Gun Tragedy, 5th grader suicide [Archive]

Gideon S

14th June 2003, 04:17 PM

How simple it would be if eliminating guns would solve this kind of problem.

Davey's classmates told police that he was picked on by other pupils and had talked for months about killing students and teachers at the 548-student Rock L. Butler Middle School.

"I think in the end a scared little boy took his life because he was just cornered and he didn't know what to do," Roby said.

"We all heard a gunshot but everyone thought it was thunder," said 13-year-old sixth-grader Kristen Smith, who said Davey was "really shy" and got picked on because he weighed nearly 170 pounds.

If I thought for a moment that outlawing handguns would stop lonely, sad children from doing desperate things I would give them up in a second.

The sad truth is that this is what happens in a society where "tough it out" is a mantra and abuse against children is overlooked as childhood games.

When I was a kid, I sublimated the rage I felt against other children for singling me out by writing stories, playing role-playing games, and finding other, creative outlets for it. Children today are told that playing video games is okay, but that having thoughts about killing or about violence are a sickness.

I'll bet no one ever listened to David, or talked at him instead of to him about what was going on. He probably thought that the rest of his life was going to be just like middle school.

14th June 2003, 04:45 PM

"when the guns were, in fact, locked up!"

Just how "locked up" do you think they are if a 5th grader can EASILY get access to them?

Locked up does not mean put in a cabinet somewhere. Locked up means that there is NO way your son can have access to them at ANY time, for example. "But in a fateful twist, he hung the key on a wall hook after finding it underneath the couch just two days earlier." The father

1) didn't know the location of the key to all the guns and ammo

2) found the key, and then hung it up in a non-secured visible place that anyone could have found (on a wall hook).

3) son found the key, perhaps was the one who moved it in the first place and hid it under the couch perhaps, etc. , and the rest we unfortunately know

So much for the claim of 'it was locked up'.

-Who

shanek

14th June 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Just how "locked up" do you think they are

According to the article:

A hunter like many others in Tioga County, Roby enrolled his son in a hunter-safety course and made sure his own weapons were locked up. But in a fateful twist, he hung the key on a wall hook after finding it underneath the couch just two days earlier.

Roby speculated that after he left the house, Davey used the key to take the two handguns, three rifles, two shotguns and ample ammunition.

if a 5th grader can EASILY get access to them?

Easily? He had to get the key, open the cabinet, get the guns, get the ammunition, load the guns, etc...It's not like they were left lying around, which is exactly how you're trying to portray it!

Locked up does not mean put in a cabinet somewhere. Locked up means that there is NO way your son can have access to them at ANY time, for example.

No, locked up means locked up. Meaning you can only get at them with a key. Which is exactly what happened.

What your asking for is a ridiculous and unattainable level of inaccessibility...and I think you know it.

THEY WERE LOCKED UP. And none of your smoke and mirrors changes that fact.

14th June 2003, 05:00 PM

shanek,

"THEY WERE LOCKED UP"

"Were" is right.

If locked up to you means that a 5th grader can get access to it, please, never work at the bank I go to.

Unless you can understand how not knowing where the key is (apparently something as important as the key was lost under the couch!), then having the key hanging up (on a wall hook), not secured (on a wall hook), in a public place (on a wall hook), where anybody has access to it (on a wall hook), is IDENTICAL to not having the guns locked up, then I suggest you check out the "How's My A*s?" poll in Banter and vote 'My head is way up it!".

For example, something simple as a combination lock could have prevented this most horrible event from occuring. But no, let's pretend it was locked up because there technically was a key and a cabinet... Unfortunately:

available key = not locked up

-Who

Frostbite

14th June 2003, 05:04 PM

Bullying in schools is more dangerous than terrorism.

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 05:09 PM

I agree Whodini. If I had guns locked up, I wouldn want to make damn sure nobody but me could get to them under any circumstances. I wouldn't feel at all comfortable leaving a key in a place where a child could get at it. Even if I had no reason to believe my kid would do anything with them. I bet you if you asked the father in that story whether it was dangerous for his son to know where the key for the case was, he would have likely said his son was a good, responsible kid and there was no danger.

But, I also don't want to oversimplify things either, and say that the guns were the sole reason this kid did what he did.
The kid obviously had some serious issues, and there likely would have been trouble with him regardless of whether he had access to guns or not. But, I suppose that could have been the difference between life and death.

This brings up another question. A lot of people on this board are saying that guns are good for personal protection. However, if they are locked up all the time, how does that help against an intruder. Is there really time during a break-in to gain access to locked up weapons? Perhaps sometimes, but I'm willing to bet most of the time the answer is no.
It seems to me the best place to keep a gun would be right at your beside. Locked up at your beside, I suppose?
Any thoughts?

Jedi Knight

14th June 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Exactly!!!!

But don't worry, a jury that half of its members would be gun owners would think that maybe law is too severe to apply to his case...they would find a good excuse, the kid was sad... it would kill itself anyway...

Why should I care? Go ahead gun owners , make lawyers wealthy.

There is no external cost to anyone regarding suicide. Nothing. Nada. Sure the family will grieve but every person has the right to kill themselves and nothing you, me or the tooth fairy is going to say can stop them from doing it. People kill themselves without regard to anyone else. Suicide is the ultimate form of narcissism. I have no sympathy for anyone that commits suicide. Suicide is weakness.

Organisms that kill themselves in nature cannot cope with life and therefore choose self-termination.

JK

corplinx

14th June 2003, 05:15 PM

A friend of mine is a cop who saw a young man who hung himself from a ceiling fan.

How much more will we put up with before we finally ban leather belts and ceiling fans!

Jedi Knight

14th June 2003, 05:16 PM

Jedi Knight

14th June 2003, 05:17 PM

Did the kid stand on a chair while he tied the rope around the spinning fan?

JK

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
A friend of mine is a cop who saw a young man who hung himself from a ceiling fan.

How much more will we put up with before we finally ban leather belts and ceiling fans!

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't make my point with the idea in my mind that guns should be banned.
I was just expressing my own opinion about how wary I would be about having guns in my house that are in any way accesible to anyone other than myself. (especially that of a child).
I was speaking for myself, and no one else.
I wonder if the father of the dead kid might share similar sentiments now?

14th June 2003, 05:19 PM

I also hope the father had the guns and ammo stored in different locations.

The question of 'How can we keep them locked up and still use them effectively in break-ins?' is a great question. A keypad combination could be entered in very quickly I would think. At least as quickly or quicker than fumbling around for a key in the dark. This has the added bonus of a child not being able to find a key.

-Who

corplinx

14th June 2003, 05:24 PM

If he had taken a mouthful of pills, would we be criticizing the father for not locking up the medicine cabinet?

If he hung himself with a belt, would we criticize the dad for not locking the closet?

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
If he had taken a mouthful of pills, would we be criticizing the father for not locking up the medicine cabinet?

If he hung himself with a belt, would we criticize the dad for not locking the closet?

No, but I would have felt better if the kids at Columbine had taken pills or belts to school with them. It certainly would have caused a lot less damage than guns.

As I said in a previous post, I'm not insinuating that everything would have been just fine for this kid if he hadn't had access to guns. He was obviously a very troubled child. But if had gone ahead with his plans to use the weapons on other students and teachers, then the accessibility to guns would look a lot more horrible than it was.

My overall point is that if you have guns in the house, keep them secure beyond any degree of doubt. That doesn't infringe on anyone's rights does it.
If you think that it does infringe on your rights, then by all means. Store them any way you want. Far be it from me to trample your right to bear arms (albeit, bear them irresponsibly).

corplinx

14th June 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

No, but I would have felt better if the kids at Columbine had taken pills or belts to school with them. It certainly would have caused a lot less damage than guns.

They also had homemade bombs, would you have preferred more of those than guns?

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

They also had homemade bombs, would you have preferred more of those than guns?

No, oddly enough, I'm not a real fan of homemade bombs either. Call me old fashioned.

14th June 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
If he had taken a mouthful of pills, would we be criticizing the father for not locking up the medicine cabinet?

If he hung himself with a belt, would we criticize the dad for not locking the closet?

Unfortunatly for your analogy, those items are not designed to kill things. Guns are specifically made with that purpose.

-Who

John Harrison

14th June 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG
My overall point is that if you have guns in the house, keep them secure beyond any degree of doubt. That doesn't infringe on anyone's rights does it.

That's an interesting point. Can you specifically define what "beyond any degree of doubt" is?

Tony

14th June 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Whodini

Unfortunatly for your analogy, those items are not designed to kill things. Guns are specifically made with that purpose.

Guns arent made to kill anymore than knifes are made to kill. Guns are made to shoot bullets.

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison

That's an interesting point. Can you specifically define what "beyond any degree of doubt" is?

I know that it isn't hanging the key to the gun case in a blatantly obvious place like happened in this story.

I think that any storage area that is behind lock and key, or combination lock or something to that effect is a good start. I think a reasonable person can devise a reasonable storage method that isn't easy to get at. I'm afraid I can't elaborate with design plans or the most popular gun storage products on the market. It's not really an area of expertise on my part.

Now, you may counter that no matter how well you secure the guns, someone could always get at them if they really, really wanted to. Of course. Nothing is absolutely foolproof. Which is yet another reason why I would never want guns in my home.
But, if a person does have guns in their home I would hope they secure them in a way that could prevent a 12 year old kid from getting at them easily. Again, no method is foolproof. But I think that common sense can dictate what exactly "secure" means.

14th June 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Guns arent made to kill anymore than knifes than knifes are made to kill. Guns are made to shoot bullets.

Butterknives, no. Hunting knives, yes. A gun is a bazillion-point-five times more lethal than a hunting knife. (p-value < .00345, so you know I am talking legit here, hehe)

Guns aren't designed to kill.. Right. I guess people just shoot those metal thingies to tap people on the shoulder or to play tag or something.

Could you give me an example besides farmer Billy (Bob gets picked on enough) shooting beer cans, road signs, or heads of lettuce, where guns aren't used for killing? I can think of several, but then I have to get back into reality and compare those times to the number of instances where guns are used for killing.

-Who

14th June 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

But, if a person does have guns in their home I would hope they secure them in a way that could prevent a 12 year old kid from getting at them easily. Again, no method is foolproof. But I think that common sense can dictate what exactly "secure" means.

And don't forget the dad lost the key! He lost the most important key in his posession for several days, and then when he found it, he put it up on a wall hook. It makes me wonder if this was where he always kept the key? Maybe the boy took it and hid it under the couch, or ditched it when he heard his dad coming in? Maybe the boy was going to make a copy? Who knows, but it sure wasn't secured by ANY stretch of the imagination.

:(

-Who

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Guns arent made to kill anymore than knifes than knifes are made to kill. Guns are made to shoot bullets.

I agree. And don't most people keep knives out of the reach of young children.
Eventually you begin to trust kids around knives because you can teach them how to use them properly and how to respect how they can be dangerous.

The same can be said of guns, of course. However, the potential for accidents with guns is greater.
Also, taking a knife to school is highly unlikely to result in a massacre.

A gun must be treated with greater respect than any other potential weapon simply because of it's potential for destruction.

I'm actually kind of surprised at the argument this has stirred. Can anyone really argue with the idea that secure storage of a firearm isn't important?

If the story that started this thread was a simple suicide I probably wouldn't have been so critical of what happened. Arguments have been posed that the kid could have killed himself in a number of different ways, and the fact that he chose to use his father's guns is irrelevant.
But, this kid went to school with the intent of using these guns on others. It's only because his friends weren't down with the plan that he ended up killing himself.

If it had been difficult, or impossible for him to access firearms, then it's possible he might have never had the idea to do something like he planned on doing.

Also, in the interests of fairness, we should also point out that school incidents like Columbine are very rare. I'm not going to start ranting on this thread that school violence from guns is out of control. It isn't. The media just siezes on any opportunity to report on such stories.

John Harrison

14th June 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

I know that it isn't hanging the key to the gun case in a blatantly obvious place like happened in this story.

I think that any storage area that is behind lock and key, or combination lock or something to that effect is a good start. I think a reasonable person can devise a reasonable storage method that isn't easy to get at. I'm afraid I can't elaborate with design plans or the most popular gun storage products on the market. It's not really an area of expertise on my part.

Now, you may counter that no matter how well you secure the guns, someone could always get at them if they really, really wanted to. Of course. Nothing is absolutely foolproof. Which is yet another reason why I would never want guns in my home.
But, if a person does have guns in their home I would hope they secure them in a way that could prevent a 12 year old kid from getting at them easily. Again, no method is foolproof. But I think that common sense can dictate what exactly "secure" means.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I get a bit skeptical when I hear "common sense" used in relation to this discussion.

If I keep my firearms in a locked safe, and I have the key on my keyring, what happens when I fall asleep? If I set my keys down to take a piss/shower? If I use a safe with a keypad, what happens if my hypothetical child eventually guesses the code? Are these arguments beyond "common sense"? Not really. As you said, no method is foolproof, but then again there is no specific line to be crossed, just some nebulous idea of "common sense security".

I'm actually kind of surprised at the argument this has stirred. Can anyone really argue with the idea that secure storage of a firearm isn't important?

Sure it's important. It's not a huge problem as a percentage of gun owners, though. In the year 2000 there were 206 children (I use that term loosely since I included 0-15yrs) that committed suicide by firearm out of about 80 million gun owners. Source: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm)

reprise

14th June 2003, 08:38 PM

Just out of interest, what are the storage regulations relating to guns and ammunition in the US? They are incredibly tough here, and the authorities do physically check that your storage facilities are appropriate and comply with the law.

KelvinG

14th June 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I get a bit skeptical when I hear "common sense" used in relation to this discussion.

If I keep my firearms in a locked safe, and I have the key on my keyring, what happens when I fall asleep? If I set my keys down to take a piss/shower? If I use a safe with a keypad, what happens if my hypothetical child eventually guesses the code? Are these arguments beyond "common sense"? Not really. As you said, no method is foolproof, but then again there is no specific line to be crossed, just some nebulous idea of "common sense security".

Which is precisely why I wouldn't have guns in my home. There is no absolute foolproof method. Although not having them in the house at all is the best plan I can think of. If you want to have guns in you're house, more power too you. But, I suggest you don't set down the keys when you take a piss/shower. I mean, you're right, probably nothing will happen. But it also might. You just never know.

Sure it's important. It's not a huge problem as a percentage of gun owners, though. In the year 2000 there were 206 children (I use that term loosely since I included 0-15yrs) that committed suicide by firearm out of about 80 million gun owners.

I will agree it likely isn't a huge problem. The media loves to whip up a frenzy about deaths from firearms in the home, but I doubt it's an epidemic.
All I'm really saying is that I don't want them in my house, plain and simple.
And if someone does have them in their house, I hope they feel very comfortable regarding their secure storage.

Tony

14th June 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Just out of interest, what are the storage regulations relating to guns and ammunition in the US? They are incredibly tough here, and the authorities do physically check that your storage facilities are appropriate and comply with the law.

I dont think there are any storage regulations.

corplinx

14th June 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Whodini

Unfortunatly for your analogy, those items are not designed to kill things. Guns are specifically made with that purpose.

-Who

Guns are designed to punch holes. The first obvious application was of course for combat. There also nail-guns, flare guns, and other variations.

Some guns are designed for hunting big game. Some are designed for police/military use. Some are designed merely for sport shooting.

Handguns in particular are a poor killing weapon. They don't in general have enough power to kill in one shot unless its a head shot. Even then there is a chance for failure to kill. Of course, if you stick one in your mouth and point it at your brain you will most likely get the job done.

ArmchairPhysicist

14th June 2003, 09:29 PM

Have any of you actually tried securing something from the grasp of a 5th grade-aged child while still being able to access it yourself? We're not talking infants here; we're talking about a person who has had countless hours of unsupervised time to figure out how to get his hands on the firearms. Put a lock on something, and the first thing the kids are going to do is try getting in; and if you can get in, the kid can get in, key or no key.

