Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

So, if you take every instance of "gun" or "handgun" or

"gun laws" in this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html

And replace it with "steak knives" or "pointed sticks" or "crossbows", it reads about the same.

Talk about some seriously slanted writing.  And this isn't in the editorial section, it's the news.

Come the fuck on.  So he bought guns legally.  Apparently, this means that gun laws need to be changed because CRAZY PEOPLE can buy guns.  Well CRAZY PEOPLE can also buy cars, knives, sharpened sticks, mayonnaise, and spicy relish.  So what?

The problem is not guns.  The problem is our inability to identify and properly treat people with these sorts of problems.  And it's a BIG problem with no single solution.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 8:22am
Your right to enjoy a good Osso Bucco is subservient to my right to reduce chances of getting killed.
Permalink Send private email (100 + 85)/2 
April 19th, 2007 8:42am
If you could sign a magic law that would cause all guns, everywhere, to instantaneously disappear, then I'd agree with you.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 8:45am
Get out of that all-or-none box. Restrictions won't eradicate. But they sure help reduce.
Permalink Send private email (100 + 85)/2 
April 19th, 2007 8:53am
That's incredibly subjective.

If kids received comprehensive handgun training in high school along with sex education (another hot button issue for some stupid reason), and it were as ordinary to carry a sidearm as a cell phone, then this sort of violence may very well be greatly reduced.  You don't know any better than I do.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 8:57am
Gun laws aren't what need changing.  Some pretty simple procedural changes should be sufficient.  Like instead of taking the buyer's word that he hasn't been sent to the nuthouse, keeping records of such things and actually checking against those records.

Here in Michigan the permit to buy a handgun is only issued after the police have run a check for this kind of information.  Get convicted of beating your wife or your kids?  No handguns for you.  Get locked up for being a danger to yourself or others?  No handguns for you.  When I went through the process is was pretty fast, too.  I filled out a little green card, handed it over the desk, and came back the next morning to pick it up and go buy my gun.  Bigger departments can sometimes do the approval (or denial) while you wait.  Police here have up to five days to get the check done.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
April 19th, 2007 9:00am
>>Like instead of taking the buyer's word that he hasn't been sent to the nuthouse, keeping records of such things and actually checking against those records.

YAY!!  Let's build (another) federal database!!!  Track those citizens, damn it!!
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:01am
> The problem is not guns.

The problem is people do stupid stuff. When you do stupid stuff with guns you can kill a lot of people. People won't stop doing stupid stuff. That's the problem with guns.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:02am
You can kill a lot of people with lots of things.  Guns just happen to be convenient, so they're the go-to at the moment.  If you remove guns, they'll find something else.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:06am
> You can kill a lot of people with lots of things. 

No you can't. Create a scenario where you could kill over 30 people with a lot of things.

> Guns just happen to be convenient

Uh, yah, that's the point.

> If you remove guns, they'll find something else.

Untrue. Opportunity is part of any crime. How many mass murders do you hear about with knives or chain saws?
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:09am
>> If you remove guns, they'll find something else.

Like? Knives? Sufficient and more time for retaliation. Poison? As above. Sticks and Stones?

What then that matches the speed, certainity and finality of guns?
Permalink Send private email (100 + 85)/2 
April 19th, 2007 9:10am
Explosives are damned easy to make.  Moltov cocktails, whatever.  You can kill a lot of people with FIRE if you chain all the doors like this guy did.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:12am
> Explosives are damned easy to make. 

If you are a terrorist. Most people have no idea how to make a bomb and won't take the risk.


> You can kill a lot of people with FIRE if you chain all the doors like this guy did.

Burning to death isn't high on anyone's list, so I don't think murder suicider will go that way.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:21am
"instead of taking the buyer's word that he hasn't been sent to the nuthouse, keeping records of such things and actually checking against those records."

Show of hands - who sincerely believes that this will never become part of the employment process? Or credit reporting?

Because what we *really* want is to discourage people from seeking professional help for mental disorders.

How many school and workplace shootings in the US in the past forty years? And how many were committed by people who had legally bought weapons after being committed?

