Criminal Deeds

[Nomad25055]

Greetings.

What a world we live in. A great, wondrous place. A disturbing place. You will of course have heard of the Connecticut massacre by now. A sick, sad, and horrible incident which will be talked about for a long time to come. Oh yes, you will hear about it, but, you may or may not hear about the incident in China, where a man stabbed 22 children and one adult. Why not you ask? Because it didn't happen here. Because it didn't involve guns. This event will fuel madness in the form of anti gun movements and gun laws. People will scramble, even more so than now, to get guns and all manner of firearm accessories and ammunition. Which means price gouging. People panicking and vultures swooping down on the masses. People's lives destroyed by media frenzy and a government using their loss, their grief, to fuel anti gun legislation. Guns are bad! We need more and stricter laws! Few realize the issue isn't guns. That laws and regulations won't solve anything. Fewer still actually care I suspect. This whole ordeal will spawn more grief, and I believe, more victims. There will be a few like myself who will be put at greater risk, risk of loss of life and limb. I am an armed security guard you see, and in desperate times people resort to drastic measures. Add to this the fact that I specifically guard ATM technicians and well, it's not exactly a safe work environment. This whole thing puts people like me in a bind you see. Because my employers wish for us to have a sidearm, kevlar, and, you guessed it, an AR15. I have no armor. I have no AR15. Prices are going up, and will go up more. By the time I can afford an AR15 there may be new laws, another gun ban, and of greater proportions. I'm not exactly law enforcement so I could be relatively up a creek, with little more than my 1911. This whole thing reeks, and my guts are churning from the stench. My condolences for the victims and their loved ones, I'm sorry for your loss, and for the fact your dead will become martyrs for what is in my opinion, another evil. So Lurkers, what do you think? How would the anti gun push affect you and your friends or family? What is your opinion on the situation?

Nomad

[Jester]

People's lives destroyed by media frenzy and a government using their loss, their grief, to fuel anti gun legislation. Guns are bad! We need more and stricter laws! Few realize the issue isn't guns. That laws and regulations won't solve anything. Fewer still actually care I suspect.

...

This whole thing reeks, and my guts are churning from the stench. My condolences for the victims and their loved ones, I'm sorry for your loss, and for the fact your dead will become martyrs for what is in my opinion, another evil. So Lurkers, what do you think? How would the anti gun push affect you and your friends or family? What is your opinion on the situation?

You assert that guns are not the issue, and that regulation would not help. Is it true? I don't believe it is.

The United States has overwhelmingly higher levels of gun ownership (especially small gun ownership) than comparable countries, and also much higher murder rates, especially for domestic disputes involving firearms. Widespread small-arm ownership also leads to widespread gun theft, which increases the availability of black-market firearms to criminals. It also makes regulation path-dependent. If you prevent guns from flooding the streets in the first place, gun control is more effective at preventing crime. If guns are already widely available, then it takes a long time to remove firearms from illegal circulation, and so gun control is less effective.

I think the correct comparisons are with international statistics, not anecdotes - and between countries roughly comparable with the US (Canada? UK?) rather than China. There will always be tragedies that put one or another topic in the news, but this is not a sane way to make policy.

-Jester

[eppie]

Greetings. So Lurkers, what do you think? How would the anti gun push affect you and your friends or family? What is your opinion on the situation?

Nomad

As I said before, (also in last thread a few weeks ago that moved towards the topic of guns) I can reallly understand why people are pro guns, and I respect it but more guns in a society means more victims. So from a personal point of view I like the idea that you are giving the option to defend yourself using a gun, but when looking at society as a whole it is a negative thing. (so it is a question of two liberties against eachother).


But as you said, I also agree with the fact that guns were not the cause here.
First things like this can always happen when you have mentally unstable persons like this.....no-one can see this coming most of the time. However what I see in Holland where since 20 years our more social society is becoming a more and more individual society is that there is not enough money for social and psychological support of people with serious mental problems. With good support and registration you will be able to minimize (not prevent completely of course) the occurence of these kinds of things.