The only way to keep the kid away from the guns is to not let him in the house without supervision, which includes while you sleep (the time period when I finally got into my dad's gun cabinet). As long as the kid, you, his friends, his friends' friends, the guy on the corner, or anyone else the kid knows has access to guns, the kid has access to guns.

He had a goal to accomplish, specifically suicide. He chose to use a gun. Had the gun been more securely locked up, he would have spent about ten more minutes getting the cabinet open. Had it been even more securely locked up, it might have been fifteen minutes. Pills or hanging would have taken about as long.

Bottom line: the kid would still be dead, and we would be taking the irresponsible manufacturers of rope to court for making a product that can support the weight of a human teenager.

a_unique_person

15th June 2003, 06:03 AM

He was planning to kill a lot more kids than just himself. He killed himself once he was busted and there was no way out. Either way, it is clear that guns are a more efficient killing tool than the other methods described here. If he just wanted to kill himself, he would have done it at home.

And that is one thing the gun lobby never seems to acknowledge, guns are designed to make killing more efficient.

Cleopatra

15th June 2003, 06:12 AM

First of all I don't want the guns to be banned. I am against restrictions in general because if we cannot persuade some people on certain things, let them learn by their mistakes.

In the 20st century, we have made so many great strides, that it's time to start repealing laws instead of imposing new ones. I don't want a society that will resemble to a jail because of the abundance of the restrictions, just to protect the idiots from themselves.

For example:
Do you want to kill yourself with drugs? Go ahead idiot. Just don't expect us to spend our taxes to cure you.

Do you want to risk having guns in your house? Go ahead, don't expect us to feel sorry if your child falls dead or in case MY child is accidentally killed by your stupid offspring, don't ask me to pity you when I will try to make sure that you and your wife will spend the rest of your lives locked in jail for murder I.

So, I don't want guns to be banned.

I have had this conversation before Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18294&highlight=how+you+store+your+guns) and from that conversation two people earned my respect although we totally disagreed : corplinx and andalyn. If all the gun owners approached the matter like those two people, I am sure that we would have found a solution by now but unfortunately most of the people who owe guns don't know a thing about guns and their risks. But Corplinx and Andalyn you are the exceptions that justify the rule, I am afraid.

Corplinx, yes. If an adolescent committed suicide by sleeping pills, yes, I think that we should charge the father for not locking them up.

I am sure that all of you are aware of studies that they show a clear connection between gun ownership and suicides.

Have a look Here (http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/firearms.htm)

and

Here (http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html)

Of course there are many-many more.

Those statistics have been questioned, I know but they haven't proved wrong too. I have a simple question for you corplinx and the others. Let's say that even if there is a percentage of 1 in the 1.000.000 that these surveys are right, how can you take the risk to put your child in a potential danger like this.

And let me a bit blunt. Let's say that you do not care about your child or you have a different perspective on the issue. What if your child takes your gun and kills mine while they are playing together, who gives you the right to decide about my child's life too? Don't you think that we have an issue here?

Jedi Knight, the issue of suicide is philosophical but I agree with you only when we are talking about adults and not about children.

As for the suicidal adolescents and people in general. Don't you know why people rather use guns than cut their veins for example when they are determined to commit a suicide?
Because they are afraid to do so. Guns offer an easy, painless death.

jimlintott

15th June 2003, 07:31 AM

I think that all the fuss about storage is a non-issue. When I was around that age I kept my .22 and my 12 guage in my bedroom closet. My ammunition in a drawer. My Dad didn't own any firearms. If the parent thinks he has done a good job he might not worry too much.

Any one who thinks that the gun isn't for killing things, mostly other human things, is unfamiliar with the history of the gun. But it has also put a lot food on the table.

Reading between the lines makes me want to label this as a bullying tradegy. Is bullying a big problem in the U.S.? Bullies have been around for as long as I can remember. Are the bullies that much worse or are some kids more prone to self victimization? Is bullying percieved to be worse and more damaging today?

My encounters with bullies usually resulted in both of us rolling around on the floor trying to get punches in. I usually lost but bullies are lazy and prefer prey that doesn't fight back. I have seen comments from some American teens that they are often very scared that the bully will pull out a firearm. I know that would keep me from fighting back. Is this true?

shanek

15th June 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I agree. And don't most people keep knives out of the reach of young children.
Eventually you begin to trust kids around knives because you can teach them how to use them properly and how to respect how they can be dangerous.

The same can be said of guns, of course.

And remember, the father did have him properly trained in gun handling and use.

I feel I have to mention yet again the DoJ report where they divided kids into 3 groups: Those who obtained guns illegally, those who got them legally (from a parent), and those who never got them at all. Those who got them legally had the lowest rate of violent crime, even below those who were never able to obtain guns at all!

I'm actually kind of surprised at the argument this has stirred. Can anyone really argue with the idea that secure storage of a firearm isn't important?

Is anyone really arguing that?

But, this kid went to school with the intent of using these guns on others.

Do we know that? I see a lot of supposition to that in the article, but that seems to be based purely on the fact that he had guns and he was in a role-playing game. There was no note, no plans on his computer, no nothing to corroborate this.

It's only because his friends weren't down with the plan that he ended up killing himself.

His friends never said that, at least, the article never says that they did. It just says that they saw him with the guns and went to alert the staff. There's nothing about them saying they didn't want to go along with any shooting plan. Again, that's 100% supposition, based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

If it had been difficult, or impossible for him to access firearms, then it's possible he might have never had the idea to do something like he planned on doing.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'. We don't know what would or wouldn't have happened otherwise. This was clearly a troubled kid, who killed himself completely unexpectedly, and according to the article, no one knows why.

Also, in the interests of fairness, we should also point out that school incidents like Columbine are very rare. I'm not going to start ranting on this thread that school violence from guns is out of control. It isn't. The media just siezes on any opportunity to report on such stories.

Actually, no they don't—they seem very reluctant to report when such attempts are foiled by an armed citizen.

shanek

15th June 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He was planning to kill a lot more kids than just himself. He killed himself once he was busted and there was no way out.

Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION OF THIS WHATSOEVER. It's pure speculation and is only being considered because he used guns and he played an RPG.

shanek

15th June 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Those statistics have been questioned, I know but they haven't proved wrong too.

This is just plain woo-wooism. It isn't the job of anyone to "prove them wrong." It is up to the side making the claim to properly support it. If the statistics have been questioned, then they haven't sufficiently done so.

I have a simple question for you corplinx and the others. Let's say that even if there is a percentage of 1 in the 1.000.000 that these surveys are right, how can you take the risk to put your child in a potential danger like this.

Because they would have to be weighted against all the statistics saying how much safer they are with guns. If there's a 1 in 1,000,000 chance they're right, but even a 1 in 100,000 chance that the DoJ study is right, that would seem to tip the balance in favor of firearms.

As for the suicidal adolescents and people in general. Don't you know why people rather use guns than cut their veins for example when they are determined to commit a suicide?
Because they are afraid to do so. Guns offer an easy, painless death.

That doesn't mean that the guns are responsible, or that they wouldn't have killed themselves without a gun. When you do anything, you usually choose the most efficient means available. Were it not for guns, that would simply be something else.

shanek

15th June 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by jimlintott
I think that all the fuss about storage is a non-issue. When I was around that age I kept my .22 and my 12 guage in my bedroom closet. My ammunition in a drawer. My Dad didn't own any firearms. If the parent thinks he has done a good job he might not worry too much.

My dad kept a 12-gague hanging on the wall where I could easily get it. It was pretty much up there my entire life. At an early age, he taught me about guns, how dangerous they were, and let me shoot them in a safe environment. It never even occured to me to get it down and shoot someone with it.

Any one who thinks that the gun isn't for killing things, mostly other human things, is unfamiliar with the history of the gun. But it has also put a lot food on the table.

I'm familiar with my family's history. They settled in kind of a no-man's land between the warring Catawba and Cherokee tribes. Their guns kept them safe and kept food on the table (of course, they were farmers, so most of their food came from crops and livestock, but still, the point stands); they had much more cause to fear the arrows that would often be shot between the two tribes.

Fortunately, they both seemed to fight around the settlers, and so my family was never in great fear of being killed by an arrow, but it was still a much greater threat to them than the guns.

KelvinG

15th June 2003, 09:41 AM

A question I posed earlier and I'm still curious about:

If one of the primary reasons for firearms ownership is for personal protection, how exactly do most of you store your guns in such a way that they are easily accessible during a break-in or any such situation where your safety might be threatened?

Also, does anyone really carry a handgun around with them? Obviously you can't predict a situation where you might need a handgun, so do you have to carry it around with you at all times?

shanek

15th June 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
Also, does anyone really carry a handgun around with them? Obviously you can't predict a situation where you might need a handgun, so do you have to carry it around with you at all times?

I can answer this second one: I know several people who carry around a handgun at all times.

Baker

15th June 2003, 10:32 AM

The anti-gun groups assumed that anyone killed by a gun in or near a home where anyone owned a gun was, therefore, killed by "a gun in the home. And people who live in high-crime neighborhoods tend to own guns. This is like the joke about diets causing people to be fat because most people on diets are fat. Or hospitals must cause people to die because many people who die have been hospitalized recently.

Cleopatra

15th June 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by shanek

This is just plain woo-wooism. It isn't the job of anyone to "prove them wrong." It is up to the side making the claim to properly support it. If the statistics have been questioned, then they haven't sufficiently done so.

I guess you are an expert in applied mathematics

That doesn't mean that the guns are responsible, or that they wouldn't have killed themselves without a gun. When you do anything, you usually choose the most efficient means available. Were it not for guns, that would simply be something else.

and in psychiatry as well...

Do you call these arguments?

If Diogenes' spirit could see your posts and that you quote him in your signature, he would come back to Earth to erase himself from History...

gnome

15th June 2003, 10:54 AM

Oddly enough, I'm going to have to go with Shanek on this one.

Even though I am in favor of reasonable gun control and choose not to have a gun in my own home... I think that this father was a fairly responsible gun-owner, both for having it locked up and training his son.

Personally I think he chose unwisely by having a gun, but I would not be tempted to hold him legally responsible for that, as he has the right to his own opinion of what makes him and his family safer, so long as he does so in a legal manner.

The biggest issue here is the child's access to the keys... and I don't think the news report was sufficiently detailed enough to really make an assessment of this. If the investigating police thought there was a legal problem I suspect an arrest would have been made.

Gideon S

15th June 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
A question I posed earlier and I'm still curious about:

If one of the primary reasons for firearms ownership is for personal protection, how exactly do most of you store your guns in such a way that they are easily accessible during a break-in or any such situation where your safety might be threatened?

Also, does anyone really carry a handgun around with them? Obviously you can't predict a situation where you might need a handgun, so do you have to carry it around with you at all times?

I usually keep my shoulder holster slung over one of the head posts on my bed. I'm not concerned with home invasion, though. Since I live in Texas, there are very lenient laws that deal with neutralizing trespassers.

If I'm wearing anything more substantial than shorts and a T-Shirt, I usually have my weapon on me.

LuxFerum

15th June 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION OF THIS WHATSOEVER. It's pure speculation and is only being considered because he used guns and he played an RPG.
RPG :eek: :eek:
Dont tell me that he once listen to MARYLIN MANSON!!!!:eek:
:D

shanek

15th June 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I guess you are an expert in applied mathematics

Mathematics has nothing to do with it. This is basic logic. The burden of proof is on the side of the claimant. Always.

Do you call these arguments?

Yes; arguments which you apparently can't refute.

If Diogenes' spirit could see your posts and that you quote him in your signature, he would come back to Earth to erase himself from History...

That's the Diogenes on thos board, not the historical Diogenes.

Jedi Knight

15th June 2003, 01:14 PM

I was reading an article in my Sunday Newspaper this morning about bank robberies. Where I live we have about 8 towns all connected together and a relatively close distance to one another.

Anyway, a police chief from one of the towns said in the article that there were two bank robberies within a week in his town. He has been police chief for 25 years and never had any until this week when there were two.

Given fluctuations in the economy, an undisciplined populace and the rise of armed robbery, owning and carrying a .45 Magnum like Clint Eastwood did in Dirty Harry is now more important than ever.

JK

shanek

15th June 2003, 02:07 PM

Okay, we're at the point now where my agreement with JK has lapsed.

Knew it couldn't last...

Cleopatra

15th June 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That's the Diogenes on thos board, not the historical Diogenes.

My my my
:rolleyes:

I could never have figured it out...

Shanek It's ok not to know certain things. You rejected the statistics of Harvard University- a respectable institution that works for years on the issue without having any particular knowledge of applied mathematics how can I believe that you have anything to do with pure logic?

a_unique_person

15th June 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION OF THIS WHATSOEVER. It's pure speculation and is only being considered because he used guns and he played an RPG.

He took all those guns and ammo to school for no reason? If he wanted to just suicide he could have done it at home with one gun.

shanek

15th June 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You rejected the statistics of Harvard University- a respectable institution

Argument from authority.

You said yourself those statistics were in question. Many of the other statistics we've put forth in these threads—especially those from Lott's book, and the Gary Kleck study—have never been shown to be questionable in any but minor ways, or ways that the authors say directly.

shanek

15th June 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He took all those guns and ammo to school for no reason? If he wanted to just suicide he could have done it at home with one gun.

Ah. It's so interesting that you know exactly what was going on in his mind when it's a complete mystery to everyone else... :rolleyes:

John Harrison

15th June 2003, 05:14 PM

I am sure that all of you are aware of studies that they show a clear connection between gun ownership and suicides.

Really? How about this? (I'll just concentrate on evil handguns at the moment, and leave out rifles, shotguns and "assault weapons")

In this report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ there were 12,740,000 pre-purchase handgun checks between 1994 and 1998 of which 312,000 were rejected for all causes. This would mean that the number of handguns in circulation in the U.S. increased by 12,428,000 over that five year period. In the United States there are approx. one million firearms of all types confiscated every year of which ~65% are handguns or 3,250,000 in the five year period. That would mean that the approx. overall increase in the number of handguns in the United States would be 9,178,000 for the five year period.

It is estimated that there are ~65 million handguns in the U.S. so the net increase of handguns was 9.07%.

Suicides 0-15yrs:
1994 373
1995 350
1996 295
1997 251
1998 283

So we have a four year decrease and a one year increase. I would say the clear connection is anything but clear. (Suicides over all age groups decreased all five years)

And if it's all about gun availability, I still haven't seen any of these studies explain how Japan, with almost zero guns, has a higher suicide rate than the US.

Let's say that even if there is a percentage of 1 in the 1.000.000 that these surveys are right, how can you take the risk to put your child in a potential danger like this.

It's good to take precautions, but lets keep some perspective. I think it is more unreasonable to pay so much attention to a highly unlikely event than something more preventable that happens much more often, like an auto accident, drowning, falls, poisoning, fires, suffocation, etc...

15th June 2003, 05:23 PM

"It never even occured to me to get it down and shoot someone with it."

The point is, do YOU want to take that risk with your son? (for example)

-Who

John Harrison

15th June 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Shanek It's ok not to know certain things. You rejected the statistics of Harvard University- a respectable institution that works for years on the issue without having any particular knowledge of applied mathematics how can I believe that you have anything to do with pure logic?

FWIW, I saw a good post about the Harvard study on another board awhile back by a guy named dischord:

This is the same state rankings they used earlier in the year for a similar "study" on children in the Journal of Trauma. There are numerous problems.

1) The biggest is that they use "Cook's Index" (CI)

CI is a formula for guessing gun ownership based on the average of two ratios: firearm homicides (FH) to all homicides (H) and firearm suicides (SH) to all suicides.

CI = (FH/H + SH/H)/2. The higher CI, the more guns are assumed to be in an area.

However, CI has been identified as an inferior way to estimate gun prevalence by the lead author of the above-mentioned Harvard study, Miller himself, along with the namesake of the the index, Philip Cook -- even Cook admits it isn't so great. See their article at http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/f...k/SAN01-25.pdf.