Crap like this makes me start to side with some of the people who point out how many died in Iraq the same day, and how many die on US highways every year, and say "where's the outrage for that?"

How about we as a society take 1/4 the energy we've expended on the VT shootings and channel it towards highway safety or getting the hell out of Iraq?
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 19th, 2007 9:21am
"Burning to death isn't high on anyone's list, so I don't think murder suicider will go that way."

The murder/suicider can take a bunch of pills.  He can kill everyone ELSE with fire.  Are you so dumb that you think the methods have to be identical?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:23am
> Are you so dumb that you think the methods have to be identical?

I am dumb enough to think people want a sure easy death.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:24am
Hide in a closet, light it up, take a bunch of pills.  You're pretty sure to die.

In fact, just the pills will work if you do enough research to actually know what will and won't kill you with certainty.

You're right that a gun is easiest, but denying guns to crazy suicidal people won't make them less crazy or suicidal.

Of course, we both agree that they shouldn't have them.  The trouble is that you can't deny guns to them using reasonable methods without denying guns to everyone.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:26am
Fire isn't "sexy".

Just look at media coverage (the media, of course, just affirming our own biases, giving us what we want) -- always the close-ups of the H&K MP5 slung over a trooper's shoulder.

Always with the guns.

Some jackass isn't drawn to light a place on fire, because there's no image to that. Being the dealer of death, double handing the guns, on the other hand, might be more to their delusions.

Jack whoever is a jackass for blaming video games. The real "culprits" are movies, television, and media that endlessly glorify the gun.
Permalink DF 
April 19th, 2007 9:29am
> Hide in a closet, light it up, take a bunch of pills.

And how does my taking pillls kill 30 other people?

> but denying guns to crazy suicidal people won't make them less crazy or suicidal.

A crazy suicidal person who doesn't kill a lot of other people is OK with me.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:29am
Son, are you really stupid, or what?  The closet bit comes AFTER chaining the doors and Moltov cocktailing the shit out of the place.

You not only are pretty sure to die but you'll take a fuckload of people with you, and at the very least, make a huge spectacle with your massive college hall bonfire.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:33am
I think that the level of motivation to arrange all that, muppet, is far higher than the level of motivation needed to acquire a gun.  Raising the bar, therefore decreasing the incidence.  You're right, people aren't going to stop being stupid and we can't prevent everything.  But guns just make it so *easy*, and that is SoP's point.
Permalink the great purple 
April 19th, 2007 9:36am
> The closet bit comes AFTER chaining the doors and Moltov cocktailing the shit out of the place.

With the high rate of failure of suicide by drug, this would not be a good plan.

> make a huge spectacle with your massive college hall bonfire.

At least when you finally snap we'll know it will play out.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:36am
>> Create a scenario where you could kill over 30 people with a lot of things. <<

Take: Santa Monica fishmarket
Add: One addled senior citizen
Bake: In a fuel-injected V8-powered Oldsmobile¹
Serve!


¹Because no one needs eight or more cylinders.
Permalink xampl 
April 19th, 2007 9:36am
"I think that the level of motivation to arrange all that, muppet, is far higher than the level of motivation needed to acquire a gun.  Raising the bar, therefore decreasing the incidence.  You're right, people aren't going to stop being stupid and we can't prevent everything.  But guns just make it so *easy*, and that is SoP's point."

This kid waited weeks between each gun purchase to comply with the law.  He brought chains to bind the doors.  He may even have called in bomb threats prior to gauage police response.  He planned the hell out of this.  If he hadn't had guns, he would have had something else.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:38am
> If he hadn't had guns, he would have had something else.

Yes, a bomb, a match, and pills. See a lot of those.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:40am
You don't see them because guns are more glamorous.  The point is, though, that without guns, this sort of thing wouldn't end.  The weapon of choice would change, and that's all.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:41am
You can make a dozen pipebombs with stuff you buy at Home Depot for less than $100.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:41am
> The point is, t

Glamor is part of the process. Without glamour we would see far fewer of them.

> The weapon of choice would change, and that's all.

