Where did I say "it's the media's fault"? I didn't. I agreed with Guppy's point, which was a tongue in cheek commentary on the generally negative contribution that the media seems to have on shootings and such. He wasn't saying "teh media did it", and neither was I. Even if I did think that the shootings were in the same vein as the previous ones, I'll gladly blame the articles I'd read that made it out to be that way (which really on reinforces that initial point).Dijkstra said:
Shooting in Texas
- Thread starter GoddyofAus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd already stated "tongue in cheek". He clearly didn't know more about the situation than anybody else at the time, he was just playing off of the original post. He was not definitively stating "the shooter was driven by desire for media attention". That was how I interpreted his statement. Perhaps you feel differently, fine. Also, again, the articles I read poorly conveyed the actual situation, sensationalizing it to make it out to be another spree shooter. The most you can say is "how dare you not check up on a situation further before agreeing with the point of someone who's making a generally true statement that falls in line with what you'd read so far".Dijkstra said:
Ouch, don't really care.
There are millions of responsible gun owners in America. Military, veterans, law enforcement, students, teachers, policy makers and stay at home moms, to name some. Ordinary, law-abiding citizens that comply with gun regulation (despite the ignorance of these threads, yes there are many regulations on firearms in the U.S.). There are over four million responsible owners and supporters alone in the NRA.
People who don't go around committing violence, instead lead normal lives. They advocate safe, responsible, law-abiding use there-of firearms, educate people on policy in government and encourage each other to stand up and be active in defending their Constitutional and human rights, all the while suffering the flames of wanton ignorance, mainstream oppression, bias and nasty, bitter vitriol; labeled as extremists with an agenda.
Who are the real "nuts" with an agenda? Bill from Texas who has a few rifles in a locking safe that don't hurt anyone? Or politicians, media and outspoken people exploiting massacres and the deaths of children to group Bill with violent crime?
Seriously, people who don't even understand the second amendment are some of the most outspoken people who loathe its existence. It's a lot like racist, sexist and homophobic logic. Bitter intolerance and resentment for people they don't know or even try to understand.
People who don't go around committing violence, instead lead normal lives. They advocate safe, responsible, law-abiding use there-of firearms, educate people on policy in government and encourage each other to stand up and be active in defending their Constitutional and human rights, all the while suffering the flames of wanton ignorance, mainstream oppression, bias and nasty, bitter vitriol; labeled as extremists with an agenda.
Who are the real "nuts" with an agenda? Bill from Texas who has a few rifles in a locking safe that don't hurt anyone? Or politicians, media and outspoken people exploiting massacres and the deaths of children to group Bill with violent crime?
Seriously, people who don't even understand the second amendment are some of the most outspoken people who loathe its existence. It's a lot like racist, sexist and homophobic logic. Bitter intolerance and resentment for people they don't know or even try to understand.
I looked at the article you posted. If you look at the plots of gun homicide deaths, both accounting for mass killings and leaving them out, both seem to show a declining trend even before the law was passed. The slope of the trendline doesn't change much after the weapons ban was instituted. Based on this data alone, I'm not convinced that the law made a significant difference.doggie015 said:
I think the [URL="http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp" (title,target)]Snopes[/URL] treatment of this specific instance is more balanced. And let's not forget, we're trying to come up with a solution that will work in the United States. We have a much larger landmass, much larger population and have a land border with a country that's notorious for trafficking in illegal goods.
Well contributing to that pages length is that it's got every single freaking incident on there. No matter if it happened 79 years ago, didn't involve pupils but a murder just happened to take place at a school, or was an accident, it's on the list. Whereas the other list is more of a "greatest-hits" if you will[footnote]forgive my choice of words there[/footnote]Hagi said:
Second, we've got more people in the US than Canada, Germany, Italy, the UK, and France combined. Obviously, there's other factors, but part of the large volume in the US is just that there's more people here, and more wacko's
It's the path of the lazy. To accept a problem would mean to change and to change would mean to make an effort.Dijkstra said:
Unfortunately, it works. Remember when Bush shamed the coverage of the war in Iraq?
