Another shooting spree in the US

[Darkong]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/04/binghamton-new-york-gunman-shooting

So here we go again with the usual debates between all sides, those in favour of keeping guns easily available and those who wants tighter regulation and those who want them banned all together.

And we all know it'll end up with little being changed while poloticians position themselves as 'defending constitutional rights' or 'defending the public'. I have always thought that there will be little chance of change mainly because the gun is so deeply ingrained into the American culture, any attempts to ban them will be hugely unpopular and fail thanks to pressure from the public and lobbyists.

So I ask, mainly to any Americans, do you think there's any possible solution to these mass shotting tragedies that keep happening? I can only see a long term cultural overturn as the solution but maybe someone else has an idea.

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/04/binghamton-new-york-gunman-shooting

So here we go again with the usual debates between all sides, those in favour of keeping guns easily available and those who wants tighter regulation and those who want them banned all together.

And we all know it'll end up with little being changed while poloticians position themselves as 'defending constitutional rights' or 'defending the public'. I have always thought that there will be little chance of change mainly because the gun is so deeply ingrained into the American culture, any attempts to ban them will be hugely unpopular and fail thanks to pressure from the public and lobbyists.

So I ask, mainly to any Americans, do you think there's any possible solution to these mass shotting tragedies that keep happening? I can only see a long term cultural overturn as the solution but maybe someone else has an idea.

Even worse, it looks like the gunman targeted them because they wanted to become US citizens. At least before any more details are released, that's what it looks like.

It's definitely a long term cultural thing. Problem is, the same general culture that makes us so distasteful is what keeps us competitive. (One could say similar things about China, too, compared to many other developed or developing countries. It seems like the world stage is always a contest between the world's biggest bastards, whether it's in the economic, political, or military sense.)

But I digress.

 

[DannyDamage]

If people and the media didn't pay attention to the dick-heads that carry out these shootings, others wouldn't think it was an appropriate way to solve their problems/get the attention they seek.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

You know, I think the guy might have been insane. Does anyone agree there needs to be a yearly sanity test?

 

[Duke Raver]

So I ask, mainly to any Americans, do you think there's any possible solution to these mass shotting tragedies that keep happening?

There isn't a solution, if someone came up with a solution the government would be using it (or are to greedy to because it costs to much).

Now most people will say "This is horrific I would never do anything like this" and they are probably right, but seriously the only people who would care are the people involved in the shooting (victims family's, witnesses, police).

Also banning guns will not stop this, only degrade this. Many countries have shootings where they have strict gun laws because these guns are sold illegally on the black market etc.

And one more thing, this man was obviously aiming for these people, but the reason is unknown and we will most likely not find out BECAUSE HE IS DEAD.

PS. Readers digression was advised until I added it at the bottom here because you all would have read it anyway. (I hope you were offened)

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Banning guns is nothing but a ploy by entrenched politicians to consolidate power by promoting fear. It wouldn't solve the root causes of violence, and arguably wouldn't solve the immediate ones either. Some regulation is in order, but we have more than enough in America already. In many cases, failure to enforce our existing gun laws cause the problems. An American man who does not own a gun is not fulfilling his civic duty.

Although I do not know this man's motives, I expect more violence like this in the future. Immigration is the biggest problem facing America today (trumps "terrorism" by a mile) because of rampant illegal crossing from Mexico. Republicans and Democrats profit too much from the cheap labor pool to address the problem, but regular Americans are paying the price right now. Violence like this is the sad but predictable result.

In a nutshell- pull down the Republicans and Democrats, stop dicking around worldwide, and solve the problems that face the poor and middle class instead of creating ones that benefit the wealthy. This could have been prevented.

 

[bioVOLTAGE]

The only solution to a problem like this is to stop it before it can start. Find why people feel the need to take it out on others and give them a better alternative.

On a side note, I live and work in the Binghamton area. This is a real shock to see this happen where you live, especially when we really don't have all that much violent crime here. I used to go by that place on my way to college.

 

[internutt]

Rather than selling guns over the counter. Just like with cars make sure people have to take tests to legally own/use a gun. Tests could include gun maintenance, shooting ranges, sanity checks, background checks.

Does America even have something like that?

 

[cas]

You cant just say ban guns because it is so ingrained in american tradition now. They feel entitled to their guns, so taking them away is probably not even going to be possible. Theres places with strict gun laws and almost no gun violence, but nowhere that feels so entitled to their guns like america

 

[ace_of_something]

Rather than selling guns over the counter. Just like with cars make sure people have to take tests to legally own/use a gun. Tests could include gun maintenance, shooting ranges, sanity checks, background checks.

