Guns don't kill?

Originally posted by Harassment101
I am saying that it's irresponsible to not acknowledge that our actions, words, and deeds have effects on others.

I do acknowledge that... I know my words can have an effect. I actually hope they do. But the action the other person takes is entirely their choice and their responsibility. They choose how to respond.

Originally posted by Harassment101
What you would be responsible for, would be for emotioanlly, psychologically and morally degrading that person.

I don't have the power to do that without their permission. If I said the same words to someone else, they might laugh me off. Another person might just ignore me. Another might smack me in the face. Another might shoot me. The RESPONSE is totally and completely in the hands of the person. I take responsibility for my words, not for their actions.

I also think that maybe certain types of people are disturbed a little too easily.

I learned a long time ago to be true to myself. I do not behave in one way for one person and another way for another person. If people are disturbed by what I say, they need to ignore me.

I understand your way of thinking, Harassment. And you, too, have a lot of company.

True people do choose how to respond to years of being humiliated and degraded. I know some wives who never leave their husbands, and others who do, and others who do lash out. However as a society we have now acknowledge that cause does equal effect, and we do hold some husbands who torture and degrade their wives emotionally for years accountable.

The sad part is children do not realise that they are giving their power away to others when they get angry and react in human fashions like getting into fights, and it's most often the ones that are provoked who do fight and they are often the ones who get in trouble from what I have read.

I don't want to take responsibility for the actions of others, but sometimes I do realise that if I do a person will act in b fashion and so most times I don't do a. But that's just me.

I agree on a forum like this, if someone is disturbed by someone or something they say, it might be better to ignore them. Unless it's truly disturbing, then that's another story.

Well it looks like I am starting to get more company and it's about time.

www.cbc.ca...

the revamped act will add cyber-bullying to the list of offences for which students can be suspended or expelled from school.

But instead of just insanely suspending people, they are going to review it on a case by case basis. Hopefully we won't see some of the bias overtones we have seen with other polices, but that's for another thread.

I think the issue of how people react when bullied, social issues, mental problems etc are a bit of a red herring, and have slightly gone off the track of the real point of the debate in this thread.

yes these issues are important in determining why this act was committed, but the issue at hand needs to be addressed:
Namely guns.

Originally posted by budski
I think the issue of how people react when bullied, social issues, mental problems etc are a bit of a red herring, and have slightly gone off the track of the real point of the debate in this thread.

yes these issues are important in determining why this act was committed, but the issue at hand needs to be addressed:
Namely guns.

Like I was trying to point out to NJE last night, you can't tell me that there isn't a difference in a person's mind that does this sort of thing than there is between those who don't. Many people are bullied and picked on, but not everyone decides to murder because of it. It's just another excuse to circumvent personal responsibility in my honest opinion. I don't feel sorry for them. Einstein was picked on tremendously, but he never killed anyone. Instead, he contributed to society through science.

There is something wrong with these people's brains that go on these murder sprees. They can come up with any excuse they want. "Well I was molested and beaten," or, "I was picked on as a kid." Join the freaking crowd. There are many, many who were. They didn't kill people because of it though.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Hi budski.

Thank you for getting this topic back on track.


Hi SpeakerofTruth.

Lot's of people are picked on and they don't kill, however others do, and I am not convinced that the ones that do can be counted as blanket insane. In fact from what I have not read, I am sure of the opposite. Not excusing the actions, but I am trying to be understanding of what people went through.

Einstein lived in another time period, where guns and the violence we see on tv, thank God were not as readily available, or glorified. Had he lived in this time period, things might have been different.

How many of those that went off, could have been the next Einstein, or major contributor to society?

I think it's good that there was not such a popular gun culture at that time.

I think the gun culture is part of the problem. However I would never blame a gun for the problems of society. If society did not glorify them and make them so available then we would not have as many problems.

Harrassment, have you ever heard of the Spect Analysis? It's basically the scanning of the brain. Anyway, they have actually compared the brain scans of people who have committed such acts as this, and there is a definite difference between their brain scan and the average person's. Firstly, there is a low brain activity in the frontal lobe of these individuals. Secondly, there is a reduced activity in the cortexes on the side of their brains. So, there is a definite difference.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Hi SpeakerofTruth.

Do you have any links to this? I have read extensivly about the bullying and mobbing phenomenon and I have not come across that statement anywhere in the research.

Can you provide me with some links? I am sure others who have done research such as Tim Fields, Nora Davenport, etc could then add this to their future research if it's true so that we can have a more balanced approch when it comes to helping us understand what makes these people choose one path over another.

All the research I have read, says something quite different.

Originally posted by budski
I think the issue of how people react when bullied, social issues, mental problems etc are a bit of a red herring, and have slightly gone off the track of the real point of the debate in this thread.