It's a popular contention with 0 evidence and even less common sense.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:43am
Son is remarkably one sided on a lot of issues, it's really fascinating to watch.

muppet is right about this, the guy waited weeks, if not months to execute this. Between the first and second shootings, he had the time to go to the post office and mail a package with several videos, photos, and an 1800 word diatribe that he'd made in the weeks prior to the attacks. He glamorized the Columbine killings. If you think easy access to guns is the lynchpin to preventing this guy, I'd have to disagree with you.
Permalink vaguely distracted 
April 19th, 2007 9:45am
The violence itself is plenty glamorous.  Guns are just the "popular" option.  If the popular option is removed, they'll glamorize bombings instead.  Plenty of that going on East.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:47am
I haven't been following this story, so I wasn't aware that it was planned to that extent.  You are entirely correct that guns wouldn't have prevented this case.  Making explosives and the like are not THAT hard, if you're going to take the time to plan it out in advance.  It's more the unplanned murders ("the gun just went off" types) that would be prevented.  Because deadly force is just not that easy to muster without a gun.
Permalink the great purple 
April 19th, 2007 9:49am
> muppet is right about this,

An inevitable statement given what proceeded. One sided people see others as one sided.

> If you think easy access to guns is the lynchpin to preventing this guy

Would he have killed 30 people without easy access to guns? Highly unlikely. Would a plan hatch in his mind without easy access to guns? Highly unlikely? Without the glamor of guns would he have hatched a plan? Highly unlikely. Without a series of similar crimes in the past all using the same pattern, would he have hatched the same plan? Highly unlikely? It the affordance of the gun that makes this replicatable meme.

So keep playing the flounder.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 9:49am
Banning all handguns and tightening up on other firearms generally seems to have prevented repeats of the Hungerford massacre; However bear in mind that there were a lot fewer guns in the UK to start with.
Permalink Billx 
April 19th, 2007 9:50am
Billx: so banning handguns now would be closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has left?
Permalink the great purple 
April 19th, 2007 9:51am
I can go to Home depot and buy steel pipe, caps, and a few thousand safety matches for about $15, and that's if I want to make one bomb.  If I want the bomb to be particularly nasty, I can buy a sheet of tin and some tin snips to add shrapnel.

There's no waiting period for pipes or matches, there's no background check, there's nothing.  I go in with cash, I buy my stuff, I leave.  5 minutes.

If guns are taken away, a new meme will start.  Pipe bombs are only ONE option.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 9:52am
"The problem is not guns.  The problem is our inability to identify and properly treat people with these sorts of problems.  And it's a BIG problem with no single solution."

Uhm... is anyone willing to consider that THERE IS NO PROBLEM?

Death is a part of life. As I recall I said very early on that American culture is partially at fault. Fault may not be the best word as again, there is no problem. It is simply life. Bad shit sometimes happens, you accept it and move on or you become forever mired in maple syrupy malcontent because you are looking for solutions that do not exist.

"Jack whoever is a jackass for blaming video games."

That would be Jack 'Me-Off' Thompson. He is such scum that he gives lawyers a bad name. Partially, he is a media whore. The other part is mildly retarded.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 9:59am
Well no, I don't agree that there's no problem with violent crime, however infrequent.  There's not always a solution that we can implement, though.  Maybe one day we'll have World Peace and no violence anywhere ever at all, but we're not ready to get there today, for sure.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 10:11am
Obviously, if someone comes into my office and blows me away in some sort of rampage, I'd have a very big damned problem.

What I mean is, there is no pervasive widespread epidemic where a cause/effect relationship is established, and thus any sort of meaningful solution can be had.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 10:18am
Son - I want to be sure I understand you on this.

You're saying that "It's surprisingly easy rationalize how someone turned into a mass murderer. The signs were there all along." That, in effect, we can't predict who will become a mass murderer and who won't. Yet you can predict how they will behave if you change just one variable - easy access to guns.
Permalink Send private email vaguely distracted 
April 19th, 2007 10:30am
> easy access to guns

People generally do what is easy. It's not a complicated concept. A door knob is an affordance for opening a door. Remove the knob and 99/100 people won't break down the door, even though it's possible.