CI wrongly assumes a linear relationship -- either many guns with many deaths or few guns with few deaths -- when the reality is that these fall in a plane:

** many guns, many deaths
** many guns, few deaths
** few guns, many deaths
** few guns, few deaths
see this chart (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/Chart_2.gif) for an illustration.

For the type of study they are doing, this creates circular reasoning. Many deaths = high gun ownership, and then they measure for deaths.

To further illustrate the absurdity of Cook's index, if it is valid, then Texas -- TEXAS!!! -- lost a significant number of guns from 1994 to 1999.

Texas' 1994 Cook's Index was 0.72 -- (1,652/2,337 +1,568/2,113)/2
Texas' 1999 Cook's Index was 0.59 -- (1,224/2,005 + 794/1,391)/2

2) They ignore their own data collected elsewhere which shows different rankings of the states for gun prevalence.

To read the chart below:
First & Second Columns = their state rankings using CI.
Third Column = their state rankings using just suicides (FS/S)
Fourth Column = their state rankings using a 48-state survey
(ignore the stuff about CDC for this thread)

Note that North Dakota falls from 6th to 44th. That's right, using CI, South Dakota is a low gun state

Note also that using their survey numbers, the highest gun states are low murder states, contradicting their findings

44 = South Dakota
45 = Vermont
46 = Montana
47 = Idaho
48 = Wyoming

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/Chart_1.gif

a_unique_person

15th June 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Ah. It's so interesting that you know exactly what was going on in his mind when it's a complete mystery to everyone else... :rolleyes:

You said there was no evidence that he went there with a massacre on his mind. I'm saying that taking a bag of guns and ammo is a pretty clear indication of something more than suicide on his mind. You can't shoot yourself more than once, if you do it right, and you only need a revolver.

So, roll your eyes shane.

shanek

15th June 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
"It never even occured to me to get it down and shoot someone with it."

The point is, do YOU want to take that risk with your son? (for example)

No, and that's why I don't own a gun. But that's my choice, and I'll be damned if I let anyone else take it from me!

shanek

15th June 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You said there was no evidence that he went there with a massacre on his mind. I'm saying that taking a bag of guns and ammo is a pretty clear indication of something more than suicide on his mind.

I'd like to see you try and get that submitted in court as evidence without getting laughed or yelled at by the judge.

This was a disturbed, troubled kid, who wasn't thinking at all clearly. You're trying to act as if he were behaving completely rationally, when he obviously wasn't.

So, here it is again: :rolleyes:

Checkmite

15th June 2003, 06:50 PM

This is absolutely horrific. This guy is allegedly responsible enough to have a gunsafe (or other type of locking mechanism) and take his kid to gun safety courses - and then loses the key under the couch? If the guns were for home-defense, this idiot would've been in for one hell of a surprise once he got out his keychain and looked, and looked (and looked).

Then, he finds the key, and hangs it on a wall hook? A wall hook? What, didn't he recognize the damned thing? That's like locking the front door and leaving the key hanging from the porch windchime. I'm not going to say this guy deserved what happened - nobody deserves to see their own kids die - but Jesus, what a price for negligence!

I'm all for gun rights, but too many gun-rights advocates like to rush like fricking Superman to the defense of an attacked Gun Owner, forgiving or perhaps just overlooking grave mistakes such as the ones this guy made. So he had the guns in a place where they would (in theory) be secure. What, does that mean we give him an "A" for fecking effort? And it's true that if the kid really wanted to kill himself, he didn't need a gun - he could have used a kitchen knife, or OD'd on aspirin, or hanged himself in the closet with his belt. But this kid didn't just "really want to kill himself", did he? He took two pistols, three rifles, and 2 shotguns - along with who-knows-how-many-rounds for each of them - to school. I suppose one can make the ludicrious argument that if a kid really, really, really wanted to kill his classmates, he could've used kitchen knives...

Look, this poor guy's learned a lesson that nobody really deserves to be taught, and I really don't think he needs to go to court over this. First impression I get from the article is that he really is a nice guy, and really didn't want anyone - much less his own kid - to be hurt. At worst, I believe this guy was simply a victim of ill-timed absent-mindedness. But damn it, that doesn't cut it when it comes to guns. It is entirely unacceptable! I don't care how nice of a guy he is.

a_unique_person

15th June 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I'd like to see you try and get that submitted in court as evidence without getting laughed or yelled at by the judge.

This was a disturbed, troubled kid, who wasn't thinking at all clearly. You're trying to act as if he were behaving completely rationally, when he obviously wasn't.

So, here it is again: :rolleyes:

You said there was no indication, I am saying quite clearly there was an indication he was contemplating a massacre. If taking a bag of guns and ammo to a school is not an indication he was contemplating a massacre, I don't know what is.

Arrggg, not the rolleyes, they burn.

Checkmite

15th June 2003, 07:55 PM

If taking 2 pistols, 3 rifles, and 2 shotguns, and lots of ammo to school isn't an indication of a planned massacre, then surely taking 2 pistols, 3 rifles, 2 shotguns, and buckets of ammo after "talking for months about killing students and teachers" might raise a warning flag...

What did he bring them for, show and tell?

15th June 2003, 08:35 PM

"This is absolutely horrific. This guy is allegedly responsible enough to have a gunsafe (or other type of locking mechanism) and take his kid to gun safety courses - and then loses the key under the couch?"

I agree, The Other JK.

It makes me wonder if the wall hook is where he usually hung the keys? I wonder if he keeps his life savings in a breadbox for Pete's sake.

I think it is easy to say in hindsight what the father should have done, etc. (I'd say get a combination lock, for starters), but NO ONE should ever be in the "It won't happen to me" mode, which it sounds like, and I may be reading too much into the short article, exactly what the father was in.

-Who

ImpyTimpy

15th June 2003, 08:39 PM

I have to agree with AUP and Joshua here about the possible school massacre. In fact, if we read the article we can conclusively assume this is what was going to happen but didn't.

Chronologically looking at the events:

Three friends who had been in the bathroom with Davey left when they saw the guns, and school officials say one of them went to tell staff members.

After a fifth-grade teacher looked into the bathroom and confirmed Davey had the guns, the school started an emergency lockdown. A police officer responding to the call was about 30 feet from the bathroom when the boy put a Colt .45 handgun to the side of his head and pulled the trigger.

He gets ready in the bathroom but before he can finish getting ready he is locked in there while the school goes into emergency lockdown. With no way of executing his plan the kid sees no way out and shoots himself.

Also please note that:

But the file from his parents' 1997 divorce at the county courthouse indicates Davey received psychiatric treatment and that his mother expressed concerns about "psychotic" and "uncontrollable" violent outbursts.

So we have a very clear picture of a psychotic youth who brings large amounts of guns and ammo to school. It doesn't take a genius to work out why...

reprise

15th June 2003, 09:43 PM

Does it disturb anyone else that when this child was 6 years old his mother was labelling his behaviour as "psychotic"? I'm wondering how much of a chance this young man ever really had when such judgements were being made while he was barely out of nappies.

Zep

15th June 2003, 09:58 PM

I can't help but think that if guns were not in the house then the kid would not have taken his dad's [fairly noteworthy] arsenal to school, whatever the reason.

Random thoughts:

If the dad was into sport shooting or whatever, why not leave the guns and ammo locked up at the gun-club or somewhere responsible?

What the hell was he doing leaving the key to the guns and ammo lying around like that? If not the kid, what about any burglar / bad-guy, maybe even the ex-wife, getting hold of them?

Sure, the kid could have had a go at himself with hanging or drugs or a knife or something, but a hanging and drugs take time, and you have to work real hard to kill yourself with a knife - he could easily have been saved (read the article). But a 45 slug through the head is pretty much instantly irrevocable...no turning back...

What a goddamn pity, and a waste of a life.

Zep

15th June 2003, 10:33 PM

So the dad was aware of his son's 'psychosis' and 'violent outbursts' and made guns easily available to him??

"and you have to work real hard to kill yourself with a knife"

I agree. And, you can't exactly go around knifing all your classmates. Guns make it so much more easy, those stupid death devices.

-Who

ImpyTimpy

15th June 2003, 11:38 PM

If not guns, it would've been something else. How hard would it have been for the kid to create a few explosive devices (petrol bombs would be the easiest) just by using information available on the internet.

I do agree however that guns do in fact make it easier to commit acts of mass murder or suicide.

reprise

15th June 2003, 11:46 PM

Bearing in mind the age of this young man, and bearing in mind that his intention seemed to be to harm others and perhaps himself as well, I'm not to sure that other types of weapons would have suited his requirements or that those which might have would have been so easy for him to obtain unnoticed.

While a petrol bomb is certainly capable of starting a fire, schools usually have pretty good fire drills and someone is likely to notice a child throwing a molotov from close enough range to ignite a classroom or similar.

shanek

16th June 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You said there was no indication, I am saying quite clearly there was an indication he was contemplating a massacre. If taking a bag of guns and ammo to a school is not an indication he was contemplating a massacre, I don't know what is.

Arrggg, not the rolleyes, they burn.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ImpyTimpy

16th June 2003, 04:58 PM

When I was thinking petrol bombs I was thinking tin can filled with petrol sealed shut. It's very easy to include a radio controlled ignition device into this equation and you've got yourself something pretty lethal. Suppose he made a couple of bombs like that and wired them and hid them around the school - then detonated them when kids would be walking through the halls...

There's no easy solution here to the problem. Saying guns are to blame is incorrect because he'd simply use alternative means (perhaps with more destructive power).

Originally posted by reprise
Bearing in mind the age of this young man, and bearing in mind that his intention seemed to be to harm others and perhaps himself as well, I'm not to sure that other types of weapons would have suited his requirements or that those which might have would have been so easy for him to obtain unnoticed.

While a petrol bomb is certainly capable of starting a fire, schools usually have pretty good fire drills and someone is likely to notice a child throwing a molotov from close enough range to ignite a classroom or similar.

16th June 2003, 06:53 PM

[i]"Saying guns are to blame is incorrect because he'd simply use alternative means (perhaps with more destructive power).'{/i]

Strawman.

The fact is that he didn't use BBQ tongs, belts, or ceiling fans. He used guns, whose main purpose is to punch holes in and seriously injure, but mainly kill people.

Saying he could used X or Y is a strawman, because he didn't. He used GUNS, easily obtainable guns.

-Who

ImpyTimpy

16th June 2003, 07:53 PM

It's not a strawman....

A strawman is altering the arguer's position and replying to the distorted version.

In fact your reply is a perfect strawman. I wasn't talking about BBQ tongs, I was talking about possibility of using more destructive means if guns were not available...

Also the main point of bombs is to blow people and things up last time I checked...

Originally posted by Whodini
[i]"Saying guns are to blame is incorrect because he'd simply use alternative means (perhaps with more destructive power).'{/i]

Strawman.

The fact is that he didn't use BBQ tongs, belts, or ceiling fans. He used guns, whose main purpose is to punch holes in and seriously injure, but mainly kill people.

Saying he could used X or Y is a strawman, because he didn't. He used GUNS, easily obtainable guns.

-Who

16th June 2003, 08:26 PM

The word "strawman" exists simply so I can employ it in my day-to-day trolling activities.

-Who

evildave

16th June 2003, 09:19 PM

Alas, it's time for the WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) link again.

What *ACTUALLY* kills 12 year olds in America? Of ALL of the 12 year old children who died....

Unintentional Injury 259
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 110
Suicide 43
Congenital Anomalies 42
Homicide 38
Heart Disease 19
Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 17
Cerebro-vascular 12
Benign Neoplasms 8

Breakdown of unintentional injuries:
MV Traffic 147
Drowning 28
Suffocation 14
Other Land Transport 12
Fire/burn 11
Firearm 9

Breaking down suicide:
Suffocation 26
Firearm 11
Poisoning 3
Fall 1
Other Spec., classifiable 1
Unspecified 1

Breaking down homicide:
Homicide Firearm 22
Homicide Other Spec., 4
Homicide Suffocation 4
Homicide Unspecified 4
Homicide Cut/pierce 2
Homicide Fire/burn 1
Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 1

Banning cars would be the most sensible thing to prevent the deaths of 12 year old children. The numbers say it all. Prosecuting parents who don't have their kids in seatbelts with attempted (or successful) murder should be done routinely. 42 kids from all types of firearm deaths, and 147 just for motor vehicle accidents. Ban cars.

Naturally, if all the guns disappeared today, the "suffocation" category in suicides would spike up a bit. They're already over twice as likely to hang or suffocate themselves than shoot, so let's ban rope and plastic bags.

Zep

16th June 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Alas, it's time for the WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) link again.

What *ACTUALLY* kills 12 year olds in America? Of ALL of the 12 year old children who died....

Unintentional Injury 259
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 110
Suicide 43
Congenital Anomalies 42
Homicide 38
Heart Disease 19
Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 17
Cerebro-vascular 12
Benign Neoplasms 8

Breakdown of unintentional injuries:
MV Traffic 147
Drowning 28
Suffocation 14
Other Land Transport 12
Fire/burn 11
Firearm 9

Breaking down suicide:
Suffocation 26
Firearm 11
Poisoning 3
Fall 1
Other Spec., classifiable 1
Unspecified 1

Breaking down homicide:
Homicide Firearm 22
Homicide Other Spec., 4
Homicide Suffocation 4
Homicide Unspecified 4
Homicide Cut/pierce 2
Homicide Fire/burn 1
Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 1

Banning cars would be the most sensible thing to prevent the deaths of 12 year old children. The numbers say it all. Prosecuting parents who don't have their kids in seatbelts with attempted (or successful) murder should be done routinely. 42 kids from all types of firearm deaths, and 147 just for motor vehicle accidents. Ban cars.

Naturally, if all the guns disappeared today, the "suffocation" category in suicides would spike up a bit. They're already over twice as likely to hang or suffocate themselves than shoot, so let's ban rope and plastic bags.
I'm not in a position to dispute the numbers, so I'll take them as valid. But this is a generalisation in the extreme. We are not talking about "what kills all 12 year olds this year", we are talking about the availability of guns to kids to DELIBERATELY hurt themselves and others with.

So let's look at the results for DELIBERATE harm by selves or others:

Suicide 43 (firearm 11, suffocation 26, others 6)
Homicide 38 (firearm 22, others 26)

Now let's total that up:

Firearm involvement: 33 out of 81 incidents, 41%

So two out of five deliberate deaths of 12 year olds are due to firearms, according to this data.

Question: If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, an immunisable disease like mumps or chickenpox, would anyone contend that such immunisation should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have mumps"?

Zep

16th June 2003, 10:25 PM

I'm not saying 'ban guns', I'm saying 'don't leave the key to the guns and ammo sitting around where kids can easily get it. And keep track of it (ie. don't lose it under the couch). Actually be responsible and properly secure your firearms and ammo if you have any.'

-Who

reprise

16th June 2003, 10:28 PM

originally posted by Impy Timpy
There's no easy solution here to the problem. Saying guns are to blame is incorrect because he'd simply use alternative means (perhaps with more destructive power).

I didn't say that guns were to blame for this incident. I simply questioned whether an average 12 year old was likely to be able to come up with an alternative method of causing harm to multiple others easily and unnoticed. For that matter, when cornered would any of those other options have allowed him to so easily end his life?

Whatever my personal feelings about the gun culture which exists in the US, this is one thread in which I have not played the "well what do you expect..." card (yeah, the father would have been hung, drawn and quartered in NSW, but this didn't happen in NSW).

ImpyTimpy

16th June 2003, 10:36 PM

That's why I'm saying he more then likely would have come up with means to end his life and take others with him. If using bombs he might've even managed to injure/kill enough students before he could be stopped or he'd kill himself...

The internet is abundant with recipes to make high powered explosives out of household items.

Or to put the argument another way - where there's a will, there's a way.

Originally posted by reprise

I didn't say that guns were to blame for this incident. I simply questioned whether an average 12 year old was likely to be able to come up with an alternative method of causing harm to multiple others easily and unnoticed. For that matter, when cornered would any of those other options have allowed him to so easily end his life?