For the rest....well there are of course now words for something like this being it in China, the US or whereever. I really feel bad for the children, parents and other people there in Connecticut.

[Kevin]

I agree that a gun is a tool. That they, by themselves, are not the problem.

What pro gun lobbyist tend to not agree on is that guns make deadly violence more accessible. To stick with your anecdotes (and I agree with Jester's opinion on basing any policy on anecdotes); I see 22 injured in China, I see 26 killed in Connecticut. Would it be 22 killed and 26 injured if the weapons were reversed? I have no idea, it's another anecdotal type argument.

I feel eppie is correct that you are pitting one liberty against another and they have interconnectedness. It's easier to protect your life, property, and freedom with a gun. It's easier to take away someones life, property, and freedom with a gun. The fear of government taking over your life is often cited as a reason to allow citizens to have guns. I would argue that if things get to the point of needed guns that you've completely ignored the other, better, methods for preventing that situation. Or there really is some issue that is so divisive that you are looking at a situation were you have a 50/50 split and no way to really separate the country into those two groups because of how integrated all the various opinions in this country are, even the "reddest" or "bluest" states have 30% opposing opinions.

Guns are designed to kill things. Bows and arrows are designed to kill things. Swords are designed to kill things. Knives are designed to cut things and can be used to kill things. I've got those weapons listed in an approximate descending order of efficiency at use as a killing weapon. Bows and Swords may be equal, depending on situation (bows at range, swords up close). Guns are better than either at what they are best at.

This is an issue that people never seem to talk about. A gun is a tool that is very very very good at what it was designed to do. You can build a house without a hammer, you can drive nails with a rock or a screwdriver, but why would you not use a hammer if one were available? Guns being more available means that people that want to kill other people have an easier time killing people because they can get the more efficient tool for doing so. If they can't get a gun they may get a bow, or a sword, or a knife, and kill people anyway. They may just use their hands, but saying that it wasn't easier for them to kill people by using a gun feels like it's head in the sand.

On the other side, I accept that you can say that if a couple of teachers or administrators had guns in CT that the shooter may have been stopped before anyone was killed or before as many people were killed. I agree. So I think what you want to find out is, if you can, in situations where you have a deranged person is trying to kill people, will both sides having guns, neither side having guns, only one side having guns, etc, result in more deaths. I don't have the numbers, I can guess at what I think the answer is. You need to control for the types of situations as well. If you are in a Colorado theater where lots of people are packed in with poor visibility there might not be a lot of difference between a knife and gun, and the most people might be killed with a chain, a lock, gasoline, and a match.

Is the job of defending people easier if guns are very hard to come by? Guns will never go away. A really determined person can make one with no assistance from anyone else. But even if they are the only person in the world with a gun, they can't rule the world, because the rest of society could either make their own guns, or find other ways (100 trained crossbow snipers) to remove him. I think the world is a safer place if one of the most efficient tools for killing things are harder to get. I think the other things that using that tool make simpler that most people agree are good, have other solutions that are nearly as, or possibly even more, effective than the solutions that having that tool allow.

We can actually get numbers from places that have very few guns, and they are better than places that have a lot of guns. We can look within the US itself at places that have good gun education vs poor gun education.

We don't have any good way to see just how bad a transition might be going from lots of easily accessible guns to very few hard to access guns. I do think we have data going the other way. Places like Somalia seem to be places that didn't have a lot of guns and now do.

I'm not against registering motor vehicles, and having them inspected periodically to see if they are still safe, and requiring people to have minimal training before they are allowed to operate one. I'm also not against registering guns, having them inspected periodically to see if they are still safe, and requiring people to have minimal training before they are allowed to operate one.

I think that the it's easier to defend life and liberty from foreign enemies with the use of guns and other advanced weapons. I think it's easier for an internal enemy to take life and liberty with the use of guns and other advanced weapons than it is to defend against internal enemies with a gun or other advanced weapons. So yes I'm fine with the military having guns and the citizens having much harder access. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to really push for either side.

I would rather we focus more on education, in general, not just this specific case of guns in this thread. I'd rather focus on publicly usable infrastructure that makes creating jobs simpler. This does include regulation and laws, because those are part of the social infrastructure, but roads, electricity, networking, etc matter too. I'm for focusing more on helping people stay healthy because that helps solve other problems. What to do about guns should be a low priority, because solving the other issues, makes how guns are used less relevant. Though if we are not willing to work on the other issues, and everyone is focusing on guns, then I'm for more control of, but not elimination of them, yes.

[GhastMaster]

The problem lies with a society that takes pride in individuality/freedom, but is a culture of sheep pooping on the grass it eats.

[Kevin]

The problem lies with a society that takes pride in individuality/freedom, but is a culture of sheep pooping on the grass it eats.

So the problem is human nature in general? Stuff like this has happened throughout history and in all kinds of cultures. I mean the direct comparison of China and the US having similar incidents recently with two highly divergent cultures.

No the issue is that the vast majority of people are fairly decent, just want to get through the day, have some fun, maybe do some good, and a vast minority have major issues and no idea how to cope with them and go nuts and do things like blow up buildings, or kill everyone around them, or decide that someone with different levels of skin pigmentation aren't people.

You can call people sheep because they mostly focused on themselves and hence don't want to spend the energy worrying/caring/doing anything about other issues, but prideful individuals doesn't have a ton to do with it either, because societies that focus less on the individual and more on the community/religion/state/family still have shit like this happen.

[FireIceTalon]

The problem is neither guns, nor is it human nature. Well, the latter might play a role to some degree, but not because our nature is some reserved innate quality that we cannot change (human nature for the most part is social, not biological - it is simply a reflection based on the given material circumstances of society; i.e. our social organization). Nor should be we be trying to create more strict gun laws to reduce tragedies like this - such people don't obey the law anyway. We should be focusing on understanding the human condition in relation to society more, and WHY people do these sorts of horrible deeds to one another in the first place. Simply blaming human nature, or calling for a need to have stricter gun laws is completely idealistic and has little relevance pertaining to both a solution or as an understanding to the functionality of objective social processes.

[DeeBye]

Nor should be we be trying to create more strict gun laws to reduce tragedies like this - such people don't obey the law anyway.

Why have laws at all? Criminals don't obey them anyways.

[Nomad25055]

Greetings.

I cited the china incident as proof that crimes will be commited, guns or no. If guns are around, yes, they will be used. Gun regulations will prevent crime, but not stop it. This will be used for gun laws and in my opinion hurt/inconvenience more than it helps. I used my job as proof of this. The people who would hurt or kill one of the technicians for what's inside those machines will be armed. It won't be individuals most of the time, but several armed people. Put people like me in the mix, people without the guns that new gun laws would target but need said firearm, and all you do is create more victims. I'm not saying that if a car full of MS13 punks armed with Kalashnikov patterned rifles comes up that I could stop them with an AR15, but it would certainly deter many who would come up in the first place. If people don't have guns, and can't really get guns, criminals will be less hesitant, especially if armed. Would gun laws help crime? Yes. Would they create crime? Yes. Deeds both good and evil will take place guns or no, laws or no. To this end I say guns are not the issue, people are. If the connecticut shooter didn't have guns we would likely be calling him the connecticut stabber.

Nomad

[Jester]

If the connecticut shooter didn't have guns we would likely be calling him the connecticut stabber.

Do we have any evidence for this kind of substitution effect? I don't think I believe it on first principles. To stab 27 people to death is, if nothing else, an extraordinarily difficult physical feat.

-Jester

[Alram]

If you look at the statistics on the per capita murder rate, there is no clear cut answer to this question. For example, New York and Alaska have virtually the same murder rate per capita, while New York has strict gun laws and Alaska has much looser gun laws. But, on the other hand, New york has half the murder rate of Mississippi, a state with loose laws and double the rate of Maine which has no permit required for open carry as a pedestrian. It would appear that one could make an argument for any view they like.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-r...tate#MRord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in...y_state%29

[Taem]

Greetings.

I cited the china incident as proof that crimes will be commited, guns or no. If guns are around, yes, they will be used. Gun regulations will prevent crime, but not stop it.

What an intriguing can of worms you opened here. In the China incident, 22-children were stabbed, but non killed. In the Connecticut incident, 26-victims were murdered. The difference? Death. Guns not the issue?

Personally, I think holidays are the blame:

Oregon Mall
Vegas Casino
Alabama Hospital

All around the same time, random acts of violence spurred by the holidays. You really want to stop this nonsense around this time, get rid of the holidays! (FYI, I'm only being half serious here, but I know how the net can skew what you say, so I'm better off clarifying now).

EDIT: And my heart, mind, and soul whole-heartily goes out to the families of the Connecticut shooting. I actually teared up listening to the news this morning. Such sick people. I really wish that mother f-er didn't kill himself! What a chicken-shit way to go! He should face his crimes in a court of law. God, I can't even think about it, getting so upset!

[Nomad25055]

If the connecticut shooter didn't have guns we would likely be calling him the connecticut stabber.

Do we have any evidence for this kind of substitution effect? I don't think I believe it on first principles. To stab 27 people to death is, if nothing else, an extraordinarily difficult physical feat.

-Jester

Greetings

My evidence is the fact that this individual was twisted enough to go to a school and kill children. My opinion is that a distinct lack of guns would not have stopped this person, only slowed him down. The man in China did stab 22 children, not kill, but stab nonetheless.

Nomad

[Jester]

If you look at the statistics on the per capita murder rate, there is no clear cut answer to this question. For example, New York and Alaska have virtually the same murder rate per capita, while New York has strict gun laws and Alaska has much looser gun laws. But, on the other hand, New york has half the murder rate of Mississippi, a state with loose laws and double the rate of Maine which has no permit required for open carry as a pedestrian. It would appear that one could make an argument for any view they like.

Nobody argues that guns are the only cause of violent crime, and that if only we got rid of guns, we'd end murder forever. There might be lots of reasons why NY sees the same murder rate as Alaska other than guns. I'd have thought population density might explain quite a lot. Consider also the statistical properties: looking at the data, it appears Alaska is usually above NY, but that the variance is higher, presumably because Alaska has a small population, and random increases or decreases move the needle on the murder rate much more. If there weren't any conflating factors, the debate would be trivial.

It also isn't about the gun laws themselves. Even the strictest gun control advocate would not predict gun violence in some hypothetical country with loose gun laws, but no guns. Similarly, even if you have extremely strict gun control laws, but a profusion of guns through some other channel, gun violence should continue (although perhaps reduced over time as guns become harder to acquire.)

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Nor should be we be trying to create more strict gun laws to reduce tragedies like this - such people don't obey the law anyway.

Why have laws at all? Criminals don't obey them anyways.

Nice strawman argument there.

Perhaps when you start using your head for something other than a hat rack, I'll start reading your posts again on a regular basis, and perhaps (gasp!) even take them seriously.

[Jester]

My evidence is the fact that this individual was twisted enough to go to a school and kill children. My opinion is that a distinct lack of guns would not have stopped this person, only slowed him down. The man in China did stab 22 children, not kill, but stab nonetheless.

That's not evidence that convinces. Your own example shows why not.

The guy in China was obviously pretty twisted, and he went to a school to kill children (probably), but he failed to kill anyone at all. Slowing someone down is pretty damn important, if what they're doing is trying to kill people before the authorities arrive, or someone musters resistance.

It's way harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. It's more lethal, it's less personal, it's more energy efficient, it reduces the chance of being disarmed, and so on. That's why we equip our militaries with guns. Or, to bring it back to the first post, that's why you were saying at the beginning that you need an AR15.

-Jester

[Nomad25055]

My evidence is the fact that this individual was twisted enough to go to a school and kill children. My opinion is that a distinct lack of guns would not have stopped this person, only slowed him down. The man in China did stab 22 children, not kill, but stab nonetheless.

That's not evidence that convinces. Your own example shows why not.

The guy in China was obviously pretty twisted, and he went to a school to kill children (probably), but he failed to kill anyone at all. Slowing someone down is pretty damn important, if what they're doing is trying to kill people before the authorities arrive, or someone musters resistance.

It's way harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. It's more lethal, it's less personal, it's more energy efficient, it reduces the chance of being disarmed, and so on. That's why we equip our militaries with guns.

-Jester

I'm not saying slowing someone down isn't important. What I'm saying is you won't stop things like this from happening. Yes, you get guns off the street, but you don't stop gun crime. You disarm the innocent and the evil have easier targets. Yes, we need gun control, but to use tragedies like this to push laws and regulations to the maximum is wrong. It's too little too late for many and victimizes others even though it works for many reasons. The only way I think, is to arm the responsible and law abiding and allow them to carry more openly. You cannot undo the wicked by punishing the good.

Nomad

[Taem]

The only way I think, is to arm the responsible and law abiding and allow them to carry more openly. You cannot undo the wicked by punishing the good.

Nomad

And whose to say who is responsible and who isn't? In this particular case, the mother was the one who purchased the guns because the son was deemed irresponsible, yet he stole the guns from her... besides, I feel like you're commenting to Jester alone and ignoring everyone else. I said this, which I feel is very pertinent to your logic:

In the China incident, 22-children were stabbed, but non killed. In the Connecticut incident, 26-victims were murdered. The difference? Death. Guns not the issue?

Using your suggestions, more people would have guns than ever, and that would mean more guns stolen and more crimes committed with guns! Take out the gun equation and what do you have? 22-children stabbed, but alive! Get it? Now I'm still pro-gun, but your arguments for pro-gun are clearly not thought out, IMO.

[Jester]

I'm not saying slowing someone down isn't important. What I'm saying is you won't stop things like this from happening.

If mass shootings become mass knife woundings, is that not a win? If domestic violence ends in a trip to the emergency room, rather than the morgue, is that not better?

You disarm the innocent and the evil have easier targets. Yes, we need gun control, but to use tragedies like this to push laws and regulations to the maximum is wrong. It's too little too late for many and victimizes others even though it works for many reasons. The only way I think, is to arm the responsible and law abiding and allow them to carry more openly. You cannot undo the wicked by punishing the good.

Once again, these are just assertions. I could, if I cared to, assert precisely the opposite, and we could just yell at each other until we were blue in the face. But assertions are only as strong as the evidence behind them.

-Jester

[Nomad25055]

The only way I think, is to arm the responsible and law abiding and allow them to carry more openly. You cannot undo the wicked by punishing the good.

Nomad

And whose to say who is responsible and who isn't? In this particular case, the mother was the one who purchased the guns because the son was deemed irresponsible, yet he stole the guns from her... besides, I feel like you're commenting to Jester alone and ignoring everyone else. I said this, which I feel is very pertinent to your logic:

In the China incident, 22-children were stabbed, but non killed. In the Connecticut incident, 26-victims were murdered. The difference? Death. Guns not the issue?

Using your suggestions, more people would have guns than ever, and that would mean more guns stolen and more crimes committed with guns! Take out the gun equation and what do you have? 22-children stabbed, but alive! Get it? Now I'm still pro-gun, but your arguments for pro-gun are clearly not thought out, IMO.

If you remove guns from the equation, yes, you get more injuries than deaths in cases like this. But it is my belief that this will be offset by more crimes and more deaths elsewhere. That's the thing, who is responsible? Enforce extensive regulations, but don't try to get rid of guns. Don't stop at background checks, enforce educational courses for gun owners and purchasers that must be retaken every couple of years. That would be a hassle, but a better solution than trying to get rid of guns. Make sure that people have to have secure storage for their firearms for when they aren't around. You won't get guns away from those with bad intentions, taking guns from those without, preventing the purchase of guns by those without, won't help. There are any number of arguments for issues such as this, and no easy solutions. Like I said before, this whole thing reeks, and my guts are churning. People are the root of all evil, and they disgust me.

Nomad