Nebraska Mall Shootings

[Neoteny]

In this case gun laws would not solve a thing. This kid was out to be famous and would not have thought twice if (that) his use of a gun was illegal. He broke many laws that do exist and they were no deterrent.

Of course this brings out the emotional response of "We have to outlaw guns to save these people!!!"
Sadly even with the extremely stiff gun laws in the UK they have skyrocketing violent crime issues and gangs rule in the inner cities.

If it is a gun control debate you seek though...

The reality is that if there had been a law abiding person with a concealed carry weapons permit, and the afore mentioned Mall did not have a weapons (criminal) free zone then much if not all of these horrible deaths could well have been stopped.

There are literally 100's of gun laws and restrictions (in my state the annotated gun laws fill a single volume consisting of over 80 pages) and just as all of the prohibition type laws they are poorly enforced, judges are overly lenient, and it creates a thriving illegal market.

Look at the stats and facts. In virtually all of the states in the US that have created "Shall issue" concealed weapon permits, the violent crime rates have dropped dramatically and there are 1000's of cases nation wide where these permit holders have saved lives.

Strict gun laws already exist and instead of making more, those that exist should be VERY strictly enforced and there should be little to no chance for leniency! Add that to the fact that as a felon you may be up against a well trained armed "Victim" and you add a very personal and immediate deterrent to the above strict law actions. Guns are illegal in many countries but they still exist. Outlawing something is not a solution!

As hard as I tried here in the UK, I doubt I could get hold of a gun unless a) I had fairly shady connections in the estates or b) I was the son of a farmer.

Stricter gun laws in the UK mean that gun ownership is simply very rare. It might not happen straight away, not for a generation, but in the long term it will do you good. A lot of my grandparents generation got rid of firearms they may well have had in various amnesties because the penalties for illegal ownership were severe. Its a trickle down effect. By introducing stricter legislation you gradually decrease the gun culture. It DOESN'T go over to the illegal market to a massive degree. It means that kids like this one and the guy at Virginia Tech don't have access to guns straight away.

Its gun culture that needs dealing with. Its a terrible thing and I am truly sorry you in the US are afflicted with such a lust for what are necessarily and by design objects used specifically to kill human beings.

I have to agree with Guiscard here in that it's the culture that is the main problem. Here in the United States, guns are a sort of symbol of freedom (I'm sure everyone knows how much we like that), and individuality. I am a gun owner, and I do enjoy shooting, but I do think that very strict gun laws should be in effect. And if a ban were placed into effect, I would happily (though probably with more than a touch of sadness) give up my guns, if it meant a possible increase in my own personal safety. However, I think that banning guns will not result in their removal. It is too deep in the American psyche, and I think we'll have a rerun of the prohibition. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I just don't have that much faith in the American people. If guns weren't a part of the Constitution, we perhaps might have been able to weed them out. But as of right now, even as far left of a liberal as I am, I feel the need to defend guns, not least of which out of my respect for the founders of my country. Alas, the seeds appear to have fallen far from the tree...

An interesting note, wikipedia says that Brazil's firearm-related death rate is almost as high as the United State's. You learn something everyday. What are their control laws like?

EDIT: And their firearm-related homicide rate is higher. I thought we were number one in all of these... assuming wikipedia's sources are accurate, what's going on?

[Snorri1234]

An interesting note, wikipedia says that Brazil's firearm-related death rate is almost as high as the United State's. You learn something everyday. What are their control laws like?

EDIT: And their firearm-related homicide rate is higher. I thought we were number one in all of these... assuming wikipedia's sources are accurate, what's going on?

All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25 and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence. The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million.

Over 38,000 people die each year due to gun-related injuries nationwide. The vast majority of the crimes is committed with illegally possessed guns; this may have helped the people decide how to vote in the referendum (see below).

Brazil seems pretty lenient.


I think one of the main problems is also that some places have an abundance of firearms because the country itself or the ones surrounding it have a very corrupt government. Prohibiting in those places is silly, because the black market is way bigger there.