Whatever my personal feelings about the gun culture which exists in the US, this is one thread in which I have not played the "well what do you expect..." card (yeah, the father would have been hung, drawn and quartered in NSW, but this didn't happen in NSW).

evildave

16th June 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Question: If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, an immunisable disease like mumps or chickenpox, would anyone contend that such immunisation should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have mumps"?

Zep

Well, if we want immunization and disease statistics, I can certainly provide you those as well. It gives a nice perspective to compare these trivial numbers against.

According to the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact178.html)...

Pneumonia: Kills over 2,000,000 children a year
Diarrhoea: Kills 2,000,000 children a year
Measles: Kills 800,000 children a year
Malaria: 700,000 children die in a year.
Malnutrition: Contributes to 800,000 children dying a year.

Do you think deaths from diarrhoea (the runs) could be avoided, perhaps? I think so.

Here you cry your crocodile tears about, oh, a few hundred American kids who kill themselves and each other (with guns), and we've got well over SIX MILLION other kids who die of downright trivially preventable causes.

I suppose the fact that they live in other places besides the U.S. makes their lives less worthy of debate somehow?

Then we still duck the Motor Vehicle mortalities. Any way you cut it, it dwarfs all other categories as a cause of death and injuries.
http://www.childstats.gov/intnl/pdf/health5.pdf

BAN CARS

a_unique_person

16th June 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Alas, it's time for the WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) link again.

What *ACTUALLY* kills 12 year olds in America? Of ALL of the 12 year old children who died....

Unintentional Injury 259
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 110
Suicide 43
Congenital Anomalies 42
Homicide 38
Heart Disease 19
Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 17
Cerebro-vascular 12
Benign Neoplasms 8

Breakdown of unintentional injuries:
MV Traffic 147
Drowning 28
Suffocation 14
Other Land Transport 12
Fire/burn 11
Firearm 9

Breaking down suicide:
Suffocation 26
Firearm 11
Poisoning 3
Fall 1
Other Spec., classifiable 1
Unspecified 1

Breaking down homicide:
Homicide Firearm 22
Homicide Other Spec., 4
Homicide Suffocation 4
Homicide Unspecified 4
Homicide Cut/pierce 2
Homicide Fire/burn 1
Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 1

Banning cars would be the most sensible thing to prevent the deaths of 12 year old children. The numbers say it all. Prosecuting parents who don't have their kids in seatbelts with attempted (or successful) murder should be done routinely. 42 kids from all types of firearm deaths, and 147 just for motor vehicle accidents. Ban cars.

Naturally, if all the guns disappeared today, the "suffocation" category in suicides would spike up a bit. They're already over twice as likely to hang or suffocate themselves than shoot, so let's ban rope and plastic bags.

Accidents are the major cause of death in 12 year olds, but as they get older, other reasons increase.

However, what should also be considered are preventable causes, acceptable risks, and other causes.

We can't ban cars, our society is now dependent on them. Given the number of cars used every day, the death toll due to them is remarkably low, although other western countries have managed to get the road toll rates lower than the US.

Accidental deaths do happen, but we don't want to stop our kids taking reasonable risks when playing, that is, climbing trees and keeping fit are, in the long run, going to make the population as a whole healthier and happier.

Disease is being worked on, however, as you have noted, cancer is one tough disease to crack.

Guns, however, are not essential, nor a part of the human condition.

John Harrison

17th June 2003, 07:47 AM

Guns, however, are not essential, nor a part of the human condition.

Those that have successfully defended their lives with a firearm would probably disagree with you on this one.

DavidJames

17th June 2003, 08:07 AM

"Those that have successfully defended their lives with a firearm would probably disagree with you on this one."

And those who have innocently died as a result, well, I guess they wouldn't be able to disagree with you either :rolleyes:

Mr Manifesto

17th June 2003, 08:20 AM

Much as I don't like guns being too freely available, I have to say that in this case probably not much could have been done.

The first thing to look at is, how many children have killed themselves with guns? (I only read the first page of this debate and the same point seemed to be getting repeated so excuse me if it has already been answered).

As said previously, young people are in fact killing themselves more often. Paracetemol is usually the method of choice- which is why the EU took measures to try to prevent it. I have also heard of eight year olds hanging themselves on clothes lines.

It may be in this case that we have to look at the why rather than the how.

But I still don't agree with American gun laws. Not that it is my problem as I live in Australia.

Mr Manifesto

17th June 2003, 08:22 AM

Ah-ha. So someone has actually given stats on gun suicides. Looks like most children die from suffocation when it comes to suicide. Well, I can't be wrong about the paracetemol- they are obviously choking themselves to death on the pills! :D

John Harrison

17th June 2003, 08:29 AM

And those who have innocently died as a result, well, I guess they wouldn't be able to disagree with you either

I would be interested in seeing the number of innocent people shot in this manner each year.

bignickel

17th June 2003, 08:30 AM

The only thing I got reading the article was that we had a potential Columbine that terminated itself too early to do much damage: an amok.

The amok is trying to commit suicide. However, he rarely can do himself in. The amok instead kills multiple people in an attempt to get the authorities to kill him. If the amok believes that the authorities won't kill him, he usually will try to kill himself at that point (ie Columbine).

The amok meme originated in Malasia or thereabouts, where the young man in question would grab a machete and start hacking randomly at people. The people in the village would yell "Amok! Amok!", and everyone would grab a spear, long fork, or pole. Once the amok was pinned to the side of a tree or wall, they could stab him with spears until the amok was dead.

How the amok meme got to America in the 90's is anyone's guess. Before the amok meme, there were only 2 courses for troubled teenagers in school: A. Live through it. B. Kill themselves. The amok meme offered a different way to handle 'B', which seemed to suit a certain group of troubled teenagers filled with rage (who years before would have just done themselves in). Once a few amok incidents occured in American, the news media picked it up, and distributed the meme thoroughly, thus insuring more incidents and a well-entrenched meme.

Once here it seemed well nigh impossible to get rid of it. However, once the 911 meme filled popular imagination, the amok meme pretty much faded from view.

Hopefully the 911 meme has enough currency left in it that the amok meme will stay out of view for a few years more.

Checkmite

17th June 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
That's why I'm saying he more then likely would have come up with means to end his life and take others with him. If using bombs he might've even managed to injure/kill enough students before he could be stopped or he'd kill himself...

The internet is abundant with recipes to make high powered explosives out of household items.

Or to put the argument another way - where there's a will, there's a way.

Just out of curiosity, how many kids who've committed homicide/suicide have used bombs? The Columbine pair tried; the bombs were duds however. Any other instances?

Cinorjer

17th June 2003, 08:37 AM

When something like this happens, we all want to make logical sense out of it. Whose fault is it? The parents? The gun manufacturers? The school officials? The classmates who picked on the fat kid? The friends who heard the kid talking about killing himself and didn't go to the adults? How about video games or violent TV? SOMEONE has to be blamed! Let's line up the usual suspects, ending with society in general.

Look, no one but the kid knows what was going through his mind, but it wasn't normal thinking. He made a choice to kill himself, and given the amount of weapons he had with him, he was at least considering killing lots of other people. This is NOT normal behavior. Not even for a kid that is being picked on. Not even for a kid that has "emotional problems." I was picked on all through my school years, even beat up from time to time. I lived in a home where guns were readily available, and went hunting a lot. Never once did it even occur to me, to take one to school and start blowing people away. In my deepest funk, I never considered blowing a hole in my own head. Kids have stress in their life, and learn to deal with it.

Something went wrong in this kid's mind. It's not going to make sense. The parents are torturing themselves right now, wondering if it's their fault. Whose fault is it? Ultimately, the kid who killed himself.

ImpyTimpy

17th June 2003, 03:55 PM

I have no idea actually. I know there have been accidental killings of teenagers playing with explosives but suicide? Not sure. Then again, I suppose we only have to look towards places like Palestine for answers.

Cheap shots aside, I'm not arguing that teenagers use bombs to kill themselves, I simply provided an alternative means to injure many people other than guns. Like I keep saying, where there's a will, there will be a way.

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Just out of curiosity, how many kids who've committed homicide/suicide have used bombs? The Columbine pair tried; the bombs were duds however. Any other instances?

Zep

18th June 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by evildave
Well, if we want immunization and disease statistics, I can certainly provide you those as well. It gives a nice perspective to compare these trivial numbers against.

Missed the point, mate. It's the principle of the thing. I'll repeat my question:

If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, an immunisable disease like chickenpox, would anyone contend that such immunisation should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have chickenpox"?

I've no doubt that preventable diseases would be dealt with summarily by medicine, even if the US constitution was an ass in this regard.

However now substitute the word "guns" for "chickenpox" and "gun-control" for "immunisation":

If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, a controllable disease like guns, would anyone contend that such gun-control should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have guns"?

So why is the response to THIS so significantly different??

Originally posted by evildave
Here you cry your crocodile tears about, oh, a few hundred American kids who kill themselves and each other (with guns), and we've got well over SIX MILLION other kids who die of downright trivially preventable causes.

I suppose the fact that they live in other places besides the U.S. makes their lives less worthy of debate somehow?

The USA has all the medical facilities and resources in the world to deal with these diseases in other countries, to make a really sizeable dent in this six million deaths per year. But what does it do instead?? Marches into other countries with GUNS! Not medicine, GUNS! What does THAT say to the world???

And perhaps you might also care to have a thought for the parents and families and friends of these "few hundred American 12-year-olds who kill themselves". What about the 13-year-olds? And the 14-year-olds? And so on?? Talk about trivialising the situation! Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Zep

John Harrison

18th June 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Zep

I'm not in a position to dispute the numbers, so I'll take them as valid. But this is a generalisation in the extreme. We are not talking about "what kills all 12 year olds this year", we are talking about the availability of guns to kids to DELIBERATELY hurt themselves and others with.

So let's look at the results for DELIBERATE harm by selves or others:

Suicide 43 (firearm 11, suffocation 26, others 6)
Homicide 38 (firearm 22, others 26)

Now let's total that up:

Firearm involvement: 33 out of 81 incidents, 41%

So two out of five deliberate deaths of 12 year olds are due to firearms, according to this data.

Question: If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, an immunisable disease like mumps or chickenpox, would anyone contend that such immunisation should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have mumps"?

Zep

Mumps? Chickenpox? Are you actually trying to make a cogent point, or just rant, because disease and firearms really can't be compared.

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 09:19 AM

I think that this is an incredibly sad tragedy, and we must be thankful that this disturbed child only harmed himself and no-one else.

I believe that guns are but one factor in these violent crimes and tragedies. However, they are a factor that is more under our control than the others.

This is an approximation from memory (if anyone can provide data, it would be appreciated):

Japan: Miniscule gun ownership, miniscule violent crime rate = few firearm murders
Switzerland: Very high gun ownership, low violent crime rate = few firearm murders
UK: Low gun ownership, very high violent crime rate = few firearm murders
USA: High gun ownership, high violent crime rate = astronomical firearm murders

If firearm penetration reached the same levels in Britain as they are in the USA, the British would have a bloodbath on their hands.

I am open to challenges on this (as I am on everything!)

My greatest problem with guns is fear of them. If I lived in a gun owning society, then I would be more fearful than if I lived in a non- gun owning society. I would not have the luxury of being able to insult those who I deem worthy of insult. An armed society may be a polite society, but it is also a fearful society. Freely carried firearms greatly increase the risk of impulse killing.

A gun's purpose is to project power. It has no other purpose. Sometimes it is the power to inflict injury or death, sometimes it is the power to put food on the table. Nevertheless, it is all about power. And those who have spent the most time or money on firearms will always be able to project their power to a greater extent. Hence the US/UK military victory in Iraq.

If you possess a gun, then you have the ability to impose your will on me. If I also possess (and am carrying) a gun, then I have a short window of opportunity to engage you in a game of chicken. However, because you have had more practice than I with a firearm, and you have the element of surprise, my attempt to defend myself will have escalated the situation and increased the chances of bloodletting.

The Libertarian in me doesn't want my freedom impinged upon by others carrying efficient, specifically designed killing machines.

John Harrison

18th June 2003, 09:32 AM

If you possess a gun, then you have the ability to impose your will on me. If I also possess (and am carrying) a gun, then I have a short window of opportunity to engage you in a game of chicken. However, because you have had more practice than I with a firearm, and you have the element of surprise, my attempt to defend myself will have escalated the situation and increased the chances of bloodletting

I've seen this theory quite a bit but it doesn't stand up to the evidence in the US regarding the increasing gun supply, increasing concealed carry permits and decreasing firearm homicide rates.

The Libertarian in me doesn't want my freedom impinged upon by others carrying efficient, specifically designed killing machines.

A Libertarian against firearm ownership? That's a first. How exactly does that fit in with the Libertarian philosophy?

Psi Baba

18th June 2003, 10:56 AM

When schools everywhere starting installing metal detectors and hiring security guards after Columbine, I saw this as a knee-jerk reaction and a way that the school boards could feel like they were doing something to prevent school shootings rather than facing the real problem which is the social and psychological issues of outcast students. While, metal detectors are not a panacea, I suppose it's not a bad idea to have then in place anyway. My question is, how in Ed's name did this kid just walk into a school with "two handguns, three rifles, two shotguns and ample ammunition!"

Zep

18th June 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison

Mumps? Chickenpox? Are you actually trying to make a cogent point, or just rant, because disease and firearms really can't be compared.
Then you aren't trying very hard. In a post above I explained myself. I'm doing a simple comparison of attitudes to constitutional legalities. I hoped I was showing that the USA has some sort of a mental block about controlling guns simply because of a vague constitutional ammendment "allowing" them, and also purely because the subject seems to be such a touchy one there.

Sheesh! The rest of the world grew up about this years ago...

Zep

a_unique_person

18th June 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Drifterman

Japan: Miniscule gun ownership, miniscule violent crime rate = few firearm murders
Switzerland: Very high gun ownership, low violent crime rate = few firearm murders
UK: Low gun ownership, very high violent crime rate = few firearm murders
USA: High gun ownership, high violent crime rate = astronomical firearm murders

If firearm penetration reached the same levels in Britain as they are in the USA, the British would have a bloodbath on their hands.

I have tried to make this point before. I think it is worth repeating.

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 06:24 PM

A Libertarian against firearm ownership? That's a first. How exactly does that fit in with the Libertarian philosophy?

It fits in thus: I do not want anyone to have the ability to prevent me from doing something that does no harm to others. Someone carrying a gun inhibits my actions, because they have the ability to impose their will upon me. The same goes for the Police - they should also have limited access to firearms.

I believe that, on balance, the benefits to be had by widespread gun ownership are outweighed by the invasion of privacy that such devices entail.

I am not North American, so perhaps my brand of libertarian philosophy is unusual. So perhaps the title "Pragmatic Libertarian" would be more accurate. :)

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 06:34 PM

A libertarian is free to choose what aspects of mainstream libertarianism to accept, no?

Just because an idea is part of the mainstream doesn't mean I must accept its logic.

The country I am living in now was, 15 years ago a 1 party dictatorship. Democracy (a secure one) was installed with no armed uprising, but by street protest and persistent activism. If the government had been so inclined, it could have crushed the protests by force (as indeed they had in the preceding 50 years)

shanek

18th June 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I hoped I was showing that the USA has some sort of a mental block about controlling guns simply because of a vague constitutional ammendment "allowing" them,

Vague??? What the hell's vague about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"??? That seems pretty unequivocal to me!

shanek

18th June 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Drifterman
]It fits in thus: I do not want anyone to have the ability to prevent me from doing something that does no harm to others.

Including carrying a gun?

Someone carrying a gun inhibits my actions,

How so?

because they have the ability to impose their will upon me.

Having the ability to do so and actually doing so are two different things. I have a d*ck, so I have the ability to rape a teenage girl. Should I be castrated just in case I might?

The same goes for the Police - they should also have limited access to firearms.

Oh, great...then we'll be at the mercy of the criminals, who will be the only ones with them!

ImpyTimpy

18th June 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Drifterman

It fits in thus: I do not want anyone to have the ability to prevent me from doing something that does no harm to others. Someone carrying a gun inhibits my actions, because they have the ability to impose their will upon me. The same goes for the Police - they should also have limited access to firearms.

