Shootings......WTF?

[H.P. Pufncraft]

Great posts, Jack.

You pretty much sum up most of my views on this issue.

[Willowfang]

Originally Posted by Jack the Pin

Willow, a gun is not a tool. You can't build a house with it or plow a field with it. Maybe it's a tool against oppression or even a tool for justice and keeping the peace (although I'm dubious of that sort of rhetoric). The inception, design, manufacture and use of guns has only one object: to transform living animate creatures into inanimate dead ones. That is a gun's sole function and sole purpose--period.

To employ the old rhetorical chestnut about guns not killing people....etc is to ignore the problem of a steady escalation of mass killings in this country that are directly attributable to guns. The perpetrators of these killings used guns. There is not one single exception to this equation. Rather than upholding the sanctity of the gun --which is a myth--and concentrating on the oblique casues of mass killings such as mental illness, social maladjustment, violent entertainment and media, or lack of faith, morals and ethics etc, why not just admit that the problem stems from a needless proliferation of guns in our society and easy access to them. i'm not saying guns should be abolished (although much like the gallows and the Auto de Fey it's becoming harder and to justify their existence in civil society), what I'm suggesting is that the right to bear arms should become a privilege to bear arms--that a person who wants to own guns should have to prove his mettle in terms of his fitness for ownership, and that this privilege be HIGHLY restricted and enforced to the letter.

Jack, you're horribly horribly wrong. Surely you've noticed what idiots proponents of gun control and bans get treated like. Removing a gun from the equation wouldn't have made Adam Lanza any more sane, an upstanding citizen, a productive member of society, kinder to his fellow man, or more sympathetic for the plight of others. Or to even reverse that, would putting the gun into the hand of 10,000 sane people turn any of them in to mass murders who suddenly go on shooting sprees?

If he wants to kill, he'll grab the closest, easiest to use, most Convenient tool. until proponents of gun control understand guns are just a tool, no matter how few uses it has, they'll always look like idiots. Even C4 have been used to cook rations, just don't stomp out the flames

You can't instill moral and ethical principles on sociopaths. You'd have more success trying to teach blind people about the virtues of Expressionist art.

Actually you can.

Morals and ethics may not come easy to sociopaths, but they still learn "If A then B". How many times have we heard of the killer next door "he was such a nice quite young man"?

And really, you can't teach a blind person, how you can use a collection of images to express a more singular concept? They may not be able to SEE it, but that doesn't mean they can't understand it.

Now I've used the word "idiot" a few times here, and I apologize, I don't mean to call you stupid or imply that you are of lower intelligence in any way, I and many of use know you are quite smart. The issue here is one of perspective. Does the problem lie in the gun or the person? Taking away the gun does change things, but it won't change the person. Might taking away the gun prevent some incidents altogether? Sure, but you're not changing the person that wishes to lash out in some way. If we start at first grade or otherwise deal with this at an early age, adding in 12+ years of ethics and morality, then you can prevent (some) people from lashing out at the world around then instead of just seeking out a different tool.

Any hardware store is full of deadly tools, and if guns are unavailable, it's just a matter of time till a person goes on his killing spree in a hardware or other store by picking his tool of choice right off a shelf.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

Jack, you're horribly horribly wrong. Surely you've noticed what idiots proponents of gun control and bans get treated like. Removing a gun from the equation wouldn't have made Adam Lanza any more sane, an upstanding citizen, a productive member of society, kinder to his fellow man, or more sympathetic for the plight of others. Or to even reverse that, would putting the gun into the hand of 10,000 sane people turn any of them in to mass murders who suddenly go on shooting sprees?

If he wants to kill, he'll grab the closest, easiest to use, most Convenient tool. until proponents of gun control understand guns are just a tool, no matter how few uses it has, they'll always look like idiots. Even C4 have been used to cook rations, just don't stomp out the flames



Actually you can.

Morals and ethics may not come easy to sociopaths, but they still learn "If A then B". How many times have we heard of the killer next door "he was such a nice quite young man"?

And really, you can't teach a blind person, how you can use a collection of images to express a more singular concept? They may not be able to SEE it, but that doesn't mean they can't understand it.

Now I've used the word "idiot" a few times here, and I apologize, I don't mean to call you stupid or imply that you are of lower intelligence in any way, I and many of use know you are quite smart. The issue here is one of perspective. Does the problem lie in the gun or the person? Taking away the gun does change things, but it won't change the person. Might taking away the gun prevent some incidents altogether? Sure, but you're not changing the person that wishes to lash out in some way. If we start at first grade or otherwise deal with this at an early age, adding in 12+ years of ethics and morality, then you can prevent (some) people from lashing out at the world around then instead of just seeking out a different tool.

Any hardware store is full of deadly tools, and if guns are unavailable, it's just a matter of time till a person goes on his killing spree in a hardware or other store by picking his tool of choice right off a shelf.

Take the easy access away, and psycho boy has a harder time fulfilling his demented fantasies. Let's not pretend that this guy walked into the classroom with a simple hangun. He had weapons that no citizen should have access to. IE, an assault rifle. What good, goddamn reason does a citizen need an assault rifle for? There is no tool in a hardware store capable of the instant mass murder an assault rifle is. The best nailgun in the world isn't going to match the destructive capabilities of an M16. Nothing in a hardware store, is going to match the convenience of "point and shoot at stuff you want to die".