Damn it, I'm stumped. Socialised guns?canadamus_prime said:
New York has seen quite a decrease in violence, and in terms of gun crime, New York is one of the safest.Ryotknife said:
And when cars are the favoured method of killing someone....
Of course, gun crime is a different issue. when Breitbart tried to pull the "baseball bats kill more people than assault rifles do!" crap, he linked to statistics that put the gun crime rate at relatively stable. It's almost like non-firearm crimes seem to be the bulk of the decrease....
Of course, this is America, where because we can we should.canadamus_prime said:
Before you call Australia's gun ban a "success" you should read [URL="http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp" (title,target)]this[/URL]. Sounds more like "slight modification to the status-quo" than "success" to me. And if you believe [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html" (title,target)] this guy[/URL], Britain's attempts at strict gun control laws have been an outright failure.Akalabeth said:
I also agree that gun control won't work unless you're strict enough. Unfortunately, I think being strict enough for this to work means declaring martial law, suspending our protection from unreasonable search-and-seizure, and ordering the military and municipal police forces to do a rigorous house-by-house, building-by-building search to make sure they get ALL the guns.
It's not enough to just make law-abiding citizens turn in their registered weapons. Who knows how many illegal and unregistered weapons there are out there? Bottom line, exorbitantly expensive, hugely time consuming, throws out ALL of our constitutional rights, and no certainty if it'll stop mass violence from happening (as I said before, you don't have to use guns to kill lots of people).
And even if you do affect a complete and thorough civilian disarmament, can you keep everyone disarmed? The Mexican cartels are masters at making a profit on exporting illegal goods. They would jump at the chance to make a few billion dollars re-arming our nation's criminal element. Before the weapons ban, these guys had to be careful they didn't try to car-jack the wrong guy, or break into the wrong house; that law-abiding citizen could be armed, after all. Now, they don't have to worry; the government has made sure that a gun-wielding criminal will meet with no substantial resistance. One problem solved (maybe), other problems worsened.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If I'm going to commit a crime, why do I care about what our gun laws are? I'm already going to break the law by killing/robbing/raping/kidnapping/etcetera-ing someone, what do I care about adding possession of an illegal weapon on top of that? The only difference is I have to give a couple thousand dollars to my local dealer for my weapons instead of the gun shop down the street, with an added benefit that I can now commit this crime with a weapon that cannot be traced back to me.
You want to crack down on guns? How about cracking down on trafficking in illegal weapons before you go after people who just want to defend themselves... and maybe shoot at some ducks or... something.
Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, and Albany, the 4 major cities after New York City, has crime comparable to Chicago. NYC is a lot safer than it used to be 20 years ago, but then you have to remember how effing dangerous it was back then. Still higher than average, but not bad all things considered. Probably the ONLY "safe" major population center in the entire state. Course it helped that their police department significantly increased in force whereas the rest of the state has to cut their budget....must be nice.Zachary Amaranth said:
crime, in general, has been going down in the US. From NY to Texas. The country's homicide rate has dropped by 50% since the 70's. Which is why it is funny that non-americans ae saying how US is becoming more and more dangerous when the OPPOSITE is true. But what they dont understand is that our population is BURSTING compared to just about anyone else. From 1980 to 2010, our populaion increased by nearly 50% from 220 million to 313 million.
by comparison, UK's population has only increased by 10% in that same time period. The US population is increasing at the rate of 3-4 million per year.
thankfully we have a crapton of habitable land that is still barely used. The entire middle of our country is practically empty.
