Ffs
 

Re: Ffs
 

Guns don't kill people.

I agree though, they should be banned. But the logistics of it in the USA and that piece of paper called the constituion (which americans seem to refer to when it suits) will mean that the gun will long live supreme in the US of A.

Even if guns were banned though it doesn't prvent someone from getting a gun. I am sure if we all put our mind to it we could get a gun on the streets of the UK.

Luckily British gun trends show that people don't really fire them (as bullets are too expensive here) they use them to show off.

A question for you Yahwe. If guns were banned in the states, do you believe that he wouldn't have committed the mass murder. I am inclined to think that he would have attempted it regardless, although the outcome wouldn't have been quite so terrible.

Re: Ffs
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre

"successful in pressing Parliament, and the then-current Conservative government into introducing a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons"

"Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "Handgun" due to their dimensions"

Britain = massacre free since 1996
US ?

Re: Ffs
 

I'm with Yahwe here. The problem is the ease with which these weapons can be obtained. The dude just bought it in a shop. It's unlikely a weirdo like that would have had the street cred to get a gun in an enviroment like Britain say.

edit. I am convinced this issue is symptomatic of Americas inability to evole as a society or a nation or anything really.

Re: Ffs
 

In Britain we have no shortage of weirdos. However they can not get guns.

I'm fed up with america's ostrich policy regarding these guns

I HATE this word 'postal'. To 'go postal'- I go postal, he went postal. WHEN YOU HAVE A NEW WORD FOR MASSACRING INNOCENT PEOPLE YOU DO NOT HAVE A QUAINT AND CURIOUS ADDITION TO MODERN SLANG WHAT YOU HAVE IS A ****ING PROBLEM!

A problem you should damn well do something about!!!

Being a helpful and allied nation here's our suggestion - BAN THE ****ING THINGS!!!

Re: Ffs
 

I think that if guns weren't freely available, less fragile insane maniacs would have access to them and would freak out by doing an attention seeking stunt that wasn't 'lets kill 30 people on campus today'.

Allegedly in some areas with liberal gun laws (Texas) the crime rate can actually be very very low simply because everyone knows someone might have a gun and they might got shot. I'm not sure of the utility of this relative to not having them. From my point of view, I'm just not comfortable with weapons being freely available - perfectly sane people can be driven to acts of madness simply by a fit of anger and that for me is too big a risk to take.

Re: Ffs
 

Someone is bowling alone.

Re: Ffs
 

No.

I will not let you do this.

Your petty hatred and childishness will not derail my thread.

Your words are moronic for two reasons:
1) They are utterly utterly tasteless and serve only to demonstrate what an unfeeling wretch you are; a base low-life worthy of nothing but scorn and contempt.

2) They will goad our American readership with anger at your in-human patheticness and distract them from the real message.

All you want to do is hurt our American posters, or perhaps seem clever - although such an appearance is well beyond you.

What matters much much more than your ego is these massacres and stopping another such tragedy occuring.

Re: Ffs
 

How many massacres took place in the UK before the ban? There was Hungerford in 1987 but how many others have there been in Britain? (if we define massacre as more than five people dying in one go, and we exclude Northern Ireland's political murders).
I think you are overestimating the amount of "street cred" you need to get a gun, although I agree with your general point. I think the issue is you'd be less likely to get enough ammunition, or reliable enough firearm to do this sort of thing.

Re: Ffs
 

ofc you can get everything if you really want, the point of baning guns is to make it as difficult as possible.
1-2 years ago there was this new railway station opened in Berlin, big celebration and stuff. some guy ran around with a knife attacking people. He injured about 20 before he could be stoped, but noone was killed. Now i asked you, would he have used a knife if he could just have bought a gun in a shop?

Re: Ffs
 

the fact is that the boy did it, and there should be the attention.
it doesnt matter if you are using a knife or a gun, if you wanna do something bad, you can just do it.

in my opinion you have to ask whats goin on in these peoples minds.
not searching for a way to forbid the "tools" they use.

edit:
of course are the weapons bad, i wont deny that.
but i wanted to say you still need a person to use them...