Hi, I am not sure that it is a red herring. The OP suggests 'guns don't kill, people do'...so it is all related. The OP puts the onus on the individual and rejects external factors.

No body of theory/study is thorough without considering all contributing issues/mitigating factors. SpeakerofTruth advocates personal responsiblity. Personal responsibility is still the blame process In the public mindset, it is easier to resolve the issue by simplifying it.

On the surface we can sum this up quite quickly but if we accept that, we fail to understand the complete picture.

Budski earlier raised some important issues to the discussion:

It seems that Cho Seung-hui was an extremely disturbed young man, and that in mental health parlance, he "slipped through the net" of mental health care.

What it does do is raise more questions, such as;
if authority's were aware of his violent and aggressive tendency's, why was he not receiving treatment;
how did he purchase the weapons and why was he allowed to given his mental state;
during the TWO HOUR time gap, where were the police;
why was this person allowed to remain on campus, when the campus authorities were fully aware of his "illness";
why did campus security not maintain at least a modicum of surveillance, given that the higher ups KNEW he was unstable.

Can ANYONE seriously tell me that tighter controls would not have prevented this person getting hold of the weapons he did.

Budski illustrates some of the issues needed for a thorough analysis of the incident. This is the process and because of the scale of this attrocity, the people directly affected will expect answers. And, there will be reviews of school procedures, police reaction etc. It is part of the process.

Budski

yes these issues are important in determining why this act was committed, but the issue at hand needs to be addressed:
Namely guns.

Well, if that is so, then the criteria that permits gun ownership is relevent. If people kill and the onus in placed onto the individual, then the socio economic, political and mental environment are also relevent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the bullying issue, some of you may appreciate this information.
MRI's have shown in pediatric and adolescent development, trauma does effect the neurological development.

had a 12% smaller left hippocampal volume and a statistically insignificant 5% smaller right hippocampal volume. It is not known why persons traumatized as adults had smaller right hippocampal volume and those traumatized as children had smaller left hippocampal volume.
www.healing-arts.org...

Image

Increases in both the size and the weight of the brain are among the predictable neurophysiological results of a stimulating developmental environment. When children lack active healthy social encounters with others (from threats, stress and anxiety), we see brains that do not wire themselves properly in the emotional centers, which plays itself out in the most negative ways cognitively. According to Dr. Bruce Perry at the Baylor College of Medicine, the development of the cerebral cortex can be reduced by as much as 20% under these conditions rendering many brain structures under-developed.

www.sciencemaster.com...





[edit on 19-4-2007 by NJE777]

Having had a read of the previous post, and a good think about (so why do my work pay me??? lol), I think that it is probably right to raise some of these issues, particularly socio-economic factors with attention paid to the culture that exists, insofar as people feeling the need to arm themselves in order to protect themselves.

In order to fully understand this, I feel I need to more fully understand what it is within the culture that drives it. i.e. what are the prevailing social and/or economic conditions.
I also feel I need to more fully understand the US culture as a whole (although this may be difficult given the scope of the country and the diversity of the people). I don't mean the culture presented by hollywood, tv shows, or the left wing propaganda which exists in europe.

Rather, I would like to get a feel for the culture by speaking and more importantly listening to "average" citizens of the US.

I know there are many people on here from many different parts of the US, so if enough people reply, we should be able to get a fairly good (though by no means comprehensive) picture, from a wide range of cultural backgrounds.

What I mean is that people in large urban area's belong to an altogether different demographic than people from the country, coast, mountains, north, south etc. I am not talking about just guns, but thoughts on cultural identity and what it means to be american.
If possible, I would also like replies from people who don't own guns, and why they don't own them, as well as their feelings of cultural ID

This seems like a really big ask, but it's very important for me as I grapple with trying to understand the OP.

As I said before, I have become a bit more open minded about this subject, and I'd like to open the door a little further....

Hi Budski,

I can appreciate the defensive stance taken by some individuals, I really can and I empathise with their view. On one hand we have responsible gun owners who have probably owned a gun for a very long time without ever using it or they own it primarily for the reason of self defense. And then we have others who decide to buy a weapon with intent or for a henious purpose. When an atrocity such as this occurs, they assume a defensive position. At times, I agree, those opposed to guns seem somewhat opportunistic and ready to jump on their agenda banging a drum. Especially, from the likes of those outside of their culture... those people who can't possibly relate.

In this instance, I will clarify that I did not come into the discussion with an agenda. I did not adopt a passive approach. I really in all sincerity just discussed the legislative changes in Australia post Pt Arthur and attempted to contribute to the discussion in a meaniful way.

Basic criminology requires or relies upon looking at every issue relating to criminal behavior. That is, in reflection where I was coming from.

Enjoy!