I wasn't going to go there, but okaaaay...doggie015 said:
The real question is how do you ensure that gun owners handle their guns responsibly, ie keeping them unloaded and locked up in a secure cabinet when not in use among other things.Ryotknife said:
That is tough. Yea, you can pass measures like the ones you are suggesting, but then that makes guns for self defense kinda....useless. Oftentimes you will not be able to unlock the cabinet and load the gun in time (and call the police) before the assailant is upon you. And if you do have minutes, you might not even need the gun because you can escape/barricade until the police arrive. Course this all depends on the layout of your house and the purpose of the intrusion obviously. But someone in a small house or apartment (which is what most establishments in bad neighboroohds are) is not going to have much warning. I am not against it per se it is just a "damned if you do damned if you dont" in my eyes.canadamus_prime said:
At my old place, someone could break in, stab me in the throat, and be out in less han 15 seconds.
It would be nice if we had guns with some sort of biometric scanner so that only the owner could use it. or gun cases.
I decided to write up a copy-paste thing to stick on these forums whenever gun issues come up. Takes too long to write new ones with how frequently gun control comes up around here.
---------------------------------------------
Haven't even bothered to look at anything past page 2. I'm calling it now that by page 5 this will be about Gun Control, so here are my two cents before I address the actual topic this Thread is supposed to be about.
This country is practically built around firearms, and was literally built with them. Guns are so finely ingrained in our culture that to remove them would change us on a fundamental level, and I can't see a way to accurately predict if the change will be positive or negative.
On one hand less guns means less shootings. That's a given. On the other hand, I don't think it will reduce violence in general. Violent individuals will move to more brute-force or sophisticated methods. People who would have tried a shooting will move to other weapons. Knives, machetes, and other bladed weapons. Blunt ones like bats or just your average piece of lead pipe. That's the best case scenario. Its also fairly likely from where I stand. Blunt instruments are easy to learn to use, and bladed weapons aren't much more complicated to use on people who don't know how to counter them.
Worst case scenario, they move to more dangerous things than guns. Improvised explosives is a possibility there. Which would cause more destruction after all? A single shooter in a school, or bombs set up outside of classrooms that are set to go off at the same time? Cutting out guns would just force mass-murderers to become more sophisticated in their methods. Look up columbine, they tried to use explosives in the cafeteria made from propane tanks in conjunction with their shooting, people just got lucky that the bombs were defective. Imagine if those two had actually bothered to make sure the bombs were assembled correctly?
Even next to that, there are probably worse alternatives to a shooting. From where I sit, current gun control isn't enough. But we are far from the worst case scenario. As it is I would say the mental healthcare system and gun laws need to be reviewed. Weaknesses need to be addressed and things need to be altered. We should also look at how our media sensationalizes these events. Laws on what they can cover, and when they can cover them, should be put in place. Perhaps banning the release of the name and image of a shooter in custody would be effective.
I'm out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, in response to the main topic. This was a fight between individuals, not a mass-shooting. Its not that unusual, and there are no fatalities. The shooter will probably get a decade in a cell, bit less if the courts go easy on him for it being a heat of the moment decision.
Just for you guys who aren't from Eagleland here, our court system isn't built so much around punishing criminals as rehabilitating them or keeping them locked away from those of us who aren't criminally inclined. Most shooters could probably be rehabilitated, or were victims themselves that struck back at people who were tormenting them when they thought there was no other way out. Thats why we have a crime of passion, or heat of the moment, defense. If you weren't in your right mind, say if you were in a fit of rage, then rehabilitation should be much simpler. Its also why we are more lenient on second time offenders.
Sad bit is that with the state of our prisons the guy will probably come out having learned something in there. Which means he will run the risk of becoming a legitimate threat. There might be a, cure worse than the disease risk there.
Anyway, this is depressing me.
Hacket Out...
Oh wait- that's the other guy.
---------------------------------------------
Haven't even bothered to look at anything past page 2. I'm calling it now that by page 5 this will be about Gun Control, so here are my two cents before I address the actual topic this Thread is supposed to be about.
This country is practically built around firearms, and was literally built with them. Guns are so finely ingrained in our culture that to remove them would change us on a fundamental level, and I can't see a way to accurately predict if the change will be positive or negative.