Guns are an affordance to murder. Then get rid of guns argument has nothing to do with this relationship. You can admit guns make mass murder more probably while still arguing for gun ownership. It's just that people don't like doing this so they rationalize in their own minds that it's not really about the guns. That's just self deception.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 10:41am
HAHA... The gun told me to do it!

As muppet told you, it could be fire. It could be explosives, improvised chemical weapons. It could be any number of things, and it would be. if guns did not ever exist and had never existed.

Maybe you'll cut it down by one or two a century. I'm sure there are some insane people that simply don't have the ambition and/or brains to come up with some other inventive method of mass murder. But I have a feeling that anyone who really wants to, they'll figure it out.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 10:51am
For that matter, even if you could blink your eyes and instantly rid the world of guns, what is to stop someone from making their own?
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 10:52am
99 out of 100 people won't have a reason to break down the door. If you put them in a room with no other way out, 100 out of 100 people try their damnedest to break it down.

People also don't break down doors because of social conventions & respect for other people's property. I sincerely hope you're not arguing that social conventions & respect for other people's property is what stops mass murderers.

Would less access to guns reduce all types of gun related deaths, mass murders included? Obviously. Would it have stopped someone that's marginalized and bound and determined to the point of being obsessed, to the point where he's making videos to mail to news agencies? Doubtful. Columbine was 8 years earlier to the week, these aren't every day occurrences. If easy access to guns was the only important factor, it would happen much more frequently.
Permalink Send private email vaguely distracted 
April 19th, 2007 10:57am
>If easy access to guns was the only important factor, it would happen much more frequently.

Gun attacks happen quite frequently (the HORRENDOUS Amish schoolhouse shooting was only half a year ago. And of course there have been countless small scale gun violence attacks).

This one is noteworthy because he was so brutally successful. If he was gunned down after killing the two in the residence, it would have been a small news filler of yet another asshat going off with some guns.
Permalink DF 
April 19th, 2007 11:02am
> As muppet told you, it could be fire.

But it's not. And it won't be because guns offer a unique affordance. Gun lovers need their guns to be both present and innocent. Accept the reality of what you love. Your arguments are delusional. Guns are unique and they allow unique modes of mass murder.

> If you put them in a room with no other way out

Don't you imagine that's how they feel?

> I sincerely hope you're not arguing

I said what I was arguing. Was I unclear?

> If easy access to guns was the only important factor, it would happen much more frequently.

You are right, there are so very few gun related crimes in the US. LOL.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 11:24am
I don't understand the huge defense of guns.  These are devices to kill people and they're easier to get than a drivers license.  Something is wrong there even if it wouldn't have helped this nut-case situation at all.

I think getting a gun should be at least as difficult as getting a passport.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
April 19th, 2007 11:30am
I've got few problems with making it more difficult to obtain firearms. Thsoe reservations I do have are related to violations of privacy in the name of safety.

Guns are not solely tools to kill people. There are gun owners that never kill anything at all. They enjoy marksmanship hobbies and are collectors of artifacts. Sure, you can't kill someone with stamps, but that should not villify a hobby.

"Accept the reality of what you love. Your arguments are delusional. Guns are unique and they allow unique modes of mass murder."

First, I do not own a single firearm. I don't even own a pellet gun.

Second, my arguments are only delusional if you have zero respect for freedom. The fact is that owning a firearm is not in itself, nor a symbol of, deviant behavior. The mere ownership and possession of such weapons does not cause harm or even the threat of it to anyone. Your perceptions and misguided ideas of protection through legislation are what is delusional. Criminals don't give two shits about legislation.

Furthermore, if freedom can be violated in the name of such ill-conceived preventative notions, you may as well throw it away completely. Inevitably, we'll be legislating against chains and fire when doors are chained and buildings are burned!

Finally, duh. Chaining a building and burning people to death or poisoning them is utterly different from gunning them down. Me? I'd much rather be shot if I had the choice.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 12:15pm
Personally, I'd rather the nut try to burn the building down than shoot me in the head.

It's MUCH more likely the trash-can fire (or whatever) would be found in time to at least get the people out than that he'd be stopped walking down the hall with a loaded hand-gun.