Does America even have something like that?

Ummm. Yes. There is a five day waiting period to get a gun. They check medical background (for example military personale that have PTSD can't get a gun when they are discharged) they check criminal history. Some local laws require you to take a safety class. Any gun purchased is required to be placed into the national gun registry with you as the owner.

This is such a frusterating Stereotype; it's not like we get them out of vending machines.

The problem is from say; someone aquiring a legal firearm and than selling it to someone who doesn't so legally have it. People stealing guns.

Besides whats to stop someone from. Say hitting a whole bunch of people with their car, making a homemade bomb, or going on a baseball bat/knife rampage?

 

[MiketheBassMan]

The right to bear arms is irrefutable. The simple fact is that this nation was built on a hatred of imperialism, mercantilism, and monarchy. We are guaranteed the right to overthrow our own government should it fail to serve the needs of the people. How could such a thing be done without a revolution, and how could you have one if only the government is armed? Idealism aside, this sort of thing happens all over the world all the time. It is only the American media that fronts it so heavily that it becomes an issue; They want to scare the American people into thinking they would be safer with more government control. If you sacrifice freedom for safety, you'll soon find you have neither.

And in response to those that think it's easy to get guns in America, look at France! You can buy them at any supermarket.

 

[Iron Mal]

I doubt I'm the only one who's noticed this but the restriction of firearms would help to stop events like this from occuring (it's very difficult to shoot someone if you don't have a gun), granted, criminals will still be able to aquire firearms from the black market but these are often very expensive and hard for your average street thug to attain.

Compare the fact that America (where guns are readily avalible to most, if not all, citizens) has dramatically more gun related murders per year than England (where gun ownership is generally not permitted under any circumstance), am I the only one who's noticed something here?

EDIT: Also, if I remember correctly, the 'right to bear arms' is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted. If I remember correctly it originally stated that the US has the right to bear arms in the defence of your home and country (in other words, you have the right to form an armed militia or army when under threat of invasion, which you already have in the form of the US army and the National Guard), it does not mean that anyone can own as many firearms as they please because they don't want foreigners on their land.

 

[MiketheBassMan]

I doubt I'm the only one who's noticed this but the restriction of firearms would help to stop events like this from occuring (it's very difficult to shoot someone if you don't have a gun), granted, criminals will still be able to aquire firearms from the black market but these are often very expensive and hard for your average street thug to attain.

Compare the fact that America (where guns are readily avalible to most, if not all, citizens) has dramatically more gun related murders per year than England (where gun ownership is generally not permitted under any circumstance), am I the only one who's noticed something here?

Where are you getting those statistics from? And further, the populations are far different. You have to look at percentages, regional differences, &c. It's not apples to apples, here.

 

[Iron Mal]

Where are you getting those statistics from? And further, the populations are far different. You have to look at percentages, regional differences, &c. It's not apples to apples, here.

I never actually cited any statistics, I merely pointed out a trend that I've observed.

Granted, the US has a larger population than the UK but this doesn't detract from my point, you still (more than likely) have a larger percentage of your murders carried out with firearms than we do, also, what do you mean by 'reigonal differences'? (a murder is a murder, it doesn't matter where it's conducted).

According to the statistics for gun murders that were presented in 'Bowling for Colombine' (by Michael Moore) in one year the US had approximately 11,000 gun related murders while the UK had somewhere around 100 (even if you try to take population differences into account, that doesn't explain where the hell the other 10,900 came from).

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

As much as I hate to spout the tired line of "Guns don't kill people...", it's about as accurate as I'd like to get in these types of discussions. It's not about the tools used during serial killings, it's the intent. Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler) was a sovereign in (now called) Romania who was infamous throughout the region for torturing his captives via impalement. Jack the Ripper a serial killer in late 1880's London.

Both of these men, whose murderous tendencies pre-dated the introduction of guns by a fairly admirable margin, still managed to go on sprees killings tens of people. They had to cover their tracks, and do so with more subtlety, but it the lack of guns did not leave these men incapable.

If we removed guns, individuals like these would bring other such weapons to commit these things. Bodily harm would be no issue since the end result will always be death regardless. Simply put, where guns give availability and ease to these types of situations, they don't actually cause or empower the murderous intent.

