 2000's with no end in site. It would be easy to think this city was always this deadly but it wasn't. The city used to average singe digit murders per year then around 1991 the murder rate went from 7 murders/year to 49 murders/year. The reason, gangs like the bloods and crips invaded the city.

The gangs are not going to say 'Gee, it's now illegal to own this gun. I'll guess I'll turn it in,' when stronger gun control laws are enacted. Whereas law-abiding citizens will have to turn in their guns; and then hope when someone breaks in to their house that the burgler waits the 45 minutes it takes for the cops to show up to protect the law-abiding citizens. In the recent shooting if a couple of the professors were carrying guns there would have been alot less people dead.

[Ledgem]

One thing that I've seen pointed out about gun death statistics is that they don't distinguish which ones are suicides and which are homicides. I've never looked at the statistics myself, but having heard it second-hand, it seems that an overwhelming majority of the numbers that go into the death toll are suicides. That makes gun ownership a completely different issue.

People have cited experiences and past cases where guns helped a situation, and where they've made situations worse. For certain, putting a gun in everyone's hands is not a good idea - training is almost essential. In the Virginia Tech shootings, if everyone suddenly started walking around with guns out, how would anyone know who the original shooter was? How would law enforcement know? (Note that law enforcement generally keeps tight communication, which aids in prevention of friendly fire incidents.)

I don't think that guns should be banned, because I don't think that it would solve anything. Drugs are banned, and yet plenty of gangs and such have access to those. Ironically, those people are often stereotypically associated with gun-related indicents. Ban guns, and you'd probably have a similar amount of success as we're having with drugs.

What someone has suggested is that changing the culture of America to one that is more about other people, rather than about the self, would fix things. People can feel isolated and lose any form of social support. When that happens, they're capable of almost anything. Supposedly, the Virginia Tech student was a loner, which would further that hypothesis (although it sounds more religiously-motivated to me). A society where people are just more friendly to one another and courteous - it could make the difference, whether guns are carried or not.

[whatever001]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

This is true, but Japan has a far smaller problem with violence (or any other crime), period.

The US is one of the least homogenous nations in the world, and it has its peaceful and violent areas. Legal firearm ownership is, for the most part (there are a few exceptions) concentrated in different areas than the high crime areas.

The real question is "How many violent gun crimes would still be committed without guns?", which should be compared to the answer "How many violent crimes are prevented because of guns?", and then that should be weighed against the heavy option of removing the ability to be responsible for one's self in the name of the greater good.

by saying nonhomogenous do you imply that large portion of gun related violence are "racial" related?

the gun ownership and crime rates are not only directly related,(the higher the ownership, the more crime) and also indirectly related, that is the difference in ownership will also affect the crime rate due to relatively low ownership in cities, and the criminals that can get their weapon in the surrendering area/states.
so ppl in the high gun owership usually believe/misbelieve that they were safe because they own a weapon, and try to encourage gun ownership overall in the nation (like mini arm race in US, between the good and bad) one great example is that ppl even begin to say things such as if students are allowed to carry gun in campus so they can stop this massacre. I guess its typical American, believe in themselves without realizing the high gun ownership overall in the states are the main reason behind high crime rate in some area.. and worst of all, they will although blame it to the diversity of this nation.. Just like Bush, when is the last time he and his follower think that US is also the main source of terror in world..

[hobbes_fan]

Having grown up with guns I don't have a problem with guns in general, but as someone who lives in country where guns aren't a major issue but fairly common in the the rural sector (Australia) for kangaroo/dingo hunting. I have to ask why are semi and full auto weapons so readily available? I mean the best home defense weapon is generally accepted as a shotgun. It sprays a bucketload of buckshot over a wide are so it can cause some serious damage, but being big and ungainly you can't really walk around with it. You can saw it off but even then you have to stop and reload regularly. The same can be applied to rifles. Handguns I can tolerate, most have 7 round max capacity in them. Ie you have to aim, even good marksmen have difficulty using a handgun for intermediate distances in controlled situations, and most competitors are ex law enforcement (over 10-15m see olympic pistol shooting).