And buildings have fire-sprinklers, smoke detectors, and fire alarms.  I sure hope you're not suggesting that limits his free rights to burn buildings down.

In the same way, having a metal detector on the front door might limit (to a small extent) his ability to gun people down.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 19th, 2007 12:20pm
Do metal detectors stop guns from going through them?
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 12:24pm
No, just as smoke detectors don't stop fire.

But it's much less likely you'll die in a fire in your sleep if you have a smoke detector.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 19th, 2007 12:28pm
You mentioned sprinklers in your post above, which do stop fire.

So an analogy with metal detectors would have to also include armed guards who would stop the guns from getting through.

Is the solution then, to have armed guards in ALL buildings on ALL college campuses at ALL times?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 12:30pm
It would seem that much of this whole anti-gun propaganda comes from a portion of the population that simply doesn't like guns and has no desire to have them. Their personal fears/dislikes are manifested in a desire to ban them for everyone. I find such behavior particularly abhorrent. It is much akin to keeping up with the Joneses by pouring motor oil on their lawn.

It isn't backed by any sort of rational reasoning. Even when someone here posted some facts about ownership and carry permits people completely twisted things and responded with completely unrelated idiocy. It's a brand of mass hysteria and lunacy.

More concealed carry permits doesn't really have much to do with more ownership or arming every citizan, but that's what it was immediately construed as. This is even more proof that my first paragraph is the utter truth.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 12:31pm
Let me go ahead and speculate on what would have happened if you had an armed guard in the buildings that were attacked.

You would have two more bodies.

Now, it's all too natural for the anti-gunners to disagree with that because they see guns as these threatening and mysterious all powerful weapons giving the wielder utter control.

The truth is, guards do jobs just like everybody else. They get used to it, settle in. It isn't as though they are ready to spring to action at a moments notice.

They would never even see some nutball like him coming.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 12:36pm
Exactly.  Cho would have walked in, iced the guards before they could even ask him to remove loose change from his pockets, and then walked through the beeping metal detector before blowing away a ton of students.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 12:37pm
Tsk, JoC.

You run with some "strawman" such as "people who want to ban handguns for everyone have an irrational fear of handguns, which makes all their motivations irrational and illogical".

You don't address the "detection" aspect.  You don't address the "this nut was able without detection or hindrance to gun down 30 people" aspect.

As far as I know, you'd still rather be gunned down than be in a building some nut has set a fire in -- despite having MUCH better fire detection and prevention hardware in place.

And you accuse the other side of "irrationality"?

Personally, I don't want to ban handguns.  I don't want to ban guns at all.  Fully automatic machine guns, I have a problem with.  I was in the Navy, and am checked out on various weapons, from a .45 automatic to a .50 cal machine gun.

But I do think, as with owning a car, owning a gun brings with it some responsibilities, and some limitations.  They don't let just anybody drive a car.  They don't (currently) let just anybody own a hand-gun, either.

So, the question is, is it possible to place just a few more limitations on guns on campus (for instance) that would have made what Cho did more difficult, so that fewer people (if any) would have to die?  Maybe, it is not possible.  Maybe, it's already at the best we can do.  Maybe, all we need is a metal detector with an alarm in the Security departement.

My fear in this is that if the gun advocates go to irrational lengths to say "we must keep our guns!  Arm everybody, that's the solution!", that draconian solutions WILL be taken up, like preventing everybody under 25 from owning a gun.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 19th, 2007 12:42pm
>>like preventing everybody under 25 from owning a gun.

I'm on board with this.  Where do I vote?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 19th, 2007 12:44pm
And -- Well, fair enough, if you're not advocating "arming everybody", bloody-well SAY that.  Then we'll both take down our straw-men and be able to listen to each other better.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 19th, 2007 12:46pm
"Thsoe reservations I do have are related to violations of privacy in the name of safety."

Do you have the same reservations about getting a drivers license or passport?

"Guns are not solely tools to kill people."

Agreed.  And cars are not solely tools to run down pedestrians and yet it's still easier to get a gun than a drivers license.

"It would seem that much of this whole anti-gun propaganda comes from a portion of the population that simply doesn't like guns and has no desire to have them."