"Why Britain needs more guns"
news.bbc.co.uk...

...[Violent crimes in] America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

AND MORE!

A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

Any comments?

It is so sad that this tragedy had been relegated to a "Gun" debate. Why cant people see, this has nothing to do with guns, Cho would have used a carving knife if that was his only option. The sickness is...apathy.

Originally posted by IAF101
It is so sad that this tragedy had been relegated to a "Gun" debate. Why cant people see, this has nothing to do with guns, Cho would have used a carving knife if that was his only option.

IMO if this was his 'only option' he wouldn't have bothered.
In order to kill someone with a carving knife.. you need to get in arms length of them.. makes it personal and not like a video game. You have to feel the blade cut into the flesh.. a bullet makes it impersonal.
It would also be impossible for someone to kill over thirty people with a carving knife.. he would've been tackled and disarmed after the 1st.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by riley]

There is no question that firearms make this kind of action more accessable to the whack jobs. But it is the person that does the deed.

Saying 'guns kill' is like saying computers commit online identity theft or pens write great novels.

Aproximately 7000 people die each year from drug overdoses.

More than 34,000 Americans die each year from guns.

Yet drugs are illegal?...

America also has the highest rate of gun deaths per year than any other country...And America thinks it's supposed to be the model for how the rest of the world should be?

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
Source

Rather telling isn't it?

Originally posted by Harassment101
Hi SpeakerofTruth.

Do you have any links to this? I have read extensivly about the bullying and mobbing phenomenon and I have not come across that statement anywhere in the research.

Can you provide me with some links? I am sure others who have done research such as Tim Fields, Nora Davenport, etc could then add this to their future research if it's true so that we can have a more balanced approch when it comes to helping us understand what makes these people choose one path over another.

All the research I have read, says something quite different.

Certainly. Spect Analysis this Psychiatrist has studied it extensively. He says there is a definite difference.



[edit on 21-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Great post, but do you have any more up to date figures?

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by IAF101
It is so sad that this tragedy had been relegated to a "Gun" debate. Why cant people see, this has nothing to do with guns, Cho would have used a carving knife if that was his only option.

IMO if this was his 'only option' he wouldn't have bothered.
In order to kill someone with a carving knife.. you need to get in arms length of them.. makes it personal and not like a video game. You have to feel the blade cut into the flesh.. a bullet makes it impersonal.
It would also be impossible for someone to kill over thirty people with a carving knife.. he would've been tackled and disarmed after the 1st.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by riley]

He is deranged, he wanted to feel the flesh tear under his force, see the blood, the death. I think one or two would have satisfied his blood lust before he took his life. But as you say the gun is impersonal and thus would require more death for him to feel satisfied.
As for killing 30 people with a carving knife it is possible, if a person is skilled enough, he can easily kill 30 people. Or he could what Jack the Ripper did, wait in the dark places and pick off people one by one.
When one wants to kill they will always find a way.

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by IAF101
It is so sad that this tragedy had been relegated to a "Gun" debate. Why cant people see, this has nothing to do with guns, Cho would have used a carving knife if that was his only option.

IMO if this was his 'only option' he wouldn't have bothered.
In order to kill someone with a carving knife.. you need to get in arms length of them.. makes it personal and not like a video game. You have to feel the blade cut into the flesh.. a bullet makes it impersonal.
It would also be impossible for someone to kill over thirty people with a carving knife.. he would've been tackled and disarmed after the 1st.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by riley]

He is deranged, he wanted to feel the flesh tear under his force, see the blood, the death. I think one or two would have satisfied his blood lust before he took his life. But as you say the gun is impersonal and thus would require more death for him to feel satisfied.
As for killing 30 people with a carving knife it is possible, if a person is skilled enough, he can easily kill 30 people. Or he could what Jack the Ripper did, wait in the dark places and pick off people one by one.
When one wants to kill they will always find a way.

Have to say that I found this post really bloodthirsty and slightly disturbing, but also funny

Originally posted by budski

Snip...

To say that guns don't kill people, people kill people is a fallacy.
To say that a gun is a tool, same as a hammer or a knife, is a fallacy.
A hammer or a knife, is not made for the express purpose of firing a high velocity projectile at another living thing. Yes, you can kill a person with a hammer or knife, but can you kill over 30 in a crowded area? I think not.

IMHO you are wrong. Guns don't kill people, they are an inanimate object. People DO kill people, and this is a fact. Another fact is if those 30 plus people were armed, there would have been a lot less than 30 plus killed. Another fact is no one can protect you in a situation like that, or similar life and death situations. The police are useless in protecting your life in most situations. They are there AFTER your death, so, ultimately, you are the only one who is responsible for you, and your families protection.

I'm walking up your driveway with a shotgun, what are you going to do? Call a cop?