On one hand less guns means less shootings. That's a given. On the other hand, I don't think it will reduce violence in general. Violent individuals will move to more brute-force or sophisticated methods. People who would have tried a shooting will move to other weapons. Knives, machetes, and other bladed weapons. Blunt ones like bats or just your average piece of lead pipe. That's the best case scenario. Its also fairly likely from where I stand. Blunt instruments are easy to learn to use, and bladed weapons aren't much more complicated to use on people who don't know how to counter them.
Worst case scenario, they move to more dangerous things than guns. Improvised explosives is a possibility there. Which would cause more destruction after all? A single shooter in a school, or bombs set up outside of classrooms that are set to go off at the same time? Cutting out guns would just force mass-murderers to become more sophisticated in their methods. Look up columbine, they tried to use explosives in the cafeteria made from propane tanks in conjunction with their shooting, people just got lucky that the bombs were defective. Imagine if those two had actually bothered to make sure the bombs were assembled correctly?
Even next to that, there are probably worse alternatives to a shooting. From where I sit, current gun control isn't enough. But we are far from the worst case scenario. As it is I would say the mental healthcare system and gun laws need to be reviewed. Weaknesses need to be addressed and things need to be altered. We should also look at how our media sensationalizes these events. Laws on what they can cover, and when they can cover them, should be put in place. Perhaps banning the release of the name and image of a shooter in custody would be effective.
I'm out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, in response to the main topic. This was a fight between individuals, not a mass-shooting. Its not that unusual, and there are no fatalities. The shooter will probably get a decade in a cell, bit less if the courts go easy on him for it being a heat of the moment decision.
Just for you guys who aren't from Eagleland here, our court system isn't built so much around punishing criminals as rehabilitating them or keeping them locked away from those of us who aren't criminally inclined. Most shooters could probably be rehabilitated, or were victims themselves that struck back at people who were tormenting them when they thought there was no other way out. Thats why we have a crime of passion, or heat of the moment, defense. If you weren't in your right mind, say if you were in a fit of rage, then rehabilitation should be much simpler. Its also why we are more lenient on second time offenders.
Sad bit is that with the state of our prisons the guy will probably come out having learned something in there. Which means he will run the risk of becoming a legitimate threat. There might be a, cure worse than the disease risk there.
Anyway, this is depressing me.
Hacket Out...
Oh wait- that's the other guy.
I'd personally chalk it up to a mental healthcare system that basically only exists in prisons when it's already too late, a rabid media that goes to lengths unseen in most every other country to glorify any killers and gun laws that allow firearms to be sold to drunks (it's officially recommended not to, but that's just a recommendation). That's an unique combination not found anywhere else.Lionsfan said:
Europe is a lot bigger than those four countries and in total there's twice the people there than in the US even when not counting Russia.
The thing is I wasn't suggesting the passing of any measures because it really isn't possible to force gun owners to take those kind of precautions when it comes to their guns. You can pass whatever laws you want, but unless you're able to effectively enforce them there really isn't much point; and I don't see how you'd effectively enforce that.Ryotknife said:
As for self-defence, well sure I guess; but leaving a loaded gun laying around just increases the likelihood that it'll fall into the hands of someone who'll go and shoot up a school.
*Facepalm* Ugh. That's pretty pathetic, not to mention dangerous. How does bad an argument have to get before people start pulling guns on each. Am I in some sort of alternate universe where we still think shooting each is the best way to solve a disagreement? Fuckin' ridiculous.Fappy said:
I give up too. You'll continue to think of gun control as a one size fits all solution for every country, ignoring the fact that geography and crime dictate how well, if at all, gun control will work for a given place. You'll also somehow continue to believe that a ban on firearms will somehow make all the crazy people not decide to kill people with fire or explosives or something else like that.doggie015 said:
I don't know how you got it in your head that I thought children should be allowed to buy RPGs and machine guns. That's stupid. I am opposed to disarming mentally-stable, law-abiding adult citizens, which is currently how Australia does things. Judicious gun control is okay, but to emulate Australia we would be repealing the second amendment. That's not gun control, it's a ban on firearms.
P.S. :Nobody was talking about gun control after the Oklahoma City bombing. Think about it.