Also, like Jack said, a gun is not a "tool" . It has one purpose. Killing things. Yes, a hammer can kill as well, but that isn't it's primary function.

[Freddy_Lives]

100% with Willowfang here!

If guns were banned people who go off the deep end would make their own means of destruction with home made bombs the ideas are LIMITLESS especially when you have the internet.

You have a bigger chance of dying in a hospital for a check up than getting killed by some gun nut so should we ban Doctors ?

Also America isn't even the worse for this! In some countries they still have STRICT gun laws but it's not working because guns are not the problem.

DOCTOR ERROR ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

According to ATF reports, in 2010 there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95 percent) for the U.S. market. An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United States.

Right now if you don’t have a criminal record and you have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, you can buy guns. In 2010 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran 16,454,951 background checks for firearms purchases. Only a small number of these purchases (78,211 or 0.48 percent) were denied.

Since 1998 there have been more than 151 million NICS checks. Each check doesn’t necessarily represent a single gun, just a single transaction. If one were to purchase two guns at one time, there would only be one check.

MOST PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE WITH THEIR FIREARMS!

[Willowfang]

Just because it's primary purpose if to kill doesn't make it a tool. Would you go through a hardware store and start labeling things "not tools cause they only have one primary purpose? Does a tool that kills somehow make it not a tool?

I do not mean to avoid any question about assault weapons, a citizen shouldn't need one under any normal circumstances. Should they never need one? Obviously they can be used if we're invaded, but their distribution should be handled within that framework, not under peace time possession.

Another perspective, to try and say a gun if not a tool is taking/splitting focus away from what can be done in the education/upbringing of a society's citizens.

If we had/one day have ethics/morality, fellow citizen appreciation classes in grades 1-12, do you not think that would make a huge difference in people lashing out?

Removing deadly tools from general access is not without it's merits of course. That's why you can easily buy a pickax or rent a bulldozer and not buy dynamite to clear rocks or build a pool.

But to ignore the citizens roll in this and outlaw just the guns/tools is to give free reign on their insanities.

[Willowfang]

Addendum:

It would be foolish of me to assume that at least most or many proponents of gun control and or banning do not recognize that something can be done about the people that do these things.

I would think that some kind of class from 1-12 grade would be most effective as well as have a good effect in other areas of society, more tolerance, less greed, less crime in business, more effective cooperation among differing view points, etc.

I can understand that some may disagree with a 1-12 grade class to do this, but I find it foolish to make this a one prog attack on the problem with just gun control/bans and not also deal with peoples functioning within a society.

[Klown]

Willow, you're missing the main point Jack was making. Labeling it a tool doesn't change the fact that a gun has one purpose: to kill. I don't see what difference labeling it a tool or not makes.

There is no denying that if the mom didn't have guns around, things would have been different. Not saying it would have been better or worse, just another opportunity to stop him along the way.

My main feeling is that people arming themselves isn't the solution. I don't think more guns makes the world safer.

[Jack the Pin]

Willow, I knew it was a bad idea to interject the blind person analogy, so I now offically retract it. It was meant to underscore the ludicrous lengths that a well-meaning and smpathetic society might go to in terms of averting killiing sprees like Newtown. Though I have no real objection to any of the points you've made in terms of empathy training, ethical/moral education, etc., I'm brought back to the very stark and simple notion that had Adam Lanza not been able to get his hands on these weapons, then this entire incident could have been different and far less lethal. perhaps I'm missing some crucial point here, but I remain convinced that legislation which leads to restricted access to guns of any type would save lives.

[Freddy_Lives]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

I would think that some kind of class from 1-12 grade would be most effective as well as have a good effect in other areas of society, more tolerance, less greed, less crime in business, more effective cooperation among differing view points, etc.

May not be a bad idea.

You also have to take in account that criminals or people who just don't care don't see Prison as a bad thing anymore it's a cake walk for most people with it being more and more easy for prisoners.

Granted most killers are now taking their own lives goes to show you the cowardice and to be honest doesn't make them a person they are even beneath the fringe.

50+ years ago communities would not stand for this kind of thing they would simply go out and strike fear in people by lynching and showing that this behavior is not acceptable by leaving the world to see! We don't want to hurt or offend anyone anymore and for that I believe our society is weaker.

[Freddy_Lives]

Originally Posted by Jack the Pin

Willow, I knew it was a bad idea to interject the blind person analogy, so I now offically retract it. It was meant to underscore the ludicrous lengths that a well-meaning and smpathetic society might go to in terms of averting killiing sprees like Newtown. Though I have no real objection to any of the points you've made in terms of empathy training, ethical/moral education, etc., I'm brought back to the very stark and simple notion that had Adam Lanza not been able to get his hands on these weapons, then this entire incident could have been different and far less lethal. perhaps I'm missing some crucial point here, but I remain convinced that legislation which leads to restricted access to guns of any type would save lives.

If he was a gamer or gothic loner nerd to me it seems like he probably did his research if he did not have access to guns he could of easily made a pipe bomb out of household cleaners and then what ? More lives gone more injuries and disfigured children.

People underestimate the power of the internet it was just easier for him since he had guns but if the intent to HURT was there and he did not I feel the outcome would of been the same which is lives lost.