I'm certainly in that camp.  *But* I have no desire to ban guns.  I think hunters should be able to have guns.  Collectors, sure.  Marksmen who just enjoy shooting whatever they want on the range, why not.  People having a handgun for home defense, yeah.  But I don't think assault rifles should just be freely available without any conditions.  I don't think they should be banned either.

However, you have this Cho guy who was able to get 2 guns for no reason what so ever and I think perhaps there aren't enough protections or restrictions.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
April 19th, 2007 12:50pm
Where do you vote?  In Connecticut!

Oh, I kill me sometimes....
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 19th, 2007 12:52pm
I don't think it is a straw man at all. While your motivations may have some rationality to them, the majority have zero rationale for their stance which is based solely on the principle I stated.

Fire alarms can be turned off. So can sprinkler systems. Someone who was so obviously planning something like this at length would know that.

I'm not saying you should receive a firearm when you file your tax return. Only that restrictions serve as inconveniences to the vast majority and offer little, if any, added protection at such a high cost to personal liberty of everyone else.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 12:59pm
"Only that restrictions serve as inconveniences to the vast majority and offer little, if any, added protection at such a high cost to personal liberty of everyone else."

Don't current restrictions prevent convicted criminals from purchasing guns?  Are you saying that there is no added protection for that?
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
April 19th, 2007 1:01pm
Wayne, current restrictions also prevent people who have been committed or undergone court-ordered therapy from purchasing guns.  Unfortunately Virginia took the position of deciding to take the criminals and lunatics at their word that they were eligible to buy guns (although, in fairness, a criminal conviction would have shown up on the federal check).

As for the whole noise about taking away guns would prevent this kind of thing, you're living in a cocoon.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

I work half a mile from where the nutjob in question is buried.  Point of reference, he did have guns available, and he still decided instead to blow shit up.

Second, turn on the evening news.  Bombs obviously are fairly easy to make, and very common in some places.  The ingredients are easy to get anyplace in the world.  And determined nut cases who are willing to put in the planning time, as Cho clearly was, won't have a problem with the fact that they'll have to do a little advanced work--he clearly did.

As for the "need to have a reason" argument Wayne, I think that if you think it through about how that would work out in practice, you'll see why the idea would fail.  If he has to state a reason for why he's buying the guns, he's gonna lie.  After all they don't have a way to verify his purpose.  He could say it's for target practice or sport shooting and it would pass your "has a reason" test.  He'd even be telling the truth, just leaving out the fact that he was using his classmates as targets.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
April 19th, 2007 1:19pm
"Do you have the same reservations about getting a drivers license or passport?"

Your mental health, social standing, medical history, and other things I think you have a right to personal privacy to have zero impact on your ability to obtain either of the above.

"and yet it's still easier to get a gun than a drivers license."

AFAIK, you need at least an equivalent form of identification to purchase a gun in the manner he did.

"However, you have this Cho guy who was able to get 2 guns for no reason what so ever and I think perhaps there aren't enough protections or restrictions."

Like what?

I don't have a checkered history of mental illness, but if I did, I sure wouldn't want it in some fucking SQL table somewhere with the only reason for it being that they *may* one day put it to good use when I try to buy a gun.

What else is there?

33? people died in that incident. 300,000,000 did not. Personally, I believe that taking my chances is far better than sacrificing a bit of liberty and privacy in the name of squeezing every last bit of preventative safety from life. By the time I am safe, I'll have no reason to care because I'll be imprisoned to said safety. Why don't people see that?
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 1:21pm
"AFAIK, you need at least an equivalent form of identification to purchase a gun in the manner he did."

So you need a drivers license to buy a gun.  All that means is you know how to drive, not how to handle a gun.  That's my point.

"Like what?"

Like preventing people from actually getting 2 handguns or simply questioning him on it.

"I don't have a checkered history of mental illness, but if I did, I sure wouldn't want it in some fucking SQL table"

Agreed.  But you're on an entirely different tangent than me.  I never said anything about keeping mentally ill people away from guns.  I'd much prefer to limit the number of guns anyone can own.  That only requires SQL table containing the number and types of weaponry you already own.