Switzerland is the only country that has little guncrime and a liberal gunpolicy.....weird.

[Guiscard]

Switzerland is the only country that has little guncrime and a liberal gunpolicy.....weird.

Thats because they've never really done anything other than look after Nazi gold and make cuckoo clocks.

[Neoteny]

Switzerland is the only country that has little guncrime and a liberal gunpolicy.....weird.

Thats because they've never really done anything other than look after Nazi gold and make cuckoo clocks.

Not to join in on the Swiss-bashing, but they are notorious for chocolate too.

[Freetymes]

The truth of the matter is that private ownership of guns was put into the constitution not just for protection of self but also for protection from a tyrannical government. I agree that it does not sound healthy to think that you would have to try to overthrow a government by force and the system is the best way but look at all of the 3rd world countries that, if their citizens were armed, the 1st world would not have to interfere nearly as often because their people would have a voice that those tyrants would understand and listen to.

I can not speak from personal account and can only look at the stats but if you adjust for population the numbers in the UK are indeed high. In this case I must trust to others stats which is, I agree, hearsay. I will say that here in the States nothing negative goes unreported whereas in many other places news about such things is held tight and kept from the news and stats if possible in many cases.

Never the less it is also true that if you choose to deny guns to lawful citizens than few but those who "a) I had fairly shady connections in the estates or b) I was the son of a farmer.". The vast majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by those that are already criminals or shady. Making vast and total bans to save a very very small percentage of the population at the expense of the whole is poor governorship at the least.

I do feel you and the sadness of these events but they are far and away outweighed by all of the lives saved that goes unnoticed by the mainstream media.

[2dimes]

It seems there was only one guy armed in that mall. So end of discussion on the problem of too many guns in this case.

One was too many yet, I wish there was another one there in the hands of a "good guy" on time.

[Guiscard]

The truth of the matter is that private ownership of guns was put into the constitution not just for protection of self but also for protection from a tyrannical government. I agree that it does not sound healthy to think that you would have to try to overthrow a government by force and the system is the best way but look at all of the 3rd world countries that, if their citizens were armed, the 1st world would not have to interfere nearly as often because their people would have a voice that those tyrants would understand and listen to.

Ignoring your slightly ridiculous analogy, the right to bear arms related to a every specific time and situation. There is no way you could overthrow todays government with even 100% gun ownership. It is not an applicable ideal, nor one of any benefit to society whatsoever.

[sangfroid]

The homicide rate in the US with guns is 20 times that of the UK or Australia per head of population. The prepronderance of US opinion here seems to be they want to keep their guns, so they bring it on themselves. Such ignorance.

[krusher]

I apologize guys. I said it in another thread but I know it can't make up for the mistake. But it won't happen again I learn from mistakes.

jesus dont be a bitch man, be a man you were just as responsible for it, and you know you would do it again if it had benefited you more then it did me, next time dont try to cheat with a guy who is smarter then you

[Freetymes]

The truth of the matter is that private ownership of guns was put into the constitution not just for protection of self but also for protection from a tyrannical government. I agree that it does not sound healthy to think that you would have to try to overthrow a government by force and the system is the best way but look at all of the 3rd world countries that, if their citizens were armed, the 1st world would not have to interfere nearly as often because their people would have a voice that those tyrants would understand and listen to.

Ignoring your slightly ridiculous analogy, the right to bear arms related to a every specific time and situation. There is no way you could overthrow todays government with even 100% gun ownership. It is not an applicable ideal, nor one of any benefit to society whatsoever.

Than explain every revolution in history (including the ones in recent history) if this analogy is so ridiculous. Keep in mind that it is only a start and yes even military style weapons would be no match for the military. You seem to think that the military would all fight for the tyrant... This is a whole other conversation though. The fact still remains that, that is how we came to be a country and why they wrote it into the constitution. No matter what you think is ridiculous...

Prohibition does not work. It never has and never will. There are plenty of good laws and the change needed is to enforce those that exist while not infringing on the rights of the whole. simple as that...

[Freetymes]

The homicide rate in the US with guns is 20 times that of the UK or Australia per head of population. The prepronderance of US opinion here seems to be they want to keep their guns, so they bring it on themselves. Such ignorance.

Prove this point with something besides your emotion and hope...
Where do you get these numbers?

[Guiscard]

The truth of the matter is that private ownership of guns was put into the constitution not just for protection of self but also for protection from a tyrannical government. I agree that it does not sound healthy to think that you would have to try to overthrow a government by force and the system is the best way but look at all of the 3rd world countries that, if their citizens were armed, the 1st world would not have to interfere nearly as often because their people would have a voice that those tyrants would understand and listen to.

Ignoring your slightly ridiculous analogy, the right to bear arms related to a every specific time and situation. There is no way you could overthrow todays government with even 100% gun ownership. It is not an applicable ideal, nor one of any benefit to society whatsoever.

Than explain every revolution in history (including the ones in recent history) if this analogy is so ridiculous. Keep in mind that it is only a start and yes even military style weapons would be no match for the military. You seem to think that the military would all fight for the tyrant... This is a whole other conversation though. The fact still remains that, that is how we came to be a country and why they wrote it into the constitution. No matter what you think is ridiculous...

Prohibition does not work. It never has and never will. There are plenty of good laws and the change needed is to enforce those that exist while not infringing on the rights of the whole. simple as that...

Name me one in a recent developed state such as the USA where it has come down to civilians owning guns. Revolution in the modern world always needs the support of the armed forces, else it happens by mostly peaceful means. Civilian gun ownership will make no significant impact upon bringing about regime change when the army control cruise missiles. Who the armed forces would support doesn't matter. Either way, civilian arms make no difference and so the massive homicide rate is an awful price to pay. I'm afraid gun culture is so ingrained in your society that you can't imagine a world without it. Try coming to Europe. It might open your eyes a little.

And what I'm saying is that if the American government felt at all threatened by the right of citizens to bear arms I'm 99% sure they'd have scrapped that right long ago.

That is how you came to be a country? Big deal. Its an outdated document in that regard. The right to bear arms was relative to a time when militias could and di make a great deal of difference. They don't now. Prohibition DOES make a difference. It might not for the first generation, but it will for the future. It gradually reduces gun culture. It gradually becomes harer to get hold of guns, criminal or not, because there are less and less around. You hand in that pistol in the draw by your bed because you can't get a license for it and the penalties are harsh. People are not buying guns, so arms manufacturers don't mass produce them and they can't flood the criminal market either. Guns used by criminals are, more often than not, made legally at the start of their life. If there is no demand, as is the case in the UK, there's no supply because it isn't wirth your while making the firearms in the first place. We DON'T need to bear arms to live in a civilized society. We don't in the UK, and I doubt you'll find a hell of a lot of difference between our two countries in the ways that matter

[Frigidus]

Than explain every revolution in history (including the ones in recent history) if this analogy is so ridiculous. Keep in mind that it is only a start and yes even military style weapons would be no match for the military. You seem to think that the military would all fight for the tyrant... This is a whole other conversation though. The fact still remains that, that is how we came to be a country and why they wrote it into the constitution. No matter what you think is ridiculous...

Well, for America at least, the government's level of technology is infinitely powerful. Look at the Iraq war for example. Their army was better armed and organized (though perhaps not as well supplied) than the American populace. Automatic weapons are readily available there, but the country was taken down incredibly quickly and with shockingly few casualties. Aside from the current struggle with guerrilas, the military won a crushing victory. A bunch of pissed off Americans with little to no military training would have no chance.

[Guiscard]

The homicide rate in the US with guns is 20 times that of the UK or Australia per head of population. The prepronderance of US opinion here seems to be they want to keep their guns, so they bring it on themselves. Such ignorance.

Prove this point with something besides your emotion and hope...
Where do you get these numbers?