Hold on... What about knives? People can carry hidden knives in order to "impose their will upon you"... Does that mean knives are to be banned as well?

Also why should police have limited access to firearms? The police are there to protect your rights as a citizen. If you are to remove the tools with which they uphold order, what is to stop the criminal element from going rampant - or as you put it, from imposing their will upon yours?

I believe that, on balance, the benefits to be had by widespread gun ownership are outweighed by the invasion of privacy that such devices entail.

I am not North American, so perhaps my brand of libertarian philosophy is unusual. So perhaps the title "Pragmatic Libertarian" would be more accurate. :)
I'm not sure I understand how ownership of guns invades others privacy...

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 09:38 PM

Hold on... What about knives? People can carry hidden knives in order to "impose their will upon you"... Does that mean knives are to be banned as well?

Ummm, carrying hidden knives is rather anti-social behaviour. And in many situations knives are banned, e.g football matches, airplanes, office buildings, schools, libraries, swiimming pools and so forth.

The reason for this ban is obvious, but worth repeating: it is to prevent individuals from inflicting serious injury on others. Of course there are those who flout those rules - that is the nature of rules!

However, the ability of an individual with a gun to impose their will upon another is far greater than that of an individual with a knife. This is why Armies are armed with guns (in addition to knives). To argue that a ban on the ownership of one implies a ban on the other smacks of reductio ad absurdam to me.

Also why should police have limited access to firearms? The police are there to protect your rights as a citizen. If you are to remove the tools with which they uphold order, what is to stop the criminal element from going rampant - or as you put it, from imposing their will upon yours?

I believe that the Police exist to serve me, and not the government. Weapon carrying by either party erects a barrier between the law enforcement agent and those they exist to serve.

I also object to Police Officers carrying guns for the same reason I object to compulsory ID cards, DNA testing, fingerprinting and so forth for citizens - it gives the government more power over me. If I go to a protest in many countries, police are likely to use firearms to control the protest.

In addition - I feel that gun carrying police trigger an arms race in which the criminals feel it is necessary to also carry firearms, increasing the risk to all members of society.

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 09:48 PM

I'm not sure I understand how ownership of guns invades others privacy...

Perhaps "invasion of privacy" is not the best phrase to use. "Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish" would describe it better.

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Texas and to declare that the current resident of the Oval Office was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

In short, guns circumscribe my ability to express my opinions which others might find objectionable.

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 09:50 PM

Do not forget, arguments against firearm control in the US a can be used as arguments for firearm ownership in other countries. That is why those of us take such a large interest in the issue in the US. We can see that the US is an experiment on the worth of liberal gun laws, and to many of us, the experiment seems to be a failure.

This is not an America-bashing exercise.

Drifterman

18th June 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Shanek
Having the ability to do so and actually doing so are two different things.

Agreed. Nonetheless, having a penis is usually considered sufficient grounds to exclude someone from a girls changing room.

I have a d*ck, so I have the ability to rape a teenage girl. Should I be castrated just in case I might?

Castration would prevent you from enjoying a normal part of healthy human existence. Another reductio ad absurdam argument.

Castration is mutilation.

Castration is potentially life threatening (ask the Chinese eunuchs).

Wolverine

19th June 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Drifterman
For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Texas and to declare that the current resident of the Oval Office was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

What makes you think it's legal in the State of Texas to carry either into a bar?

The situation you describe is a third-degree felony.

Take a peek at Title 10, Texas Penal Code (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0004600.html#pe002.46.02).

John Harrison

19th June 2003, 07:41 AM

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Texas and to declare that the current resident of the Oval Office was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

Ah, the "more impulse killings if more people carry guns" theory. I haven't seen any evidence that supports this. Many pro-gun control people have said that when CCW laws were passed by various states that there would be gunfights over traffic accidents and other minor arguments, but time has shown that none of this has come to pass.

Of course, you are welcome to cite any evidence that supports your argument.

Drifterman

19th June 2003, 08:03 AM

Ah, the "more impulse killings if more people carry guns" theory. I haven't seen any evidence that supports this. Many pro-gun control people have said that when CCW laws were passed by various states that there would be gunfights over traffic accidents and other minor arguments, but time has shown that none of this has come to pass.

Hmm, don't have any data on that one, and would like to see any data at all if you can point me in the right direction.

Nonetheless, are you denying that murders are ever commited on impulse?

Are you denying that the mechanisation of the act makes the act easier and more efficiently achieved?

Anyway, you miss the point of the text you quoted. The point was that my actions are circumscribed by the very notion that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon . I behave differently than I would if I believed that all parties were unarmed.

a_unique_person

19th June 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Drifterman

Hmm, don't have any data on that one, and would like to see any data at all if you can point me in the right direction.

Nonetheless, are you denying that murders are ever commited on impulse?

Are you denying that the mechanisation of the act makes the act easier and more efficiently achieved?

Anyway, you miss the point of the text you quoted. The point was that my actions are circumscribed by the very notion that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon . I behave differently than I would if I believed that all parties were unarmed.

You would shoot them if you knew they were unarmed? Hang on, you haven't got a gun either.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of impulse killings. Also, for example, in Australia, where guns are rare, a brawl, for example, that involved knives, which are much more common, in which there were serious injuries, for sure, but no deaths. If guns had been around, the outcome may have been much worse.

Drifterman

19th June 2003, 08:20 AM

What makes you think it's legal in the State of Texas to carry either into a bar? The situation you describe is a third-degree felony. Take a peek at Title 10, Texas Penal Code.

Ok ok ok - so I was being unfair to Texas :o I am truly sorry - I haven't yet forgiven the Lone Star State for unleashing Dubya, so I was perhaps guilty of unfairly stereotyping Texans. Try this alternative situation:

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Johannesburg and to declare that Nelson Mandela was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

Is that better? I hope so. The venue of the incident is not important - just the fact of gun possession.

John Harrison

19th June 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Drifterman
[B]Hmm, don't have any data on that one, and would like to see any data at all if you can point me in the right direction.

Here's one. (http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/More_Permits_Means_Less_Crime.htm)

Nonetheless, are you denying that murders are ever commited on impulse?

Not at all. I'm saying that we are not getting more impulse killings from more people carrying firearms for protection.

Are you denying that the mechanisation of the act makes the act easier and more efficiently achieved?

Nope.

Anyway, you miss the point of the text you quoted. The point was that my actions are circumscribed by the very notion that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon . I behave differently than I would if I believed that all parties were unarmed.

I see. So you would deprive others of their tool for self defense based on your fear of being shot in an argument even though the chances of that happening are extremely rare?

Drifterman

19th June 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You would shoot them if you knew they were unarmed? Hang on, you haven't got a gun either.

Aaaaaarrrgggh! Confusion reigns!

I am trying to criticise gun ownership, not defend it - so I certainly am not interested in shooting anyone! ;)

The presence of guns Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish, therefore I cannot engage in controversial discussions that I might otherwise with to engage in, e.g. criticism of a highly popular political figure.

John Harrison

19th June 2003, 08:36 AM

The presence of guns Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish, therefore I cannot engage in controversial discussions that I might otherwise with to engage in, e.g. criticism of I highly popular political figure.

Are you saying that this is true for the US? I'll be quite impressed if you can provide evidence for this.

Cleopatra

19th June 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by John Harrison

It's good to take precautions, but lets keep some perspective. I think it is more unreasonable to pay so much attention to a highly unlikely event than something more preventable that happens much more often, like an auto accident, drowning, falls, poisoning, fires, suffocation, etc...

John, I read all of your well written posts plus your comments on the statistics. You made some good points but you didn't give sufficient answers.

Let me take thing from scratch.

First of all, statistics are not supposed to give answers, they show a tendancy. This is the reason I said that statistics can be questioned primarly because there are not based on sufficient data, incidents are not reported correctly. Second. It's very easy for the gun industries to order surveys that support gun onwership. I am sure that you will agree that we are talking about big business here. The other part, those who are against gun ownership do not have similar financial interests and this makes their statistics more trustworthy.

I agree that there are many kinds of accidents that occur more often, as you mentioned and I really think that in case of neglect ( like poisoning from drugs or suffocation) parents must be procecuted.I already said that.

Accidents by guns should not happen in 21th century and I repeat. If somebody thinks that it's ok that its child is killed by his gun, if he thinks that "it happens" it's not ok at all that this child take his dad's gun and kills mine. Don't you agree on that?Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

How can you equate a death by a car accident with a death by a gun? Don't you see that there is a moral perspective on the issue too?

And something else, although it's not " my business"because I do not have children and of course I do not owe a gun. Don't you think that even for educational reasons guns must be away from a house? What is the message you give to your child?What do you teach it? That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

Where is the morality of the noble fight the kids must learn?

WMT1

19th June 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The other part, those who are against gun ownership do not have similar financial interests and this makes their statistics more trustworthy.

What makes you think the only "interests" that might affect the trustworthiness of statistics are financial ones?

Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. How do gun owners do this?

How can you equate a death by a car accident with a death by a gun?

Both usually occur as a result of someone's irresponsible use of said car/gun, and you're just as dead either way.

Don't you see that there is a moral perspective on the issue too?

Sure. People should not be irresponsible with either cars or guns.

What is the message you give to your child? What do you teach it? That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

That certainly sounds like a worthwhile option, if they ever encounter a "difficult situation" in which someone equipped to harm them "from a distance" is threatening to do so.

Where is the morality of the noble fight the kids must learn?

Does anybody else know what this means?

John Harrison

19th June 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Accidents by guns should not happen in 21th century and I repeat. If somebody thinks that it's ok that its child is killed by his gun, if he thinks that "it happens" it's not ok at all that this child take his dad's gun and kills mine. Don't you agree on that?Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

I'm going to start with this paragraph since I think it is the main focus of the issue:

Accidents by guns should not happen in the 21st century

Why not? I'm not saying that accidents are OK, but they are a fact of life.

If somebody thinks that it's ok that its child is killed by his gun, if he thinks that "it happens" it's not ok at all that this child take his dad's gun and kills mine. Don't you agree on that?

Sure.

Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

I've no idea what rules I'm trying to impose on you. As a gun owner, I'm the one that's trying to keep more and more rules imposed on me.

How can you equate a death by a car accident with a death by a gun? Don't you see that there is a moral perspective on the issue too?

I didn't equate them, I said that the chances of my child dying in a gun accident are much lower than dying in many other common accidents. I don't see how morals enter that statement at all.

And something else, although it's not " my business"because I do not have children and of course I do not owe a gun. Don't you think that even for educational reasons guns must be away from a house? What is the message you give to your child?What do you teach it? That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

Where is the morality of the noble fight the kids must learn?

What exactly do you mean by "educational reasons"? Apparently you seem to think that it is morally wrong to own a firearm, and owning a firearm in the house is akin to teaching a child to settle "difficult situations" (whatever that means) with a gun. Am I correct on this? I just want to be clear on this before I continue.

Cleopatra

19th June 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison

Accidents by guns should not happen in the 21st century

Why not? I'm not saying that accidents are OK, but they are a fact of life.

I don't really think that they should be a part of life when we are away from the battlefield.

I've no idea what rules I'm trying to impose on you. As a gun owner, I'm the one that's trying to keep more and more rules imposed on me.

Is the child of a gun owner skips his attention and his child kills mine while they are in school , this is how this man imposes his rules on me. By choosing to put my child in the risk he takes when he decides to keep a gun in his house.

I didn't equate them, I said that the chances of my child dying in a gun accident are much lower than dying in many other common accidents. I don't see how morals enter that statement at all.

Cars are part of a modern society, I don't think that guns belong to a modern and advanced society, that's all.

What exactly do you mean by "educational reasons"? Apparently you seem to think that it is morally wrong to own a firearm, and owning a firearm in the house is akin to teaching a child to settle "difficult situations" (whatever that means) with a gun. Am I correct on this? I just want to be clear on this before I continue.

Yes, thank you. You are correct, plus the fact that when you use a gun you get rid of something that "bothers" you easily and quickly. This is not how things are in real life...

shanek

19th June 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Drifterman
Castration would prevent you from enjoying a normal part of healthy human existence. Another reductio ad absurdam argument.

Castration is mutilation.

Castration is potentially life threatening (ask the Chinese eunuchs).

Are those really the only reasons you oppose mass castration for protection?

shanek

19th June 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Drifterman
The presence of guns Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish, therefore I cannot engage in controversial discussions that I might otherwise with to engage in, e.g. criticism of a highly popular political figure.

Wait... If you say somthing someone doesn't like, and they shoot you, that's already an illegal act. Why is there a need to make the act doubly illegal?

John Harrison

19th June 2003, 02:00 PM

I don't really think that they should be a part of life when we are away from the battlefield.

I see. Only in war, but not for police, self defense, etc.?

Is the child of a gun owner skips his attention and his child kills mine while they are in school , this is how this man imposes his rules on me. By choosing to put my child in the risk he takes when he decides to keep a gun in his house.

In this situation I do believe in punishing the gun owner. I haven't seen any laws that can prevent this very well as of yet. Luckily this is still quite rare despite the media attention it receives.

then we have-
Cars are part of a modern society, I don't think that guns belong to a modern and advanced society, that's all.
and
Yes, thank you. You are correct, plus the fact that when you use a gun you get rid of something that "bothers" you easily and quickly. This is not how things are in real life...

Which contradicts the first statement. In real life there are violent criminals, despite our modern and advanced society. Wishing it was different doesn't change anything. And your assertion that owning a firearm automatically assumes that I will use it to solve some nebulous "problem" is quite insulting.

Real life. :rolleyes: If my eyes could roll any farther I'd be looking at my butthole from the inside.

Cleopatra

19th June 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison

I see. Only in war, but not for police, self defense, etc.?

Police needs the guns.I am not against the policemen using guns.

In this situation I do believe in punishing the gun owner. I haven't seen any laws that can prevent this very well as of yet. Luckily this is still quite rare despite the media attention it receives.

The gun owner will be punished anyway. I asked you about the moral aspect of the issue and you didn't reply. According to the example above, don't you agree that your rules affect my life?? One doesn't owe guns because he thinks that he can't take the risks and he has to pay for a mistake of somebody who took his risks.

As for the media thing, yes I agree.

Which contradicts the first statement. In real life there are violent criminals, despite our modern and advanced society. Wishing it was different doesn't change anything.

I fail to see the contradiction, I am sorry. In real life we have police force and we have courts of law. This is what distinguishes the modern societies from the primitives ones. In real life we must deal with what causes criminality and prevent ourselves from crime energetically not passively.Locking ourselves to our houses and patrolling it holding a gun it's very passive way to spend a life.

And your assertion that owning a firearm automatically assumes that I will use it to solve some nebulous "problem" is quite insulting.

Please... we were talking about children and their education here...don't twist what I said.

Real life. :rolleyes:

Rolleys? :rolleyes:?? Shall I consider this as your final answer to our discussion?

John Harrison

19th June 2003, 02:52 PM

Police needs the guns.I am not against the policemen using guns.

But you're against people protecting themselves with guns?

I asked you about the moral aspect of the issue and you didn't reply. According to the example above, don't you agree that your rules affect my life?? One doesn't owe guns because he thinks that he can't take the risks and he has to pay for a mistake of somebody who took his risks.

I don't get the moral aspect angle you keep talking about. What rules specifically? I'm afraid you're going to have to pose the question in a different way, because I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

I fail to see the contradiction, I am sorry. In real life we have police force and we have courts of law. This is what distinguishes the modern societies from the primitives ones.

In the US the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals from violent criminals. We are responsible for our immediate safety. The police can enforce the law after the fact, but not before.

In real life we must deal with what causes criminality and prevent ourselves from crime energetically not passively.

I agree, however what are we to do until then? Submit to the whims of the criminals?

Locking ourselves to our houses and patrolling it holding a gun it's very passive way to spend a life.

Of course not, that's why we have CCW laws. :p

Please... we were talking about children and their education here...don't twist what I said.