"Why don't people see that?"

I see that and I agree.  But don't you see that guns are inherently dangerous and we regulate all kinds of dangerous goods much more effectively than we regulate guns.  Things that you use everyday (like your car).
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
April 19th, 2007 1:40pm
I think the only gun control most of the world wants is for American armed forces to be obliged to only use their weapons within American territory.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
April 19th, 2007 1:49pm
Sadly, in WW-I and II they asked us to bring our guns to Europe (and the Pacific), thus opening Pandora's Box.

Plus, you have to admit, we were following a time-honored path made by the English, the French before them, and the Spanish before that.

Though in those three cases they were making "Colonies".  America doesn't make "Colonies", having been one ourselves at one time and we didn't like it at all.

However, in the Cold War we did fight against Communists around the world to prevent the Domino Theory from working.  Though few of those Communists were allied with each other, and those Dominoes didn't fall.  It's tempting for some to say the Dominoes didn't fall BECAUSE we were fighting -- hard to know what was true.  Cuba went commy, but Mexico didn't.

Now we fight against "Terrorism", and Saddam Hussain (though he's dead now), and Al Quaida (Osama Bin Ladin isn't even captured, yet).  It looks a lot like another anti-Domino Theory approach so far.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 19th, 2007 2:19pm
> Second, my arguments are only delusional if you have zero respect for freedom.

See how difficult it is? You can't accept that guns make mass murder easy and attractive while at the same time accept that people have the right to own guns. You end up with a diversionary tactic like you just made or you say people would some how become bomb builders to carry out their deeds.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 2:33pm
"You can't accept that guns make mass murder easy and attractive"

Because that is a load of crap.

Guns don't make mass murder any more easy and attractive than brooms make sodomizing people with the handles easy and attractive. Sure, if you are a loon, you can draw the connection and use a broom such an end.

Nobody is screaming to ban the brooms. You know why? You are comfortable with brooms. No other reason.
Permalink JoC 
April 19th, 2007 3:38pm
http://www.trivia-library.com/13-infamous-cases-of-mass-murder/index.htm

13 infamous cases of mass murder. Very few of them involved guns.

If someone's determined enough, they'll find a way, and there are many, many ways.

If you're going to argue that guns make copycat killing easier, you should argue that the media makes copycat killing easier as well.

I'm honestly surprised that people think that human beings only started killing each other in any appreciable quantities with the advent of the gun.
Permalink Send private email vaguely distracted 
April 19th, 2007 3:58pm
SoP, I'm the one saying that they will become bomb builders.  There definitely seems to be some evidence to support that theory, unless somehow we're pulling the Bath School Bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, various bombings at abortion clinics, the attacks on September 11th of 2001, and the daily bombings in Iraq out of the "mass murder" category.

The common factor in mass murder isn't guns.  It's crazy people.  You want to cut down on the mass murders, find some magical way to weed out the crazy people.  They're crazy and they're determined.  They're going to find a way to kill a shitload of people, either intentionally or incidentally to their actions.  Heck, it's been done with the food supply.  The lysteria outbreak a few years back happened because one or more workers at a Sarah Lee plant were pissed at management and decided to stop following sanitation procedures, thereby screwing the company when their rep got trashed.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
April 19th, 2007 4:22pm
> There definitely seems to be some evidence to support that theory,

How many use bombs vs how many use guns?
Permalink son of parnas 
April 19th, 2007 4:27pm
"The common factor in mass murder isn't guns.  It's crazy people."

Agreed.  This latest shooting is the reason that suddenly we're all talking about gun control but nothing will hinder a determined lunatic.

Mass murder with guns is an entirely different flavor than with bombs or fires.  With guns you stare down at your victims and murder them an extension of your own hand.  To claim that other ways of killing someone is equivalent is to miss out on the psychological component. 

However, just because mass murder is why we are having this debate doesn't mean we have to be entirely focused on events that are random, infrequent, and statistically insignificant.  We might as well include all other gun related crimes -- of which the US has a disproportionate amount compared to the rest of the world.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
April 19th, 2007 4:57pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics