Guns don't kill?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm very much enjoying this discussion, budski.

Originally posted by budski
I know it could probably never happen in reality, without becoming, at least in part, a police state.

And please tell me that's not ok with you.

Speaking of a police state, if ALL legal guns are registered (none sold at fairs or through personal sales) where is the FIRST place the authorities will go to collect guns when that time comes? Then who will be left with guns?

My approach would be an amnesty on ALL guns, but with special emphasis on illegal guns,

So, you think criminals will feel relieved to hand over their guns, knowing they won't get in trouble for having them? Will this amnesty convince them to give up the life of crime they've been leading? They're already criminals. Take their guns away and they're still criminals. What would be their incentive to give them up? The threat of "getting into trouble" obviously isn't enough or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

This has worked in the UK to a degree, and also in Australia where gun crime has fallen drastically.

BBC

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
...
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

Nonetheless, the changes in the law post Hungerford and Dunblane have made most of the UK a safer place.

Not according to the above source. It even mentions Dunblane. Do you have a source that refutes this BBC claim? Because I have always been under the impression that both in the UK and Australia, gun crime has increased...

Australia never did have a constitutional right to bear arms, as the US does. Firearm ownership has always been restricted. So, I'm not sure how applicable their record is.

Snopes

The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

So, Australia's situation isn't really comparable to the US in any way, in my opinion.

I would never advocate any kind of police state, or indeed more power except in very exceptional circumstances. The stop and search laws in this country are quite tough if implemented properly, however there remain social issues which mean that they are not implemented properly.
As far as amnesty is concerned, giving people a chance in the first instance is a logical step, after that, search and seizure targeting known criminals and associates, penalties severe enough that carrying a gun is not an attractive proposition and public information stressing all these measures. I think that once criminals see the authorities are REALLY serious about it, a proportion will bow to the inevitable.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

Another link showing UK gun crime stats. It's always worth remembering that anything sourced from the BBC needs to be checked, and substantiated - they are quite well known for skewing facts and spewing propaganda in order to promote the very left wing views of the organizational upper hierarchy.

www.converge.org.nz...

Australian figures are harder to quantify regarding reliability, as I am unsure of organizational politics with regard to how figures are presented.

Australia has always had tougher gun laws than the U.S. - despite that country's own frontier history and its cultural similarities to the United States. In 2003-04 (financial year) in Australia, 53 out of 405 homicides involved the use of firearms (17%) [3], while in the United States the number for 2004 was 10,654 out of a total of 16,138 (66%) [4]. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia

- wikipedia

www.aic.gov.au...
this may be of some use.

No, there is no real comparison regarding constitutional rights, however there are some social similarities.

I would also maintain that the 2nd amendment emphasis is "militia" in the right to bear arms, and that this is no longer valid, as stated and sourced in a previous post.

I'm sorry if this sounds confrontational, but I'm going ahead anyway.

A person is responsible for what they say and how others react to it if they are saying things in an aggressive or confrontational manner.

Personally speaking, I am unwilling to accept arguments containing anything of this nature - the writing becomes the whingeing of a spoilt child rather than a constructive argument. I am therefore inclined to reject any of the arguments, given the nature of them.



If you wish to enter into debate with me, then (as stated previously) please have the decency to debate in the manner mostly prevalent in this thread.
i.e. non-belligerent

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Here's one for Australia right out of Syndney.

Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.
www.smh.com.au...

and 3 years prior:

# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Will it continue to rise in another 3 years?

I'll toss in a UK one for good measure:

Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise.
www.fraserinstitute.ca...

[edit on 19-4-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

Truly I cannot help myself from being a confrontational, aggressive monster. You know, I dont see myself ending these violent and mean posts of mine so maybe you should write me off and just put me on your ignore list.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Here's one for Australia right out of Syndney.

Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.
www.smh.com.au...

and 3 years prior:

# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Will it continue to rise in another 3 years?

I'll toss in a UK one for good measure:

Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise.
www.fraserinstitute.ca...

[edit on 19-4-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

Truly I cannot help myself from being a confrontational, aggressive monster. You know, I dont see myself ending these violent and mean posts of mine so maybe you should write me off and just put me on your ignore list.

I'll answer your post, but have no intention of buying into your attempts at baiting.

These figures have been addressed to my satisfaction as being skewed by political motives.

Please refer to my previous posts.

Originally posted by budski
A person is responsible for what they say and how others react to it if they are saying things in an aggressive or confrontational manner.

So, if I say, in an aggressive and confrontational manner. "I hate you! You make me sick! What the hell's wrong with you? Are you insane?? You're a stupid, ugly pig"!

And you haul off and hit me, I'm responsible for your reaction? Is that what you're saying here?

budski and thisguyrighthere Your quoting practices are against the posting rules here. Please stop.

Read this for guidelines.
Guidelines For Quotes



[edit on 19-4-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

So, if I say, in an aggressive and confrontational manner. "I hate you! You make me sick! What the hell's wrong with you? Are you insane?? You're a stupid, ugly pig"!

And you haul off and hit me, I'm responsible for your reaction? Is that what you're saying here?

You're not responsible for violence against your person perpetrated by another person. You are responsible for escalating an argument into something greater. There can be no excuse for aggressive, confrontational behaviour, especially when writing - impulses of this nature when writing are much easier to control.

Thanks for pointing out the posting rules regarding quoting, I have read and understood them and will endeavour to adhere.

Originally posted by budski
There can be no excuse for aggressive, confrontational behaviour, especially when writing - impulses of this nature when writing are much easier to control.

But what if a person wants to be confrontational? What if they don't wish to control their impulses to be aggressive? There's nothing wrong with being verbally confrontational, direct, sarcastic or aggressive, as long as one doesn't take it to the physical level. We have the freedom to be verbally aggressive (as long as we avoid direct threats and other exceptions to the first amendment). You may not like a confrontational tone, but you don't have the right to control it or insist that others do.

How do we know when someone "escalates" an argument to the point of being responsible for the other person's response? Who draws that line?

It's easy to draw the line at physical action. As long as someone is just speaking, they can be ignored, but when a person takes physical action, they then become liable.

I didn't mean to make you sad... I just don't want you to get dinged by staff.

So, if I say, in an aggressive and confrontational manner. "I hate you! You make me sick! What the hell's wrong with you? Are you insane?? You're a stupid, ugly pig"!

And you haul off and hit me, I'm responsible for your reaction? Is that what you're saying here?

If you and a whole campusful of kids on a daily basis over a two year period sprouted stuff like this to one person, who then beats the tar out of a couple of those people, I bet you would feel zero responsibility for the end results, and have that person sent for an evaluation, for there violent outburts. Then wonder why they just went off like that, followed up with something must have been wrong with them from the start.

But what if a person wants to be confrontational? What if they don't wish to control their impulses to be aggressive? There's nothing wrong with being verbally confrontational, direct, sarcastic or aggressive, as long as one doesn't take it to the physical level. We have the freedom to be verbally aggressive (as long as we avoid direct threats and other exceptions to the first amendment). You may not like a confrontational tone, but you don't have the right to control it or insist that others do.

How do we know when someone "escalates" an argument to the point of being responsible for the other person's response? Who draws that line?

It's easy to draw the line at physical action. As long as someone is just speaking, they can be ignored, but when a person takes physical action, they then become liable.

Verbal aggression can be just as damaging as physical, and the effects last longer.
You're right that we have a right to express ourselves, but it's also my right to voice objections to it

I guess I believe that politeness costs nothing and achieves more, and that if someone really wants to be confrontational, then they have an agenda for something and are using their behaviour in order to provoke a desired response.

Originally posted by Harassment101
If you and a whole campusful of kids on a daily basis over a two year period sprouted stuff like this to one person, who then beats the tar out of a couple of those people, I bet you would feel zero responsibility for the end results, and have that person sent for an evaluation, for there violent outburts. Then wonder why they just went off like that, followed up with something must have been wrong with them from the start.

Is that what you're getting at? Of course I dont think for one minute you believe they got what they deserved but do you mean to say it was being 'picked on' that drove him to insanity? I cant buy that. People have been picking on other people for as long as we've existed. There have always been inclusions and exclusions for one reason or another.

Lets just say that it was bullying that brought this about. Pass a law making us all be nice to each other? Force tolerance with the law? Maybe we could just make it so that all of us are exactly like the weakest of us ala Harrison Bergeron?

Personally I think its the overwhelming touchy-feely give a murderer a hug mentality thats contributing to alot of the worst things in this society. Theres always some one or something else to blame with this system. Never any accountability.

Where an inch is given a foot is taken.

But I accept that for every individual who will take advantage of this touchy-feely attitude there are also individuals who will react in the same spiteful way to an abscense of this.

Excessive tolerance gets you taken advantage of.
Zero tolerance gets you rebellion.

Damned if you do damned if you dont I guess.

Either way Cho shot up the place because Cho shot up the place. Not because he was picked on in gym class for having a little pecker.

Think of all the poepl you know who have been made fun of throughout their lives. How many of them shave their heads, do push ups while watching porn and fantasize about shooting up their neighborhoods? Probably not very many. Now how many of them would actually go through with it? Even fewer. Maybe something like 1 in 300 million.

Some of the things that this guy said on his video were truly disturbing and may be the product of psychosis.

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines psychosis as "a severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."[1]

People experiencing a psychotic episode may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of their behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living

Wikipedia

I'm not saying that this excused what he did, and he had some grip of reality in that he was able to identify his perceived tormentors and exact what he saw as revenge.
It may be a mitigating factor during the inevitable enquiry.
I just hope that some of the blame is also laid at the door of the police - 2 HOURS TO RESPOND??? them coffee and doughnuts must have been very tasty indeed.

Originally posted by budski

I just hope that some of the blame is also laid at the door of the police - 2 HOURS TO RESPOND??? them coffee and doughnuts must have been very tasty indeed.

This is one of the greatest resons I am not willing to give up my pistol and my right to carry it. The police dont prevent crime and their job is absolutely not to protect any of us.

Their job is to show up after you've been robbed, raped or killed, ask some questions and maybe find the perpetrator and bring him before a judge.

The only person protecting the victim is the victim. Until I can get a 100% infalible guarantee that no criminal will ever approach me with deadly force I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with equal force.

Originally posted by Harassment101
I bet you would feel zero responsibility

Me personally? Since you quoted me, are you speaking directly to me or are you using the generic "you"?

Because I personally would never say that stuff to someone. It was an example.

But generally, yes. I draw the line at physical altercation. The guy who took physical action is responsible for it. Not the other people.

Originally posted by budski
Verbal aggression can be just as damaging as physical, and the effects last longer.

True, but legally we don't have the right to assault someone. We have the right to speak to them, even confrontationally.

You're right that we have a right to express ourselves, but it's also my right to voice objections to it

Also true.

Originally posted by budski
I guess I believe that politeness costs nothing and achieves more, and that if someone really wants to be confrontational, then they have an agenda for something and are using their behaviour in order to provoke a desired response.

That's great. If you choose to be polite, that's great. Where I have a problem is when you (generic "you") try to make others be polite also, because it works better or is somehow morally better than their style of communication. These rights and freedoms we have here are really important to many of us. We're kind of hung-up on them.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The only person protecting the victim is the victim. Until I can get a 100% infalible guarantee that no criminal will ever approach me with deadly force I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with equal force.

Hear! Hear!

Originally posted by Harassment101
If you and a whole campusful of kids on a daily basis over a two year period sprouted stuff like this to one person, who then beats the tar out of a couple of those people...

I just want to clarify something here. Although I'm not sure where you got this fantasy, because it's not at all what I was talking about. If I were part of a group who systematically harassed someone for 2 years (in this fantasy) what I am responsible for is being a total bunghole. I am NOT responsible for the kid beating the tar out of anyone. And I would NOT wonder why he "went off like that" and I wouldn't think that something must have been wrong from the start.

There is a causal link involved, but I didn't do the hitting, so I am not responsible for it. I am responsible for being a total jerk (in this fantasy).

I'm not sure if your story was supposed to have anything to do with Cho or not. If so, I find it pretty disturbing. Do you think somehow that somebody else was responsible for this kid killing 32 other people?

The only person protecting the victim is the victim. Until I can get a 100% infalible guarantee that no criminal will ever approach me with deadly force I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with equal force

This is a fair point, but portrays a kind of "frontier" attitude, which should not have a place in the modern world. In researching some of the social aspects of people wanting to carry guns, I have seen this phrase "frontier gun culture" emerge many times, but how true is this?

However I will accept that the world we live in is far from perfect.

In the UK the law says that we can use "necessary or reasonable force in order to protect" ourselves. Unfortunately in practice this does not always work.

There are social issues here which I think have so far been ignored. Now I am far from being a "bleeding heart liberal", but there are social issues which need to be addressed, at least as far as UK crime goes.
Isn't it amazing that 2 of the richest nations with 2 of the largest economies have ignored social responsibility to the extent that some feel the need to arm in order to defend themselves?

Originally posted by budski

Isn't it amazing that 2 of the richest nations with 2 of the largest economies have ignored social responsibility to the extent that some feel the need to arm in order to defend themselves?

Not really. We dont live in tiny communes where everyone knows everyone. We have large populations some areas very dense some more rural, we have economic and educational variations all across the scpectrum and very rarely are they consistent with one another, we have unlimited differing opinions and beliefs, different likes and dislikes, all of these things go to promote social instability. Its simply not possible to solve all of the peoples social problems.
Even closed off from the world in a commune its impossible to not be affected. Remember the Amish school shootings here?

Its absolutely not possible. You could go around writing million dollar checks to everyone, handing them nices homes, limitless food and all of the toys anyone could ever want even unite the world under one religion or government and it wont help one bit.

The problems are infinite. The approaches to solving them are as well.
Some people will always unite under one thing and others divide under the same thing.

Absolute utopian unity is simply not possible.

Even in some fantastic sci-fi Star Trek esque universe people get shot for no apparent reason whatsoever.

We have to live in this world. Not pretend to live in a fantasy world.

We have to live in this world. Not pretend to live in a fantasy world.

But at the same time, we have to accept that we have a responsibility to the society as a whole. Of course some people will never be satisfied, but I belive that social injustice plays a part in all of this.

Originally posted by budski
But at the same time, we have to accept that we have a responsibility to the society as a whole. Of course some people will never be satisfied, but I belive that social injustice plays a part in all of this.

I guess I didnt make my point clearly. See, Im saying that there is no such thing as social justice. So any injustice is relative hence there is no way to satisfy it. Maybe you can satisfy a relative need or injustice to one or two people but unless you can do that to the 7 billion people on this Earth the very act of satisfying one's perceived injustice will lead to the creation of sombody else's injustice.

Im making my head hurt trying to express it

I'm only really making the point about the societies we live in, obviously we can't make every person on the planet equal. What we can do in our own countries is provide social care for the less fortunate members of our respective societies.
I know this sounds unworkable to some, but over a long period of time, lots of little steps make big steps in making our societies better places for everyone.

The way the blair government have tried to do this in the UK has actually made the problem worse, so it's not just a question of throwing money at the problem, or about understanding why people do things, it's more about engendering inclusion so that people don't feel the need to be outside the law.
There will always be criminals though - some people just get a buzz from it.

Hi thisguyrighthere.

No I don't think that that this should have happened. I do think that being picked on in too many situations is causing a problem across society, wither it's bullying or mobbing.

I have just read too much about both to not see a correlation. It's a systemic problem, that tears down someone over time, and until we acknowledge that, then we will get no place.

I am not by any means trying to be huggy feely. I don't think we need anymore laws. Common sense, and an acknowledgement of cause equals effect. Don't do a and b most likely will not happen.

There have always been exclusions, there probably always will be, but the problem is, it's causing an adverse affect in today's society. Specifically Western society.

I also agree we need balance. I don't think I generally have a give a murderer a hug mentality. However I see these shootings again and again. I see what the kids are saying. I have read about the causing and devastating effects of bullying, mobbing, and I see an undeniable pattern of cause and effect.



Hi Benevolent Heretic.

It was a Generic you.

But generally, yes. I draw the line at physical altercation. The guy who took physical action is responsible for it. Not the other people.

That is exactly the problem I see with society. That is why this will never change. Till we as a society acknowledge that words are not always just words, they do have an affect. I agree that people should try to learn to control their tempers, but I do hold people who go out of their ways to provoke other people as responsible. Then when they finish provoking them, whither it's on a forum getting someone banned, or a school getting someone beaten up, I think we do have to put responsibility where it belongs, on both parties.

I just want to clarify something here. Although I'm not sure where you got this fantasy, because it's not at all what I was talking about. If I were part of a group who systematically harassed someone for 2 years (in this fantasy) what I am responsible for is being a total bunghole.

What you would be responsible for, would be for emotioanlly, psychologically and morally degrading that person. Ripping them apart inside, and taking away their humanity bit by bit. The death of a thousand paper cuts, but words instead of paper cuts.

I highly doubt you would ever see it that way or acknowledge it that way. However don't worry you are not alone. Our whole entire society is primarily like this, and then when cause equals results then no one is to blame except for the person who could not control their temper after years of emotional and psychological abuse. (We now have sympathy for wives in such situations who suffer at the hands of one husband, but not for children who suffer at the hands of dozens, if not hundreads of their peers.)

I an not justifying lashing out, but I am saying that it's irresponsible to not acknowledge that our actions, words, and deeds have effects on others. Being social creatures. In fact in the old days, we could just socially annex people as punishment and that worked really well. Scarlet letters. Shaming people etc. It does have an impact, that is what I am trying to get people to understand.

Thank you for getting that clarified and not twisting my words around.

I also think that maybe certain types of people are disturbed a little too easily. But that's just me.

I think that is what is also wrong with society. This is a general statement coming up. I think that things we should be deeply disturbed about we are not, and other things that we should not be as disturbed about we are. I think we should better choose our moments so that we don't unnecessarily create unnecessary situations. However that is just my opinion, but one that I think has to be said, cause I am so sick and tired of seeing these school shootings, and the same reactions every time, which don't change things for the better.

I hope I was able to clearify that a little bit better.