Then you should explain yourself a bit better. Case in point: That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

I don't understand this question. What is a "difficult situation"? What do you mean by "a distance"?

Globert

19th June 2003, 07:04 PM

The loss to that family is tragic.
Their tragic loss used to advance politicaly motivated agenda's priceless.

I am particularly intrigued by people who are afraid of someone else's kids killing theirs, and by those who hold gun ownership as an impediment to free speech.

First things first, fear:does any one think that fear can be abated by legislation? We all have to mitigate fear, the misconception is that all guns can be somehow rounded up and reduced to slag and everyone lives happily ever after. naive in the extreme.

I am responsible for me and mine. The police have no statutory obligation to protect me, thus I protect me and mine. My gunsafe is enough to keep out all but the determined.(my wife, who is not so second amendment as I, cannot get in. I even Double Dog Dared her to open it. not in an intimidating way either.)
While I work I do not fear for them, unprotected as they may be, for it is her wish to remain at such a level of awareness.(condition white to some)

To the fear of others that my guns pose a risk to them and theirs?
however remote this possibility is,
even a one in a million,
one in a trillion,
one in a googleplex! is too much for them to bear.
I suggest counciling for phobia, for these inanimate demons (guns) may be the end of you.

I hate to trot this out, but it's my favorite bumper sticker:
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my Gun.
:p

evildave

19th June 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Missed the point, mate. It's the principle of the thing. I'll repeat my question:

If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, an immunisable disease like chickenpox, would anyone contend that such immunisation should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have chickenpox"?

I've no doubt that preventable diseases would be dealt with summarily by medicine, even if the US constitution was an ass in this regard.

However now substitute the word "guns" for "chickenpox" and "gun-control" for "immunisation":

If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, a controllable disease like guns, would anyone contend that such gun-control should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have guns"?

So why is the response to THIS so significantly different??

The USA has all the medical facilities and resources in the world to deal with these diseases in other countries, to make a really sizeable dent in this six million deaths per year. But what does it do instead?? Marches into other countries with GUNS! Not medicine, GUNS! What does THAT say to the world???

And perhaps you might also care to have a thought for the parents and families and friends of these "few hundred American 12-year-olds who kill themselves". What about the 13-year-olds? And the 14-year-olds? And so on?? Talk about trivialising the situation! Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Zep

We could easily commit our resources to build a public transit infrastructure over the next 40 years and make motor vehicle deaths virtually unheard of.

We don't.

People like driving their own cars around, and the car companies like selling them to them. Even though it puts their own lives, those of their families and those of complete strangers at risk. Even though it gives people who are intoxicated trivial access to a 5000 pound human-body-crushing machine.

For instance, I've never seen a single person shot "for real". Ive seen dead and gravely injured people at car wrecks several times. Most recently, dead and on fire. Absolutely gruesome.

In the UK and in other countries, motor vehicles are the leading cause of injury of all kinds. Hands-down. No comparison. The number of killings with guns could never approach the number of "accidents" in cars. Never mind the pollution they cause.

Of course, in a country like the UK where people threaten to brain each other with bricks for cell phones, and everyone seems to routinely drink a LOT, I could see why you'd want to ban just about anything more aggressive than a nerf ball.

Lead by example, give up your own vehicle and take the bus to work, and MAYBE I'll consider giving up my firearms. You're far more likely to kill someone with your car than I am with my locked-up and unloaded weapons.

shanek

20th June 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Globert
First things first, fear:does any one think that fear can be abated by legislation?

Unfortunately, yes. Most every appeal for government intervention is backed up by fear. Lately it's the fear of terrorism that has allowed the government to run roughshod over our liberties, but to one extent or another pretty much all appeal for government is based on fear.

To the fear of others that my guns pose a risk to them and theirs? however remote this possibility is, even a one in a million, one in a trillion, one in a googleplex! is too much for them to bear.

This is true of everything. Witness the fact that people have had no problems getting signatures on petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide, using nothing more than the truth about the harm dihydrogen monoxide causes. (Of course, they do omit all the good dihydrogen monoxide does, as well as the fact that dihydrogen monoxide is water...but that's kind of the point.)

Cleopatra

20th June 2003, 09:43 AM

Too many questions coming from somebody who seemed to have all the answers...

Never mind. I am tireless and trained to answer to questions even to the most stupid ones.

Originally posted by John Harrison

But you're against people protecting themselves with guns?

Yes, I am against people protecting themselves with guns.

I don't get the moral aspect angle you keep talking about. What rules specifically? I'm afraid you're going to have to pose the question in a different way, because I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

Ok! Take a big breath! It will help you concentrate. One of the rules you seem to have in your everyday life is to own guns. You know about the risks of owning a gun and you have accepted them. If this rule of your - the gun onwership- affects my life in any possible way then you you will have imposed your rules upon me.

In the US the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals from violent criminals. We are responsible for our immediate safety. The police can enforce the law after the fact, but not before.

Really??? You interpretation of the Law is quite amazing.

I agree, however what are we to do until then? Submit to the whims of the criminals?

Do you know what causes criminality?
Then you should explain yourself a bit better. Case in point: That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

I don't understand this question. What is a "difficult situation"? What do you mean by "a distance"?

Ha! A good example is what this kid did. Easy to grasp it, I hope.

aggle_rithm

20th June 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Drifterman

A gun's purpose is to project power. It has no other purpose. Sometimes it is the power to inflict injury or death, sometimes it is the power to put food on the table. Nevertheless, it is all about power. And those who have spent the most time or money on firearms will always be able to project their power to a greater extent. Hence the US/UK military victory in Iraq.

I think this is the crux of the matter: The kid was being bullied. He felt utterly powerless.

A lot of people minimize this sort of thing, but picture this: You're an adult, working a job where you are harrassed and verbally abused every day. What's worse, you have to keep going back, day after day. You aren't allowed to quit.

Now imagine going through all this without the coping mechanisms available to you as an adult. The feeling of powerlessness this would cause is difficult to imagine.

Bringing a gun to school gives you power. It gets people's attention. The principal and teacher take you seriously.

Bringing a whole bunch of guns to school gives you a LOT of power.

Being willing to kill yourself gives you even more. You would have nothing to lose.

I don't think this kid had a carefully laid-out plan in mind when he did this. Twelve-year-olds are impulsive. They tend not to think more than an hour into the future. They change their minds a lot.

Once he pulled the trigger, unfortunately, there was no more opportunity to change his mind.

WMT1

20th June 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Too many questions coming from somebody who seemed to have all the answers...

Never mind. I am tireless and trained to answer to questions even to the most stupid ones.

From what I can see, the questions are considerably clearer than the answers they're evoking.

Originally posted by John Harrison
But you're against people protecting themselves with guns?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes, I am against people protecting themselves with guns.

How do you propose they protect themselves then, particularly against someone with a gun, or someone who is simply more physically powerful?

I don't get the moral aspect angle you keep talking about. What rules specifically? I'm afraid you're going to have to pose the question in a different way, because I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

Ok! Take a big breath! It will help you concentrate.

Given the confusing nature of some of your comments, a little humility might be in order here, and you might just want to consider that the communication problem is yours.

One of the rules you seem to have in your everyday life is to own guns. You know about the risks of owning a gun and you have accepted them. If this rule of your - the gun onwership- affects my life in any possible way then you you will have imposed your rules upon me.

You haven't established that it does affect your life. Sorry, but your answers are still not very clear. As I asked you yesterday, how do gun owners impose their rules on you? (Hint: Simply repeating that they do so doesn't answer this question.)

I agree, however what are we to do until then? Submit to the whims of the criminals?

Do you know what causes criminality?

If you're so good at answering questions, how about answering his first?

Then you should explain yourself a bit better. Case in point: That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

I don't understand this question. What is a "difficult situation"? What do you mean by "a distance"?

Ha! A good example is what this kid did. Easy to grasp it, I hope.

Nope. You still haven't established what the hell you mean by "from a distance". You might want to give some serious thought to re-evaluating your confidence in your ability to answer questions.

Cleopatra

20th June 2003, 11:32 AM

WMT1 why are you so agressively defensive? Relax!

I don't want to take your gun from you, I want you to persuade me to purchase one. You have failed so far to do so.

WMT1

20th June 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
WMT1 why are you so agressively defensive? Relax!

So, rather than trying to learn from criticism, you're just going to continue to try to cover for your evasiveness with condescending comments like this? If so, a "don't ask me any questions about my opinions" forum might be more suited to your approach. In this forum, such reactions only make you look silly.

I don't want to take your gun from you, I want you to persuade me to purchase one. You have failed so far to do so.

:rolleyes: And the bizarre statements continue.

Pay close attention: I have never owned a gun. Nor do I have any interest in getting you to purchase one.

Now, is there any chance you can take another shot at responding to those questions I asked, and otherwise confining your comments to things I actually said?

Cleopatra

20th June 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Pay close attention: I have never owned a gun.

Good for you!

As for the rest of your post regarding my condescending writing style and bla bla bla ,in case it upsets you so much or makes you feel uncomfortable, you can use the tiny button at the right side of your window that says i-g-n-o-r-e.

Have in mind though- when you are addressing to me- that I might accept some irony by John Harrison and others who have taken the time to compose some very interesting posts and they have an opinion instead of posing silly questions BUT this, doesn't mean that I am going to spend time with any crap that is posted here, especially with crap that is masqueraded into skepticism.

Having said that and after noticing that I have spent too much time -5 minutes-with somebody who hasn't posted an opinion in this thread... I wish you better luck with me next time.

WMT1

20th June 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As for the rest of your post regarding my condescending writing style and bla bla bla ,in case it upsets you so much or makes you feel uncomfortable,

Um ... it doesn't "upset" me or make me feel "uncomfortable". Once again, what it does it make you look ridiculous - in particular, you come across to any self-respecting skeptic as a lightweight who can't defend her views, and wants to make it appear as if her failure is someone else's problem. If anything, I should be asking you why you are so "aggressively defensive".

you can use the tiny button at the right side of your window that says i-g-n-o-r-e.

But ignoring you is not my goal. Getting you to answer questions about your statements is sort of what I'm going for. If anything, your evasiveness would suggest that you are the one who seems to be doing the ignoring.

Have in mind though- when you are addressing to me- that I might accept some irony by John Harrison and others who have taken the time to compose some very interesting posts and they have an opinion instead of posing silly questions BUT this, doesn't mean that I am going to spend time with any crap that is posted here, especially with crap that is masqueraded into skepticism.

I see, so you also think that using such terms as "silly questions" and "crap that is masqueraded into skepticism" to refer to reasonable questions about your position will help make your evasiveness appear to be something else?

Having said that and after noticing that I have spent too much time -5 minutes-with somebody who hasn't posted an opinion in this thread... I wish you better luck with me next time.

I suppose you think you have a point here, but my goal was not to express my opinion, it was to question yours. Moreover, posting an opinion is not a prerequisite to questioning someone's statements about their own, and only those whose views don't withstand much scrutiny would be likely to use that as an excuse to avoid answering those questions. Once again, if you don't realize this, you may be in the wrong forum.

John Harrison

20th June 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes, I am against people protecting themselves with guns.

But it's ok if people call someone else (the police) to protect them with guns. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Ok! Take a big breath! It will help you concentrate. One of the rules you seem to have in your everyday life is to own guns. You know about the risks of owning a gun and you have accepted them. If this rule of your - the gun onwership- affects my life in any possible way then you you will have imposed your rules upon me.

Just like owning a car, which statistically is much more likely to affect your life in a negative way.

Really??? You interpretation of the Law is quite amazing.

There's nothing amazing about it. All I had to do was read the relevant court decisions. I'm happy to give you some evidence for this:

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

"A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." -- Warren v. District of Columbia (1979)

Here are some other court cases that say the same thing:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

Do you know what causes criminality?

No, I don't. Do you? Do you believe that guns cause criminality?

DragonLady

20th June 2003, 04:26 PM

Hi everybody! :)

I'm brand-new here; I was invited this afternoon by Cleopatra. I was going to just lurk for a few days, but decided to jump into the fray on this one. I had a really long reply written, but my computer suddenly crashed and I lost it....probably just as well. :)

First, I want to offer my condolences to this boy's family. No matter what mistakes were made, no one deserves to lose their child, and certainly not in a manner that causes the eternal torment of questions about what could have been done differently.

Next, I'd like to say I was raised from the cradle with guns. My earliest memory in my life is playing with the empty box of my father's gun cleaning kit while he took care of his rifles & shotguns.

I was given my own .17 caliber pellet rifle at six years old, and I became a damn good shot with it. I "graduated" to a .22 at ten, and almost wore the thing out. I can't tell you how many boxes of ammo I went through, but it was a bunch.

But things were different in those days. My dad raised 6 children on his own by maintaining an absolute authority and a supple leather belt. That key would've been perfectly safe on the wall, because touching it would've led to a beltwhipping that would've still hurt today. But Daddy didn't even have to lock them up. Dad's guns were freely available. The shotgun hung on the wall above the door, the ammo was in the desk, the rifle was in his closet...and the ammo for it was in his nightstand.

We wouldn't have considered taking a gun to school because the punishment for taking one of them off the wall was so severe that we were afraid to even whisper the idea!

Kids today don't get that kind of self-restraint from hand-spankings and taking away the Nintendo. They don't really get a good working grasp of the pain, agony and destruction that comes out of a gun barrel. Even the ones who've been taken target shooting or skeet shooting still don't see the devastation. Firing ranges are great places, but they're too neatly sanitised to impress a young mind with the raw power & horror that comes from shooting a living being. A hole in paper target just doesn't have the same psychological effect as seeing a deer with it's entire head blown off, IMO.

And of course, just like learning the stove is hot, there's no real way of teaching it to them without a demonstration or some sort of RL experience...or waiting for that fateful day when they stick their hands in it & get burned.

They play video games & watch t.v. shows where the characters get shot by the RL equivalent of a cannon, splash blood all over the room, then get up & come back for more. Then we wonder why they have such unrealistic ideas about how the world works.

Also, I want to comment on Cleopatra's remark about the 1:1000000 chance of risk. I have four children, and I take those kinds of risks every hour of everyday. From the risk of one dying during birth or being dropped or molested or abused or run over or contracting a terrible disease....

With many of those risks, I have to trust them. I have to trust them not to drink the hydrogen peroxide, not to mess with a rattlesnake, not to get in a car with a stranger. I have to trust them not to stuff each other or the family cat into the dryer or the oven, not to brain each other with the baseball bat or drop the hairdryer into the bathtub.....hell the list goes on & on; and sometimes it makes me completely paranoid to even start thinking about it. Thankfully, right this moment I know where they all are. ;)

I believe in gun ownership...although I don't currently own one. I believe in being able to protect one's self & one's property; and I believe one should have the skills to provide for themselves when neccesary. There have been times in my life when the only food in the freezer was what someone shot; and I'm mighty thankful for it.

And I do believe responsible parents should be able own guns and teach their children to use them without suffering terrible legal consequences if the children choose to pull something stupid. The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot put our children on leashes and lead them around all day. They have to be able to make choices for themselves, and we have to trust them. There's simply no other way to do it if we want them to grow up to be independant & able to care for themselves. And that means some of them are going to fail...with terrible consequences. When it happens, punishing everyone in sight isn't going to change it, isn't going to prevent it, and isn't going to make a 'safer' world.

John Harrison

20th June 2003, 04:40 PM

Welcome! Excellent post :cool:

DragonLady

20th June 2003, 04:49 PM

Thank-you! :)

Malachi151

20th June 2003, 06:39 PM

I don't think the father was guilty of any wrong doing. If you have something in your house, kids will get it eventually somehow.

The father has had quite enough punishment as it is with his kid killing himself with his own guns I don't think he needs any more.

Guns are a problem though, because they make it too easy to cause so much harm. I doubt the kid would have killed himself w/o guns. I think he killed himself because he felt that he was in so much trouble and he wanted a way out of the mess he got into because of having guns at school.