Re: Ffs
 

Off the top of my head I remember Dunblane. That's actually one that sticks in my memory more than most. That and Columbine in the US.

Re: Ffs
 

The question of exactly what constitutes a "well regulated militia" isn't exactly one that the gun law debate in the US has a ready answer to.

Killing using a gun is dramatically easier to killing with a knife, especially when you're talking about 32 people and not just one.

Re: Ffs
 

You are absolutly right, i am also no friend of weapons of any sort.
But still you have to use them, and thats my point.

What must happen, that a person reacts like this boy did?

Perhaps we should start there...

Re: Ffs
 

This does not make sense.

There will always be fragile human beings and those that simply wish to harm others. Allowing them the means (or "tools" as you wish) to actually put these thoughts into practice and cause tragedies such as this one, only makes the situation worse.

Your idea is idealistic and lacks realism; you'll never know what these persons were thinking; and there will always be "others". I'm totally with Yahwe here; start by doing the obvious (banning these weapons) to prevent thing escalating like happened there. We'll work on extensive psycho-analysis once the massacres stop, okay?

Re: Ffs
 

Of course it is idealistic

and firearms are bad. i am happy that i live in germany where it is VERY hard to get one (psychological tests, a reaso why you need the gun..., etc.)

I mean when i want to harm another person i will find something, if it is a baseball bat, or a fork, or just a stone.
There has something to be wrong, and everything MUST be done to prevent such masacres. even if it is a psycho-analysis.

Re: Ffs
 

I think this forum (almost) universally agrees that the organisation of society at the moment is mess and needs to be sorted out.

Long-term strategies are not going to stop these things in the short-term, nor will everyone becaught by testing in the future.

What person 'needs' a 22. calibre handgun? Not all weapons are the same. Where should we draw the line? Like Michael Moore asks the psycho brother of Timothy Mcveigh 'should people be allowed to buy weapons grade plutonium?'

Re: Ffs
 

Thats a good point, we are using the weapons, i will never forbid a hunter to use a gun, but we are making these weapons to usefull "tools" ( thats why i am talking about tools) or to deadly things.

sigh my english is just to bad. that i could express what i am exactly thinking :/

Re: Ffs
 

Most of these weapons aren't for hunting though. Why not bar all guns except for shotguns?

Re: Ffs
 

That's a worrying way to approach issues like this imho. There are lots of things you don't need and while I appreciate guns are a different kettle of fish I would still prefer not to pose the question that way.

I'd agree that dealing with the social issues is a better option than just banning guns (although they're not mutually exclusive obviously). Switzerland has a large number of legal firearms in circulation yet their murder rate is lower than ours.

I don't want a gun, but I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of my neighbours having guns. If people wanted to kill me there's numerous ways they could do it without any problem, so if I believed they were likely to do me harm then I'd be paranoid already.

Re: Ffs
 

i am not against it. actually i would be happy if they are banned. (thank god that it is not easy here in germany to get weapons)

i am just saying that WE are developing the guns. (the more deadly the better)
and WE are using the guns.
and WE are making them to what they are...

Re: Ffs
 

At what cost though? Sure, in the long run social issues should be dealt with; but fact is that he guns are there, and they can be obtained quite easily in the USA. In my opinion the "cost" of starting to deal with the social issues while there's still "troubled minds" walking around using the guns causing tragedies such as this one, is far too high.

You can't simply shut your eyes, and go straight to the roots of the problem, without making it a bit less dangerous (poor phrasing, I apologise), when there's people's lives at stake.

There's terrorism, and while the reasons for terrorist movements to behave the way they do may be more important social issues, I'd much rather see their support being removed first, rendering them less dangerous (hypothetically speaking ofcourse), making things a little bit safer, than go through extensive analysis of the social/religious problem while the murdering continues.

I know that's not a 1:1 analogy but I hope you see my point.

I agree they're not mutually exclusive, I just think banning the guns should be the first step.

Re: Ffs
 

no point banning them, too many in circulation, next question please.

Re: Ffs
 

If I were American I'd support a gun ban. However, it's not like there's been a dearth of gun crime in the UK since we banned them. It's a social problem.

Re: Ffs
 

I wouldn't say that you need any street cred to get your hands on a gun really, I'm sure that if I wanted to get one I'd be able to, even though I have no street cred at all because I have attempted to steer clear of such idiocy. Although I guess it's down to who you know, but guns seem to be rather simple to obtain (or at least that's the impression I get when I hear about 16 year olds selling them)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Clinton not attempt to amend the constitution and enforce a ban on guns?
The amendments weren't made due to the consititution being codified which gives it very little flexibility. One of the main advantages of our consistution being uncodified is the fact that it is flexible and can easily be amended to follow the zytegeist. This is the main reason that I'm against entrenchment of our constitution, as it is at the moment it works rather well and is flexible enough to follow the zytegeist.
I guess they really do need to "update" their constitution to remove the stupid "god given right to bear arms"

Re: Ffs
 

It's not only the big number of guns who are the problem. There is countries with appoximatly the same number of guns per person as the US, for instance Norway, but who has alot less murders.

In Norway people have guns becouse they hunt, or are member of shooting-clubs. Then there is those (fewer and fewer) who have guns (H&K G3's) at home becouse they are member of the home guard.

Maybe dda, texan or anyone else from the US can tell us why people in the US have guns, but I imagine it beeing for quite different reasons.

Alot of guns coupled with a lack off social fabric and a bad gun culture might not be particulary wise.

Re: Ffs
 

So refering to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-...6902307&sr=8-1

and the consept of "bowling alone" is tasteless?

Get a grip yahwe, see a shrink.

Re: Ffs
 

Personally, I thought you were refering to this.

Re: Ffs
 

Personally I thought zhukov was trying to look clever.



Unlike ASG, I wasn't wrong.

Re: Ffs
 

oh, sorry. I should have made that clearer, what I ment.
I blame it on my university studies.

Re: Ffs
 

That's point I am trying to make.

If a Nutter is going to kill, he is still going to kill. The fact he can't buy a gun won't stop him.

Also onto the whole street cred thing of a gun, you are dealing with people who don't care whether you are don vito corleone or a nerd, as long as you have money they will supply you a gun.

Most people know someone who knows someone who knows someone who can get you a gun.

Re: Ffs
 

I would rather he be a nutter with a knife rather than a nutter with an automatic grenade launcher, you know what I'm saying?

Re: Ffs
 

Completly, but a nutter with a knife can still kill people, you know what I'm saying?

Not only that but if you wanted to kill someone with a gun, it isn't difficult to get one.

Re: Ffs
 

It goes without saying though that someone who wants to kill as many people as possible will be much more successful with a gun than with a knife.

Re: Ffs
 

So they would buy a gun then?

Re: Ffs
 

You can't just buy a gun no questions asked. You can in many American states.

Re: Ffs
 

Well you can, there are plenty around.

You just need cash and a pair of gloves (as well as obviously knowing where you can get one from, and who to contact.)

Re: Ffs
 

If you really want to, you can get any drug, child porn or whatever you like too, thats not a good reason to make all these thing legal, is it?
The point of baning stuff is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain these things. If you have the money and know the right people you can get everything you want

Re: Ffs
 

If you're really messed up one day and wants the entire world to die, you might not make it if the nuclear bomb you need is 2 days away. Your mood might change and you might just get help in time. Its the availability that is the problem, aswell as social problems that needs to be looked into. Theres always individuals thats depressed/unstable and sometimes just plain evil. The harder it is for theese people to get their hands on guns and ammunition, the bigger the chance the rest of us will notice that they are up to something before they can do any harm. Anything that can be done to prevent things like theese, or atleast reduce the chance of them happening, should be done!

Jonas

Re: Ffs
 

RIGHT

A chap nearby has come out and said that he sold the guns to him about 3 weeks ago.

I'm not having a debate with intellectuals of the calibre of pig or zhukov about this or about how many people could be massacred by a determined psycho with a toothbrush.

I want to know when will the US ban these ****ing things?

Re: Ffs
 

The reasons I know of are for hunting, self-defense, committing crimes, target shooting, and gun collecting. And often, some combination of the above.

Re: Ffs
 

hunting - can be limited as no one hunts with a hand gun and it's really not sporting to use napalm so why use an automatic?

self defence - bit of a catch 22, but we can give you knives for that; one v one they should do about the same.

target shooting - a sport; i'm sorry but just let this one go. there are other sports; including the javelin if you're worried about your madculinity or golf if you are too old/fat to do anything else

gun collecting - fine. you can remove the interior mechanisms and make the gun functionless. they are not aesthetically affected.

Re: Ffs
 

There is nothing wrong with my intelect.

I agree guns should be banned, my argument is that it wouldn't necessarily stop a nutter from killing.

Re: Ffs
 

Agreed.

A ban is a solution to the happening but not to the cause.

while we pour our efforts and energies (i am not being snide or ironic) into a solution, i nevertheless do not think that it is unhelpful to have a ban

Re: Ffs
 

Defending yourself using a gun is likewise easier than defending yourself with a knife. The American college this happened at had recently passed a law preventing students from being armed on campus; the massacre would almost certainly not have succeeded if a couple of students in the classroom had had guns. The 'banning guns decreases/increases crime' arguments are intensely stupid - there is, as far as I know, no worthwhile evidence at all that suggests that gun bans have a significant impact on crime. The problems with America are largely cultural rather than having anything to do guns; other countries such as Canada/Norway/etc have just as widespread firearm ownership and a lot less violence. The whole debate is just blind emotionalism with very little rational thought behind it (see: any Yahwe post in this thread).

Re: Ffs
 

Although there has been a very slow upward trend of gun crimes in the US since 2005, the gun crime rate generally has been an all-time low since 1993.

Banning guns cannot prevent massacres like this.

I've been very disturbed by this shit and very saddened. I spent a year of part time schooling in Virginia Tech when I lived there a few years back. :(

Re: Ffs
 

because obviously, every college-age gun owner would be an expert marksman, with absolute preparedness to kill if deemed appropriate, and with prescience that allowed them to have their pistol drawn before the lunatic was already there and shooting at them, because they'd obviously be wearing it, with live ammo, while in class.

Re: Ffs
 

Banning guns won't solve the root of the problem.

If a nutter wanted to get a gun to kill someone, he/she will get that gun. Trust me.


Last year there has been a epidemic in Shoreditch where there were 7 shootings and a rape (at gunpoint too allegedly) in a space of a month. Guns are banned in the UK but it still hasn't stopped from being circulated illegally and for nutters to get hold of one. Same can be applied with a knife.

It just won't stop the killing.

Re: Ffs
 

1) You dont need to be an 'expert marksman' to hit someone at close range, and most people should have some basic firearms training anyway. Theres also the deterrant factor where a criminal would be less likely to do this sort of thing if they knew there was a decent chance their victims would be armed (this may perhaps not apply in this partcular case since the guy was suicidal himself, but its still a general rule).
2) Most people would be prepared to kill if their life or their friends lives were in direct danger.
3) If you actually read about what happened then yeah, they would have had time to draw in many cases. There was an incident where the gunman left a room then tried to force his way back into later while people tried to hold the door closed, for example.

I'm not really sure why youre arguing this; it seems pretty obvious to me that a situation where the victims of an intended gun rampage are armed is going to have significantly fewer casualties than a situation where everyone is unarmed except the guy doing the killing. I mean you could argue that having guns at college would have other negative consequences that justifies outlawing them at the cost of leaving students unable to protect themselves, but actually denying that carrying a firearm increases someone's potential for effective self-defence is fairly perverse.


Anyway, this is ultimately all fairly speculative. Maybe if the students were armed they would have been able to stop him, maybe if guns were banned entirely he wouldnt have been able to get one, maybe if his mother had cuddled him more as a child he woudlnt have wanted to kill anyone. The underlying point is that claiming this sort of thing only happens because guns are legal, or that banning guns would have a significant positive effect on crime rate, is baseless emotionalism without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Re: Ffs
 

suggesting human beings are capable of walking around with guns in their pockets and act rationally with them is a severe misunderstanding of human nature and ignores any of the 'emotionalism' that you're talking about