Tec 9's and the like serve no purpose except for spraying an area with as many rounds as possible. Which leads to things like this. They're not a defensive weapon, they're an offensive weapon designed to be concealed and cause maximum havoc. I think even gun manufacturers call them "assault" weapons. From what I understand the US constitution allows for the right to bear arms to protect one-self from oppression. I don't see how semi auto and full auto machine guns can fall into this category.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

That law was made to make sure the US government could be kept in check by the 'common people'

That particular part is outdated.

Militaries now have tanks, ICBM's, and bombers -- something that wasn't around when the US Constitution was drafted.

M1 Abrams > a bolt-action rifle.

and ponder on this: would 33 people have died if there were a few among them that did carry a gun and be able to take out the shooter?

So you're encouraging students to go to class armed?

Like Ledgem said, if a hundred students had all been armed and pulled out their guns just in case, the cops would have had to sort through a hundred students and attempt to determine who was and was not a threat -- and could very well have shot some innocent college kids thinking they were the one who snapped.

As for gun control in general, I would love to see mandatory gun education classes. We require people who wish to drive, to take a written test and then an application test. Guns, which are more weapon than a car, have no such regulations. As long as you weren't a criminal before, then you can get one.

While a gun-owner license wouldn't solve all the problems, it would greatly reduce the amount of accidental murders as a result of home-defense gone awry (since bullets can go through walls).

[whatever001]

Originally Posted by Vexx

During the feudal system... the peasants were usually denied the right to any weapons (which is why in Japan and China, we got all the lovely "ways of the farm tool or open hand" that we have today)... made it easier for the blade/arrow wielding thugs history calls 'rulers and nobles' to maintain control

Adding to the Cuba example... governments can get fond of allowing (underfunding true solutions) a certain amount of violence and personal fear to exist so that the people continue to allow them to expand their control over personal life (sound familiar?). Both left and right leaning governments can be prone to this.

there's something else.. such as religious and culture difference.. it was well known the Christianity are relatively high offensive in comparison with most religion in the world. (e.g. so many missionaries.. when is the last time you saw a islamic missionary) so instead of the general public forced to give up weapon in asia, it's more likely that the majority of people agree to give up weapon during peace time in order to reduce violence.
I am not familiar with cuba, but I am much more familiar with US and Asia, as a result from the misunderstanding of asia from american public.. I doubt the fact the information you mentioned about Cuba(which is a "communist reign" and potential enemy of US) is propaganda free, I will suggest more research and stop sterotyping nations

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by whatever001

there's something else.. such as religious and culture difference.. it was well known the Christianity are relatively high offensive in comparison with most religion in the world. (e.g. so many missionaries.. when is the last time you saw a islamic missionary) so instead of the general public forced to give up weapon in asia, it's more likely that the majority of people agree to give up weapon during peace time in order to reduce violence.
I am not familiar with cuba, but I am much more familiar with US and Asia, as a result from the misunderstanding of asia from american public.. I doubt the fact the information you mentioned about Cuba(which is a "communist reign" and potential enemy of US) is propaganda free, I will suggest more research and stop sterotyping nations

I really do not understand your statement that Christianity is offensive because they send out missionaries. You do realize that missionaries are generally pleasantly received and perform humanitarian work, yes?

I'm also not sure how you linked that (or contrasted it) to Asia.

I'm the one who raised the issue of Cuba, not Vexx. If the only reason you assume that Vexx or I would mention Cuba is because of prejudice when you are not familiar with its state nor familiar with us, I will suggest not making assumptions based on knee-jerk reactions, more research, and to stop stereotyping nations, yourself.

I mentioned Cuba because of my study of the nation, because of close friends from the nation, and because I have been there. For what it's worth, Vexx's comments are not out of line.

As well, your statement that crime rates and gun ownership rates are directly correlated is flat out wrong. Any cursory research will prove this quite easily. The only reason I'm not spending the time finding one to quote now is because I don't believe you're interested in it.

I don't think I need to point out how offensive your generalizations about the US and its people are.

[psycho bolt]

They should make a better stun gun, like the one used in Minority Report if possible. Let the stun wars begin.

[Furudanuki]

Originally Posted by whatever001

I doubt the fact the information you mentioned about Cuba(which is a "communist reign" and potential enemy of US) is propaganda free, I will suggest more research and stop sterotyping nations

Originally Posted by whatever001

I guess its typical American, believe in themselves without realizing the high gun ownership overall in the states are the main reason behind high crime rate in some area.. and worst of all, they will although blame it to the diversity of this nation.. Just like Bush, when is the last time he and his follower think that US is also the main source of terror in world..

I will suggest that you might consider following your own advice.

[Vexx]

Actually, it doesn't sound like "whatever" is really interested in hearing facts or supported opinion based on his hostility and misinformation. The other posters (Jinto, raikage, etc) seem to have a much better understanding of the complexities whether or not we agree on the solutions so I suggest it might be "whatever" that should drop the stereotyping and do some more research. I used Cuba simply because it is a rather statist country (the state exerts a lot of control over personal activity). I could just as easily have used Britain (where despite extensive gun restrictions and possibly the most monitored nation in the West --- is having a serious upswing in violent crime due to economic and 'nonhomogeneous' disenfranchisement tensions).

[whatever001]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I really do not understand your statement that Christianity is offensive because they send out missionaries. You do realize that missionaries are generally pleasantly received and perform humanitarian work, yes?

I'm also not sure how you linked that (or contrasted it) to Asia.

I'm the one who raised the issue of Cuba, not Vexx. If the only reason you assume that Vexx or I would mention Cuba is because of prejudice when you are not familiar with its state nor familiar with us, I will suggest not making assumptions based on knee-jerk reactions, more research, and to stop stereotyping nations, yourself.

I mentioned Cuba because of my study of the nation, because of close friends from the nation, and because I have been there. For what it's worth, Vexx's comments are not out of line.

As well, your statement that crime rates and gun ownership rates are directly correlated is flat out wrong. Any cursory research will prove this quite easily.

I don't think I need to point out how offensive your generalizations about the US and its people are.

just because its pleasantly received and humanitarian work does not hide the origin and true intention of their job to spread Christianity by devilizing local religions and culture. let's ask a fundamental question, what's so good about christianity that large number of other people are pushed to believe? why can't they do the humanitarian work without religious purpose like other NPO/NGO?

vexx's comment is more about Bush, I guess I did misread it somehow.. sorry.

and I did forget to few words, its gun-related crime rates that are both directed and indirectly related to gun ownership. please indicate any valid reasonable research that will oppose this opinion.
I guess by saying US is also the source terror in the world do seems to be quite offensive, but as you see, you need to admit something.. why can't ppl just admit they are the source of the mistakes just because it make them look bad

[ibreatheanime]

I think that even if we somehow changed the constitution her in the united states, so that people couldn't own guns, it wouldn't stop the violence. People would just find other ways to get ahold of them. Drugs are illegal, but they aren't very hard to get a hold of! Violence is not the guns fault... its the person holding it. There are many citizens in america who own guns and don't go shooting people. Usually the ones with unregistered guns are the ones causing the violence.

So rather than worry that kids are violent because they can get their hands on guns, worry that they want to hurt others in the first place. If parents paid a little more attention to their kids and their problems we wouldn't have to argue about gun controll in the first place.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

Having grown up with guns I don't have a problem with guns in general, but as someone who lives in country where guns aren't a major issue but fairly common in the the rural sector (Australia) for kangaroo/dingo hunting. I have to ask why are semi and full auto weapons so readily available? I mean the best home defense weapon is generally accepted as a shotgun. It sprays a bucketload of buckshot over a wide are so it can cause some serious damage, but being big and ungainly you can't really walk around with it. You can saw it off but even then you have to stop and reload regularly. The same can be applied to rifles. Handguns I can tolerate, most have 7 round max capacity in them. Ie you have to aim, even good marksmen have difficulty using a handgun for intermediate distances in controlled situations, and most competitors are ex law enforcement (over 10-15m see olympic pistol shooting).

Tec 9's and the like serve no purpose except for spraying an area with as many rounds as possible. Which leads to things like this. They're not a defensive weapon, they're an offensive weapon designed to be concealed and cause maximum havoc. I think even gun manufacturers call them "assault" weapons. From what I understand the US constitution allows for the right to bear arms to protect one-self from oppression. I don't see how semi auto and full auto machine guns can fall into this category.

I'm going to cover some terms to clear some things up. I hope this doesn't come off as me arguing (in fact, it appears we see pretty well eye-to-eye). I'm just trying to be helpful and contribute to the conversation.

Well, a semi-automatic firearm is merely one that fires once per each pull of the trigger, like most modern hunting rifles. Fully automatic weapons are a different matter, and I fully understand the aversion to them. Whether in rifles, submachine guns, or pistols, the proper use of a fully automatic weapon isn't necessarily spraying an area with bullets, but they are very useful for suppressive fire. Granted, that's NOT something the typical citizen will use in a self-defense situation.

The US constitution covers militia use, though. Whether these are covered by that or not is a sticky matter of interpretation. I personally think that, as a part of the militia, properly trained individuals should be able to own them as they should any weapon. PROPERLY TRAINED being the key.

The definition of an "assault rifle" is really not a concrete thing, though. While it SUPPOSED to mean a selective-fire or fully-automatic weapon, It's a very common political tactic to say "We don't want to ban defensive or hunting firearms. We only want to ban 'assault weapons'," but to define 'assault weapon' in a different way. Frequently the qualifers for being an "assault weapon" are (depending on the phase of the moon and who's arguing) completely harmless traits that are there to improve safety or convenience, the exact same functionality but from a manufacture of a particular country or date, or even aesthetics.

Also, less important to the actual debate is the TEC-9 itself. It wasn't sold as a fully-automatic firearm, but as a semi-automatic, like most any pistol or rifle. Older models, however, were frequently modified to be fully-automatic, which is how they gained their reputation.

[WanderingKnight]

I'm against guns in all aspects, because they are made to kill. Even when you can use something else to kill, the inherent function of a gun is to kill, and anyone with a gun is a potential killer.

The thing is, the dude that's buying a gun for self-defense is not trusting his own police, which is an organism mounted by the State, and such State, in a democratic society (not that democracy is actually what it's intended to be) should be regulated by the citizen's will. If you show your distrust for the way your own State is handling things, why don't you do something to help it, instead of isolating yourself inside of your own individualized bubble? People form a society. There are reasons for crime to be so high in the American society, and people have reasons for not trusting the police. But, if people have to isolate themselves to solve a common problematic, why not act together? Why resort to the individual exit, when you can resort to the communitarian solution?

The answer probably is: effort and time. I'm guessing there, but deep inside, I feel such answer is just that, laziness. But it's part of the laziness and distrust the current society is trying to immerse us in (well, actually, it has already immersed us in it).

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by whatever001

just because its pleasantly received and humanitarian work does not hide the origin and true intention of their job to spread Christianity by devilizing local religions and culture. let's ask a fundamental question, what's so good about christianity that large number of other people are pushed to believe? why can't they do the humanitarian work without religious purpose like other NPO/NGO?

That's a WHOLE different subject (and one I'm actually more onbase with you about - judeo-christian religion is simply more aggressive due to its need to save souls (coupled with some historically imperialist co-agendas dating to the Roman Empire). Off topic here though. There's a Shinto mailing list that is currently discussing how the two religions interact (or don't) in Yahoo Groups.

I guess by saying US is also the source terror in the world do seems to be quite offensive, but as you see, you need to admit something.. why can't ppl just admit they are the source of the mistakes just because it make them look bad

Believe me, there's a significant portion of the United States that understand what you're saying and may agree at various levels. You might read up on any works by Noam Chomsky or similar authors for some interesting thoughts on long term American policy... but also off-topic

@wandering_knight: a lot of what you're saying has merit... but unfortunately, legal rulings establish that "trusting the police" to rescue you is misguided. They have zero liability to stop or prevent crime according to the courts (hence all the stories about desperate domestic violence victims getting no recourse from the police "because no crime has been committed yet"). Owning a gun does not "isolate people" (in fact, I stopped a burglary once at a neighbor's house --- the police had been notified but took an hour to show up and just took some notes).
Frankly, I'd love it if all guns just went "poof" but the 'genie out of the bottle' issue makes it a difficult proposition. Of course, anyone without a gun is also a potential killer as well... people can be nasty.

[whatever001]

Originally Posted by Furudanuki

I will suggest that you might consider following your own advice.

yeah.. you caught me, but I am wondering how easy it is to sterotype the country with the most freedom, esp. freedom of speech that may encourage self righteousness.... its an unsuccessful attempt on certain portion of Americans (Right wing? mainstream? even left?) I am a horrible sterotypOR to begin with, thats why I should stop and encourage ppl to stop
however, I do wonder about what's the percentage of americans are in my unsuccessful attempt, 10%? 20%? 40%? what do you think and how do others think....