I'm glad to see the kid went to church, maybe we can get these religus idiots to see that they really don't help anything :p

People need to start waking up to the reality that our society causes a high level of emotional stress. I'm tired of people calling psychologists a bunck of wankers, we need to be listening to these wankers and reforming our society to be more rational, secular, honest, open, and tolerant. Do that and we will reduce the violence.

Edit: Oh, and I also agree with corporal punishment too, I see no problem with spanking, in fact I think its better. I think that appropriate physical punishment is more healthy than some other forms of punishment, like taking away privliges and such.

And I also agree with taking kids hunting, and I even think all kids should have to go to slaughter houses and possibly also raise animals at school and buthcer them. I agree that you gain more respect and understanding for life that way, though obviously this kid did hunt.

shanek

21st June 2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by John Harrison
Welcome! Excellent post :cool:

I'll second that!

John Harrison

21st June 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
People need to start waking up to the reality that our society causes a high level of emotional stress. I'm tired of people calling psychologists a bunck of wankers, we need to be listening to these wankers and reforming our society to be more rational, secular, honest, open, and tolerant. Do that and we will reduce the violence.

This is a good point, because I believe that social factors affect suicide rates, not the availability of firearms. For example: Japan - Almost zero guns and a higher suicide rate than the US.

Cleopatra

21st June 2003, 08:30 AM

Dragon Lady! Welcome to the forum and to our favourite disagreement :D

Now tell me. If "your" child takes your gun and kills "mine" while playing, will it be because you trusted it, you didn't trained it or you didn't beat it enough while growing up? Tell me,should I care on what you did wrong or what you could have done better? For me there was only one simple option for you: Not to own a gun.

And what if I didn't own a gun exactly because I wanted to eliminate that risk, would you come and tell me not to feel devastated because in your freezer you have something that somebody shot and you feel grateful about it?

In that hypothetical case do you expect me to say : " Ok! It's ok he could have been killed by a car or in a fire" BTW who you think that must pay for the accident ? The kid who used the parent's gun, the parent or both? I think that the gun owner is the only responsible and he must be procecuted.

What distinguishes a car accident or other similar domestic accidents by a gun accident is that the later can be avoided.Cars are essential to our modern way of living, guns are not because otherwise everybody would own a gun but we don't. I repeat. Guns are not essential to our lives because if they were, everybody would own one.

John I will come back to you later and no, this is not a threat :D

Malachi151

21st June 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by John Harrison

This is a good point, because I believe that social factors affect suicide rates, not the availability of firearms. For example: Japan - Almost zero guns and a higher suicide rate than the US.

I got to thinking about this and I think that some of the problems are caused by psychologists too :p

What its often a case of is "pop-psychology" though. Dr. Spock, Dr. Phil, etc.

Psychology and sociology can offer quite a bit of insite and help, the problem is that most people won't accept the fundaments of these sciences, and applying pop science is no substitute for real science.

Cleopatra

21st June 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by John Harrison
But it's ok if people call someone else (the police) to protect them with guns. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Come on John. Since antiquity-I know for sure about Classical Athens-organized societies had special forces to protect what always have been sacred: Life and property.

What do you suggest? To dissolve the police force?

Just like owning a car, which statistically is much more likely to affect your life in a negative way.

I think I have answered that to Dragon Lady. You can live without guns it's more difficult to live without cars in a modern society, of course you can live without a car too but I am sure that Dragon Lady owns a car to drive her kids at school and she runs a normal life without a gun.

There's nothing amazing about it. All I had to do was read the relevant court decisions. I'm happy to give you some evidence for this:

The court cases you provided were about negligence or inadequate exercice of police duties and they do not debunk my arguments. This is common in every country in the world.The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.

No, I don't. Do you? Do you believe that guns cause criminality?

No, I do not believe that gun ownership causes criminality. Criminality is caused primarly by bad economical conditions. I think that I have provided in another thread some data about criminality rates and economical-social conditions.

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

Globert

21st June 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The court cases you provided were about negligence or inadequate exercice of police duties and they do not debunk my arguments. This is common in every country in the world.The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.

No, I do not believe that gun ownership causes criminality. Criminality is caused primarly by bad economical conditions. I think that I have provided in another thread some data about criminality rates and economical-social conditions.

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.
Precisely why they have no statutory obligation to your individual life.
Are you suggesting that presented with a lethal threat I must lean in and take the pitch for your pollyanna society with my life?

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."--JFK
I would rather be alive to vote, personaly and by that mechanism influence society rather than through eulogy.

DragonLady

21st June 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Dragon Lady! Welcome to the forum and to our favourite disagreement :D

Thank-you! I appreciate your inviting me here. I spent almost my whole day yesterday reading threads & trying to get to know everybody. I think this is a great forum; and seems to have a little bit of something for everybody. :)

Now tell me. If "your" child takes your gun and kills "mine" while playing, will it be because you trusted it, you didn't trained it or you didn't beat it enough while growing up? Tell me,should I care on what you did wrong or what you could have done better? For me there was only one simple option for you: Not to own a gun.

Well, ....I don't "beat" my children. The worst punishment I've ever given any of them is a spanking; and that for only the most serious & aggravated misbehaviors.

But as to the intent of your question, probably a bit of all three; but in the end the child has to bear the final responsibility. We parents simply are not Gods...we can tell them the rules, enforce the rules whenever they're broken, and hold them responsible for their actions after the fact. But only in the most simple situations can we actually prevent their mistakes. Once they get beyond the age of three or four, they are beyond our constant, continual supervision & that's when the 'fun' really begins. The best thing we can do is make the punishments for serious transgressions so stiff that the children never want to repeat them. Some things have their own integral 'punishments' -such as getting burned while playing with fire, or breaking a leg falling off the roof; but in other cases a parent has to find a consequence that fits the 'crime'...and be firm about it.

And what if I didn't own a gun exactly because I wanted to eliminate that risk, would you come and tell me not to feel devastated because in your freezer you have something that somebody shot and you feel grateful about it?

I hope you didn't mean this question in the flippant manner it sounds? It sounds as if you're implying that I would think some food would be more important to me then your child's safety or well-being? :( I'll hold off comment here, because I don't quite understand what's meant.

In that hypothetical case do you expect me to say : " Ok! It's ok he could have been killed by a car or in a fire" BTW who you think that must pay for the accident ? The kid who used the parent's gun, the parent or both? I think that the gun owner is the only responsible and he must be procecuted.

I suppose it depends. Is the child old enough to understand what has happened? Did the parent teach the child about guns and the terrible consequences they bring? Did the parent in any way encourage the child to use his friends or other people for target practise? Did the parent make sure the children knew that guns were only to be handled during certain circumstances & otherwise not to be touched? Did the parent make sure the guns were stored unloaded, safety on, etc so that sheer accidents would be unlikely? Or better, locked in a cabinet?

If so, then the onus has to remain on the child. That might be hard to swallow (and believe me, as a parent it is), but in the end the kid has to take responsibility. If he or she knew s/he was breaking the rules & doing something wrong, then how on earth can you hold a parent responsible?

What distinguishes a car accident or other similar domestic accidents by a gun accident is that the later can be avoided.

How so? Do you think the thousands of people who are injured or die by vehicle every year wanted it to happen? How about the pedestrians who are accidentally killed because a driver didn't see them? The people killed in rear-end collisions because another driver's brakes failed or couldn't stop in time? The children killed while chasing a ball or a puppy into the street? The accidents caused by ice or snow or oil or a thousand other obstacles that suddenly appear in the road?

Sorry...but all car accidents are not created equal, and while some are avoidable...many are not.

Cars are essential to our modern way of living, guns are not because otherwise everybody would own a gun but we don't. I repeat. Guns are not essential to our lives because if they were, everybody would own one.

Hmmm...without guns (and other weapons), our 'modern way of living' wouldn't exist. And not just because the political map would be unrecognizable. The ability to hunt efficiently for food alone freed up our ancestor's time enough to allow them to build decent shelters, plant crops, educate their children and consider other ways to make life easier. The ability to protect ourselves from bandits & predators allowed more travel into unknown regions, colonization of formerly hostile territory & promoted a general sense of well-being that allowed communities to establish order and the citizens to prosper in relative safety....

Starting with the blunderbuss (sp?), guns have been perceived as an absolute neccesity from the day they were invented....and today the combined firepower held by the world's militaries and police organisations from gunpowder weapons alone staggers my little imagination. ;)

Also, I should say I know a lot of people who don't own a car. I also know a lot of people who don't own guns...and a lot of people who don't own either one. So I can't really claim either one is a "neccesity" in our modern lives.

Edited to clarify facts ...:o

John Harrison

21st June 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Come on John. Since antiquity-I know for sure about Classical Athens-organized societies had special forces to protect what always have been sacred: Life and property.

What do you suggest? To dissolve the police force?

No. I just find it amusing that some people think that it is wrong for me to use a gun to protect my life, but it is ok for me to call someone else to do the same thing.

I think I have answered that to Dragon Lady. You can live without guns it's more difficult to live without cars in a modern society, of course you can live without a car too but I am sure that Dragon Lady owns a car to drive her kids at school and she runs a normal life without a gun.

Firearms have proven to be very essential for self defense for people living in areas with high rates of violent crime.

The court cases you provided were about negligence or inadequate exercice of police duties and they do not debunk my arguments. This is common in every country in the world.The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.

The "public at large" are not individual citizens. What part of this do you not understand?

No, I do not believe that gun ownership causes criminality. Criminality is caused primarly by bad economical conditions. I think that I have provided in another thread some data about criminality rates and economical-social conditions.

I'm with you on this.

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

What do you mean by "take care of things"? I'm sorry but I need you to be specific, since this statement could be interpreted to mean many things.

DragonLady

21st June 2003, 04:13 PM

I'm sorry, Cleopatra! I see I misunderstood your statement:

What distinguishes a car accident or other similar domestic accidents by a gun accident is that the later can be avoided.

You're saying that a car accident is less avoidable than a gun accident; but I answered as if you meant they were about the same....I hope. Or are you saying car accidents are entirely unavoidable???

I believe both are usually avoidable, but there are so many more variables to consider with cars...including factors that simply cannot be prevented. Cars require so much more maintenance, require split-second decisions at every second they're in motion, have been known 'to jump gears' and begin rolling away all on their own....and yet we hand the keys to every sixteen-year-old in the country with no more admonishment than "Be careful, Honey, and watch the speed limit".

With guns, even the person with only the most basic training* should be able to safely handle one. While they require skill & fast reflexes to hit a moving target, they don't require them to be safely handled, loaded, used on a stationary target or brandished as a deterrent in a dangerous situation. Instead of outright shooting an attacker, a person can usually safely use a gun as a club. They come equipped with 'safety' switches that prevent them from accidentally firing, and there are all kinds of other locking devices that can be used when one is not in use.

I have to say the car is the more dangerous object to have lying around the garage!

*By "basic training" I mean those cardinal rules that should be taught in relation to all guns or even toy guns or gun-shaped facsimilies.

John Harrison

21st June 2003, 05:02 PM

I think she feels that no one needs to own a firearm, therefore there should be no firearm accidents.

Zep

21st June 2003, 05:35 PM

evildave: Lead by example, give up your own vehicle and take the bus to work, and MAYBE I'll consider giving up my firearms. You're far more likely to kill someone with your car than I am with my locked-up and unloaded weapons.
Sure! I agree. Motor vehicles DO kill many people in this world. Although there are millions of people who drive safely all their lives, there are still some people who should not be behind the wheel at all ... ever. They are a menace to life and limb in a car. I have said for years that all drivers, not just the cars, should be tested regularly to see if they are still "roadworthy". A driving license is not a right, it's a priviledge. Surely the same can be said for guns???

And I have never said that guns should be removed from a society. Not only is that not practical, it's not sensible. Nor do I think the armed forces should be reduced or "armed only with broomsticks" or some such nonsense. Certain guns are a useful practical tool in some situations, and a worthy recreational sport for others. So don't put words in my mouth.

I'm very glad to see that you lock up your weapons and ammo properly. Would also that this was the law, not just a good idea of yours. But that would entail "gun control", something that seems to be an anathema to many US gun owners. Seems like they DON'T like your good idea!

Have you seen "Bowling For Columbine" at all?

Zep

DragonLady

21st June 2003, 05:57 PM

Another point about guns vs cars IMO, is that there are a lot of ancient cars on the road.

People generally drive 10, 000 - 15, 000 miles every year just running back and forth to work and doing daily chores. An older vehicle -say 10 years old- can generally be expected to function properly if it's had regular maintenance and upkeep.

But most gun enthusiasts would be very hesitant about firing a weapon that old unless they knew it had been carefully stored & kept in near-perfect condition. The possibilities of misfires from faulty firing pins, rusted barrels, bad trigger mechanisms etc. would scare off most.

Although I don't have any facts or numbers, I believe a lot of gun accidents every year are caused by old weapons that should've been permanently dismantled.

For instance, newer revolvers have a gap between the hammer and the firing pin preventing the weapon from discharging if they're dropped or struck.

shanek

21st June 2003, 06:09 PM

shanek

21st June 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

Um...haven't you ever heard of the concept of "citizen's arrest," a long and cherished part of British Common Law, and by extension, America's and most of the industrial world?

John Harrison

22nd June 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Zep
A driving license is not a right, it's a priviledge. Surely the same can be said for guns???

Two points about this:1) No, the same cannot be said for guns, what with the US Constitution and all. 2) The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership. This doesn't happen with drivers licenses, so you can't really compare the two.

Have you seen "Bowling For Columbine" at all?

What does this have to do with the discussion? Is there something specific that you think applies here?

shanek

22nd June 2003, 02:41 PM

John Harrison

22nd June 2003, 03:31 PM

Argh! I missed a good one. Thanks! :o

Zep

22nd June 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison

Two points about this:1) No, the same cannot be said for guns, what with the US Constitution and all. 2) The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership. This doesn't happen with drivers licenses, so you can't really compare the two.

What does this have to do with the discussion? Is there something specific that you think applies here?

1. "...the right to bear arms is not infringed." Umm, where does it say there that it must be "without any control"? It simply "allows" the right to bear arms.

2. License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

3. Oh yes it DOES happen with drivers' licenses! You screw up bad enough and often enough on the road and "the government" will take it off you, no worries! Unless they give drivers' licenses out in cornflakes boxes in your state? Or issue you one on your 17th birthday as a present?

Zep

Zep

22nd June 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by shanek

One more point: You don't need a license of any kind to own or operate a vehicle on private property. Only if you want to drive it on government roads. That's a big difference, in and of itself. These gun licenses would affect your right to keep a gun on your own property.
Where did I say that you couldn't/shouldn't have guns on your own property, licensed or otherwise?! An irrelevant argument, and you are putting words in my mouth, Shanek.

Zep

DragonLady

22nd June 2003, 04:21 PM

License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

I disagree. Especially in the case of poor people who purchase/keep guns for the primary purpose of providing food for themselves & their families. If they can't afford the license fees, they can't afford the guns. If they can't afford food either, then you're forcing them onto public assistance.

Oh...I forgot. We took that away too. :rolleyes:

Where did I say that you couldn't/shouldn't have guns on your own property, licensed or otherwise?! An irrelevant argument....

But the licenses have to be purchased before or with the guns. Where the guns are kept afterward is irrelevant.

John Harrison

22nd June 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Zep
[quote]1. "...the right to bear arms is not infringed." Umm, where does it say there that it must be "without any control"? It simply "allows" the right to bear arms.

It was more of a comment on right/priviledge, not on levels of control.

2. License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

I suppose that technically, it isn't banning guns, as long as you choose to not live in those areas any more. I like how you dilute it down to just fees=ban and then call me paranoid. Is it paranoid if it has actually happened?

3. Oh yes it DOES happen with drivers' licenses! You screw up bad enough and often enough on the road and "the government" will take it off you, no worries! Unless they give drivers' licenses out in cornflakes boxes in your state? Or issue you one on your 17th birthday as a present?

I wasn't talking about screwing up, was I? It's like going to renew your drivers license and it suddenly costs $250 and you have to apply 4 or 5 times because somehow your application keeps disappearing during the process, then the DMV must decide if you have a good enough reason to need a license.

shanek

22nd June 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Zep
1. "...the right to bear arms is not infringed." Umm, where does it say there that it must be "without any control"? It simply "allows" the right to bear arms.

The mere fact that the Constitution does not mention a control means that the government does not have the power to implement such a control.

2. License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

Let's try this another way:

2. Income Tax => Payroll tax. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your hard-earned money away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

That was the same basic argument made in 1913 about the Income Tax amendment. Everyone said it was absurd, and Congress promised that the Income Tax would "not touch one hair of a working man's head."

Government intrusions never stay put.

shanek

22nd June 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Where did I say that you couldn't/shouldn't have guns on your own property, licensed or otherwise?! An irrelevant argument, and you are putting words in my mouth, Shanek.

I put words in no one's mouth. I merely illustrated one more difference between a driver's license and a gun license that John missed.

a_unique_person

22nd June 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I put words in no one's mouth. I merely illustrated one more difference between a driver's license and a gun license that John missed.

It's still a pretty irrelevant point. You also don't need to check the tyre pressure on a gun.

shanek

22nd June 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's still a pretty irrelevant point. You also don't need to check the tyre pressure on a gun.

What the heck does tire pressure have to do with getting a driver's license???

It's not at all irrelevant. The government can justify a driver's license on the roads because it owns the roads. It can't force you to license your cars on your own private property. Likewise,the government could (and does) restrict the carrying of firearms in its buildings, but it shouldn't have anything to say about people carryng guns on private property.

a_unique_person

22nd June 2003, 06:20 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/22/1056220477206.html

boy shoots his father after argument about doing his chores.

Boy, 11, shoots his policeman father
June 23 2003

A boy, 11, was arrested yesterday after he fired five shots at his father after an argument about chores, hitting him once in the chest, police said.

The bullet that struck Steve Worley failed to break the skin and may have been faulty, said Fountain Police Chief John Morse. Mr Worley, a police officer in nearby Colorado Springs, was treated in hospital and released.

DragonLady

22nd June 2003, 06:33 PM

What in the world were the kid's chores? :eek:

Sorry, but this makes me really wonder what the kid was expected to do that he was willing to shoot his father. I've heard enough sick stories in my life to give him the benefit of a doubt.

Zep

22nd June 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady
I disagree. Especially in the case of poor people who purchase/keep guns for the primary purpose of providing food for themselves & their families. If they can't afford the license fees, they can't afford the guns. If they can't afford food either, then you're forcing them onto public assistance
I thought Davey Crocket died some time back...

The vast majority of (dare I say all?) modern gun owners need hunt no further than the local supermarket or corner store to "provide food for themselves & their families" these days. Unless you mean that they regularly need to use guns to do this too, as in a stick-up? I'd call that fairly illegal not to say dangerous, wouldn't you?

Zep

Zep

22nd June 2003, 08:29 PM

John Harrison: I like how you dilute it down to just fees=ban and then call me paranoid. Is it paranoid if it has actually happened?

OK, then who wrote this?

The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership.

Zep

DragonLady

22nd June 2003, 09:46 PM

The vast majority of (dare I say all?) modern gun owners need hunt no further than the local supermarket or corner store to "provide food for themselves & their families" these days. Unless you mean that they regularly need to use guns to do this too, as in a stick-up? I'd call that fairly illegal not to say dangerous, wouldn't you?

You must live in a mighty small corner of this big nation of ours! :p

I know that for most urban/suburban people it's easy to forget that there are places all over the country where people do not simply hop in the car & drive a couple of blocks to a "local supermarket". I, for one live almost 30 miles from one. My immediate neighbors grow much of their own food; they raise chickens & rabbits, have a beautiful garden, and probably hunt, too (although I've never asked). My father lives in an area even more remote; where people regularly get together to butcher the cattle and/or hogs they've raised. Many of the people in his area don't even have electricity and have to haul their own water in. And for them, hunting isn't a recreation or a hobby, it's 'shopping for dinner'.

Haul out a map and look at some of the huge, remote expanses of wildnerness and "undeveloped land" in the US, and consider that there are people living on most of it. They live in recreational vehicles, they live in homesteading cabins, they live in dugouts and shacks, and beautiful homes...but live there they do.

Some of them are 'survivalists' and pride themselves on being independant and able to take care of themselves without the modern social structure they have no faith in or simply find abhorrent. Some are simply exclusionists or 'hermits', and just want to be alone. And many are deeply religious -often of unusual or 'alternate' faiths- and find peace and solace in the wilderness. There are those who simply like the beatiful views, the fresh air, and time to pursue hobbies and interests that don't come out of a plastic bag at Wal~Mart.

But what most of them have not done is mastered the art of throwing a boomerang, using a spear, or preparing their dinners by chasing it off a cliff to die in little pieces at the bottom. Nope. They use guns.

a_unique_person

22nd June 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by DragonLady

But what most of them have not done is mastered the art of throwing a boomerang, using a spear, or preparing their dinners by chasing it off a cliff to die in little pieces at the bottom. Nope. They use guns.

hunting as a means of providing for anything more than a token part of the population would not be sustainable.

John Harrison

23rd June 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Zep

OK, then who wrote this?
Zep

I did. It has happened in places like Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington DC...

Zep

23rd June 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison
I did. It has happened in places like Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington DC...
So you are saying...what? Some places in the USA are harder to get gun licenses than others due to cost? Gee, with the propensity for gun ownership, maybe the state governments saw another means of income to afford their state-provided facilities besides direct taxation. "User-pays"???

Zep

Zep

23rd June 2003, 08:44 PM

DragonLady: You must live in a mighty small corner of this big nation of ours!
:D Sure! :D
DragonLady: Haul out a map and look at some of the huge, remote expanses of wildnerness and "undeveloped land" in the US, and consider that there are people living on most of it.
How many? US population is, what, 250 million? Let's be generous and say 250,000 such folks country-wide. OK, that's 0.1% of the population. So that means EVERYONE should have guns on that basis?
DragonLady: But what most of them have not done is mastered the art of throwing a boomerang, using a spear, or preparing their dinners by chasing it off a cliff to die in little pieces at the bottom. Nope. They use guns.
You haven't read my posts at all, have you. Quote from me: Certain guns are a useful practical tool in some situations, and a worthy recreational sport for others.

So where does the other 99.9% of the US need guns at home for? Like I said, they don't need to hunt through Wal-Mart... Then again, that COULD be a good attraction for the shoppers - "Bag Your Own Dinner ... With A 12-Gauge!" :D

Zep

DragonLady

23rd June 2003, 11:50 PM

You haven't read my posts at all, have you. Quote from me: Certain guns are a useful practical tool in some situations, and a worthy recreational sport for others.

I confess. I've read every post in this topic; but I'm new here and still haven't sorted out all the various posters and their positions. I'll try to re-read everything sometime tomorrow, and try to make sure I've sorted everybody out according to position & points made. Also, I see now you are in Australia. I should've checked before I posted. :o

How many? US population is, what, 250 million? Let's be generous and say 250,000 such folks country-wide. OK, that's 0.1% of the population. So that means EVERYONE should have guns on that basis?

Huh? The point being debated was gun licensing fees. I pointed out that some people use guns to hunt for food they couldn't afford to buy...and you made the remark about supermarkets and stick-ups. I never said everyone should have guns.

So where does the other 99.9% of the US need guns at home for?

What happened to "worthy recreational sport"? And what about self-defense? I do believe that 100 percent of the US deserves to be able to defend themselves by some means -be it guns, the martial arts, trained dogs or whatever.

If they were, we wouldn't need so many police officers...who in turn wouldn't need to be paid...thereby eliminating the need for the extra revenue to cover the costs of other state-provided facilities.

John Harrison

24th June 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Zep

So you are saying...what? Some places in the USA are harder to get gun licenses than others due to cost? Gee, with the propensity for gun ownership, maybe the state governments saw another means of income to afford their state-provided facilities besides direct taxation. "User-pays"???

Zep

Cost is only part of it, and you're ignoring the rest(see below, they involve one or a combination of the following). Are you even reading my posts?

Cost, such as NYC $350 up front non-refundable application fee, although it doesn't really matter since they only really issue them to celebrities and politicians.
Discretionary license (NY, MA, CA, etc)- You can be denied for any reason even if you pass all background checks and can afford the fees.
Registration - Pass a law that all guns must be registered, then stop registering any guns (Chicago). Neat.

shanek

25th June 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Zep
So where does the other 99.9% of the US need guns at home for?

I just have to repost the quote that used to be in my sig:

"The Right to Bear Arms is not the Right to Hunt Deer. Our Founding Fathers were not worried about having the right to hunt taken away from them. The right to bear arms is the right to arm one's population in case an unjust government needs overthrowing. Right now, the right to bear arms is the only form of term limitations we have in the Constitution. That's why we need Uzis." —Tim Slagle

John Harrison

25th June 2003, 08:05 PM

That's a good one, although it seems that this thread has bit the dust.

Cleopatra

28th June 2003, 12:36 PM

Sorry everybody, I apologize for my late response but this thread needs thinking and time :)

Originally posted by DragonLady

But as to the intent of your question, probably a bit of all three; but in the end the child has to bear the final responsibility. We parents simply are not Gods...we can tell them the rules, enforce the rules whenever they're broken, and hold them responsible for their actions after the fact.[...]

[...]
If so, then the onus has to remain on the child. That might be hard to swallow (and believe me, as a parent it is), but in the end the kid has to take responsibility. If he or she knew s/he was breaking the rules & doing something wrong, then how on earth can you hold a parent responsible?

So, let me see if I got this right. YOU decide to own a gun and you think that your child is to pay for the rest of its life the consequencies of your decision? Interesting!

I hope you didn't mean this question in the flippant manner it sounds? It sounds as if you're implying that I would think some food would be more important to me then your child's safety or well-being? :( I'll hold off comment here, because I don't quite understand what's meant.

Frankly, if you didn't make the connection between the meat in your freezer and the victims of gun onwership, I wouldn't even think to post this but this is another thing that I find interesting in your logic. You don't hesitate to make any possible comparison in order to support your opinion about gun ownership. Maybe I must reconsider mine...it seems that guns are uber alles...

Hmmm...without guns (and other weapons), our 'modern way of living' wouldn't exist.

Now we are talking Dragon Lady , now we are talking. This is where my disagreement lays. Exactly. You are right! At the beginning we needed guns... and we used guns and we got involved in wars just because we visioned societies where guns wouldn't be necessary... We created Constitutions in order not to need guns... Don't tell me about the American Constitution that it allows arms. I know that you have the right to own arms. I wonder though why don't you use nucler arms to protect yourselves... they are legal and they are more effective, you know.

So I can't really claim either one is a "neccesity" in our modern lives.

In a world that there is a need for guns still, cars are not necessary, your are right... we should have the horse carriages your ancestors used in the Wild West...

DragonLady

28th June 2003, 05:25 PM

So, let me see if I got this right. YOU decide to own a gun and you think that your child is to pay for the rest of its life the consequencies of your decision? Interesting!

If I lived near a railroad track, and one of kids got hit by the train would it be my fault? Assuming I had done my part -taught them what happens to things that are hit, taught them the boundaries of where they were safe, and showed them that I would punish them everytime they got on the tracks or too near them is it my fault because I bought the house?

If one of them steals my car keys & goes for a joy ride that ends in a crash that permanently disables him/her, is it my fault? Once again, assuming I had done my part, and made it absolutely clear they are not allowed to drive?

If one of them decides to drink paint thinner, stick pins in the electrical sockets or do some equally stupid thing is that my fault?
Once again, assuming the child is old enough to know better, and that I've done my part to teach him or her not to?

If these things are in fact my fault, then I agree an accident with a gun would be, too. But if you would not prosecute me for buying the house, the car, the paint thinner or having electricity, then why would you do so because I owned a gun?

Frankly, if you didn't make the connection between the meat in your freezer and the victims of gun onwership, I wouldn't even think to post this but this is another thing that I find interesting in your logic. You don't hesitate to make any possible comparison in order to support your opinion about gun ownership.

Your original comment was:

Now tell me. If "your" child takes your gun and kills "mine" while playing, will it be because you trusted it, you didn't trained it or you didn't beat it enough while growing up? Tell me,should I care on what you did wrong or what you could have done better? For me there was only one simple option for you: Not to own a gun.

And what if I didn't own a gun exactly because I wanted to eliminate that risk, would you come and tell me not to feel devastated because in your freezer you have something that somebody shot and you feel grateful about it?

And I'm still not quite understanding exactly what you're asking, but I'll take a stab in the dark here.

First, if the circumstances were such that I depended on a gun for food, then certainly I would take that risk. The certainty of being hungry would outweigh the possiblity of a child -any child- being hurt.

**As far as food in my freezer = gun victims, I think that's an "animal rights" issue...and we can debate that anytime you'd like, but I don't think this thread is the place. Suffice to say I don't think animals are "victims" just because someone shoots them for dinner. I'd prefer using a gun & making it quick then trying to kill something by pelting it with rocks or driving it off a cliff. **

So far as my child killing yours...that could happen a thousand different ways, and none of them are good. If your child is electrocuted at my house, is it my fault? If your child drinks my child's drano-and-orange juice recipe is it my fault? If your child falls off my roof am I to blame for owning a ladder or not cutting down the tree or failing to pad the ground?

Or, turn that around. What if your kid is playing with my gun & shoots my kid? Is it your fault? After all, I could argue that your child's ignorence of gun safety caused the problem!

Now we are talking Dragon Lady , now we are talking. This is where my disagreement lays. Exactly. You are right! At the beginning we needed guns... and we used guns and we got involved in wars just because we visioned societies where guns wouldn't be necessary... We created Constitutions in order not to need guns... Don't tell me about the American Constitution that it allows arms. I know that you have the right to own arms. I wonder though why don't you use nucler arms to protect yourselves... they are legal and they are more effective, you know.

Okay...one at a time here.

"At the beginning we needed guns"

We still do. As much as I'd like to pretend we live in a peaceful & civilised society, the truth is we do not. People are still murdered every single day, and guns are the only really valid means of self defense that we have. Certainly some people are skilled enough with other weapons, and a few people have trained themselves to be a weapon, but for 90% of the population guns are the best choice.

Depending on the police to protect us doesn't work. It's already been pointed out that it's not their jobs to come running every time a citizen screams. But even when they do, they usually don't show up until the problem is over, they hand out "restraining orders" and tell us to call them back if we're in danger again.

Do you know the statistics for the number of people who are murdered & have restraining orders in their wallets or purses? Those little pieces of paper may look reassuring, but they do nothing to stop knives or bullets or poison. Yet many people who get them honestly believe that they're some kind of invisible shield against future problems -and take no other steps to make sure they have a future. For that, you can thank anti-gun activists who want you to believe the "police will take care of everything".

And...while I'm on the subject you may take comfort in the idea that if you're lying in a drawer at the morgue your friendly neighborhood police officers will be pursuing "justice" -and they may even get it. But that's not going to bring you back. I personally would rather go out in a firestorm that lights up the night than to lie down & allow some two-bit loser to take away what time I have on Earth. But that's just me.

And we've already covered the fact that some people still depend on guns for food.

"and we used guns and we got involved in wars just because we visioned societies where guns wouldn't be necessary... We created Constitutions in order not to need guns... "

I'm not so sure about that. I would love to live in a society where guns weren't neccesary; but the only way I see that happening is by losing the fundemental rights and freedoms that we have. In too many cases the only way to keep the peace is by shutting up while the herd rides over you or someone else -and I find that unacceptable. So, we have the next best thing...we have the freedom to disagree with anyone or anything, and the freedom to defend ourselves if someone decides our disagreeing is unacceptable. I'm unwilling to give up my rights and freedoms for "peace"; real or illusory.

"I wonder though why don't you use nucler arms to protect yourselves... they are legal and they are more effective"

:confused:

I assume you're being facetious here.