Removing gun laws is like adding DRM, for a bizarre parallel. You're making shooting sprees more difficult, but you can never truly cease them entirely. Serial killings will not stop, people will still die needlessly, and individuals will still commit murders. If you had a cold, as a doctor, the answer is not to stop the cough. It's to kill the bacteria causing the cough.

Why are gun laws any different? The disease is will still be there, even if the coughing stops.

 

[asinann]

As much as I hate to spout the tired line of "Guns don't kill people...", it's about as accurate as I'd like to get in these types of discussions. It's not about the tools used during serial killings, it's the intent. Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler) was a sovereign in (now called) Romania who was infamous throughout the region for torturing his captives via impalement. Jack the Ripper a serial killer in late 1880's London.

Both of these men, whose murderous tendencies pre-dated the introduction of guns by a fairly admirable margin, still managed to go on sprees killings tens of people. They had to cover their tracks, and do so with more subtlety, but it the lack of guns did not leave these men incapable.

If we removed guns, individuals like these would bring other such weapons to commit these things. Bodily harm would be no issue since the end result will always be death regardless. Simply put, where guns give availability and ease to these types of situations, they don't actually cause or empower the murderous intent.

Removing gun laws is like adding DRM, for a bizarre parallel. You're making shooting sprees more difficult, but you can never truly cease them entirely. Serial killings will not stop, people will still die needlessly, and individuals will still commit murders. If you had a cold, as a doctor, the answer is not to stop the cough. It's to kill the bacteria causing the cough.

Why are gun laws any different? The disease is will still be there, even if the coughing stops.

Neither of them pre-dated guns, they just didn't USE guns for the killing.
But the right to bear arms isn't for defense of the country, it's to overthrow the government when it becomes too corrupt.

Hitler's first move when he got power was to ban guns from the populace, and with some of the leaders in this nation, it wouldn't be long before we had a complete police state.

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Top-Headlines\20090404\Binghamton-Shootings.xml&cat=topheadlines&subcat=&pageid=1

And to top it all off, the man WAS an immigrant who spoke poor english, not killing immigrants for taking jobs.

 

[Flour]

The right to bear arms is irrefutable. The simple fact is that this nation was built on a hatred of imperialism, mercantilism, and monarchy. We are guaranteed the right to overthrow our own government should it fail to serve the needs of the people. How could such a thing be done without a revolution, and how could you have one if only the government is armed?

Yeah, good luck trying to overthrow the government when every gun has to be registered and armour piercing ammunition is banned.
The gun registration means it's extremely easy to track down, and remove any gun when the government becomes corrupt, and good luck trying to take down a group of soldiers.
Then there's that law from 1986(1988?) that bans the sale of fully automatic weapons meaning the military has an even greater advantage whenever a bunch of idiots try to take down the government.

You can argue all you want against this, but I doubt there's any place better protected against an attack than wherever the US government is, especially when trying to take it down with outdated weapons.

 

[DoctorNick]

EDIT: Also, if I remember correctly, the 'right to bear arms' is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted. If I remember correctly it originally stated that the US has the right to bear arms in the defence of your home and country (in other words, you have the right to form an armed militia or army when under threat of invasion, which you already have in the form of the US army and the National Guard), it does not mean that anyone can own as many firearms as they please because they don't want foreigners on their land.

I myself think that's incorrect. It's interesting to go back and to read things like the Federalist Papers which were written by the actual framers of the constitution because it shows what they were actually thinking and meant when they laid all of this down:

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

and

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

There's more obviously, but those jumped out at me. For better or for worse I find it a bit of a stretch to try and claim they meant anything besides the population at large having the right to be armed.

Anyway, I'm probably going to be called a cold hearted bastard for this, but things like school shootings and the like are on a whole such relatively small events that the chance of being caught in one is still so small as to not factor heavily into 'the things likely to kill me'. Saying that the murder rate is twice here what it is in a place like the UK is unimpressive to me when we consider that it's still 5 or so in 100,000. I'll more likely get hit by a car or killed by my love of greasy food. Frankly even if the worst people like to claim about guns in the US is true I still consider that a small societal price to pay to be able to be armed.

Having said that, I still believe overall that this is a cultural problem more than a presence of guns problem. I find it notable that the vast majority of ones I can find information on happened from 1990 onward, and I certainly don't think it was due to a lack of available firearms.

As a more practical note, if you ever somehow got the government to try going door to door saying 'give up your guns' it would . . . not end well. So don't expect that to ever be a practical 'solution'.