Our gun homicide rate for last year was 57 for a population of 60,776,238 (2007)

Thats 0.000000937 per head

In the US 10,100 homicides for 301,139,947 (2005)

Thats 0.0000335

I've done the maths myself. Convinced now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 48,00.html - which links the government data for the UK
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/ ... le_07.html - US data

[Snorri1234]

I can not speak from personal account and can only look at the stats but if you adjust for population the numbers in the UK are indeed high. In this case I must trust to others stats which is, I agree, hearsay. I will say that here in the States nothing negative goes unreported whereas in many other places news about such things is held tight and kept from the news and stats if possible in many cases.

Ah I see. So what you're saying is that the USA covers every frigging murder in the country? Because you don't have nearly enough time in a day to actually cover everything negative.

Never the less it is also true that if you choose to deny guns to lawful citizens than few but those who "a) I had fairly shady connections in the estates or b) I was the son of a farmer.". The vast majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by those that are already criminals or shady. Making vast and total bans to save a very very small percentage of the population at the expense of the whole is poor governorship at the least.

What you're missing is that A.) Without fear of being shot themselves, most criminals would use a gun less. Simply because it adds another few years to the sentence when being caught and they don't actually need it. B.) It would be less easy for a criminal to actually get a gun. What you seem to miss is that the USA also has a huge amount of firearms is actually produces. When you take that away guns become more expensive and harder to obtain.
Couple those two points and the amount of gun-toting criminals will decrease.

[sangfroid]

Prove this point with something besides your emotion and hope...
Where do you get these numbers?

I was wrong, I admit it. It's not 20 times, it's actually 34 times in 2004 (last set of collected data). I was using a US gun control website for the lower figure, ironcially, but decided to verify it against government data.

US Figures: 11,250 firearm homicides
Source: US Government - CDC Report Page 19
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf
US population estimate: 250,000,000

UK Figures: 70 firearm homicides
Source: UK Government - Quarterly Crime Update
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1805.pdf
UK population estimate: 55,000,000

One interesting quote form the UK Home Office which is pertinent about recent UK trends: "There has also been a sharp increase in the number of young people who say they carry real or fake handguns to supposedly protect themselves. It's not just towns and cities that are affected by gun crime - it's also a problem in the countryside."

I HAVE to ask, where do you get your numbers??????

[sangfroid]

I've done the maths myself. Convinced now?

sorry guiscard, I didn't see your reply. Nice precision, I couldn't be bothered looking up population numbers too.

[Blastshot]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

If you want me to get the statistics, i can prove to you that areas where guns are illegal in the US the crime rate went up, and where there is guns, crime went down.

Dont just look at killings, look at the crime rate.

Hope you enjoyed that

[Nobunaga]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

... I have to disagree. Sure pencils don't misspell words, but if you give a million pencils to a million people, there are going to be some idiots in the group who misspell.

... The availability of guns is the problem. I'm all for the right of ownership, but for a person to buy a gun he (or she) should be made to pass a series of grueling psychological tests, and show proof of ownership of a gun safe with a big lock (so step kids can't steal the gun and go to a shopping mall).

... Think about it.. An unstable guy gets REALLY pissed at his wife when he finds her screwing some guy in his own home. A gun in the house? This guy is probably dead, and the wife, too. No gun? You'll probably see it end in felonious assault and nobody dead.

... I don't feel bad at all when I hear of folks who shoot criminals dead. I cheer these people. But it doesn't happen often enough, in my opinion, to counterbalance mass slayings of innocent people in public venues.

...

[comic boy]

I suppose the saving grace is that Hamburgers will probably cull the USA populace before firearms do The thing is though that when a maniac goes beserk with a bucket of hot dogs it tends to be only ketchup that is spilled !

[Neoteny]

I suppose the saving grace is that Hamburgers will probably cull the USA populace before firearms do The thing is though that when a maniac goes beserk with a bucket of hot dogs it tends to be only ketchup that is spilled !

But hamburgers are so tasty, and I have no self control. It just makes my endocardium quiver...

[comic boy]

I suppose the saving grace is that Hamburgers will probably cull the USA populace before firearms do The thing is though that when a maniac goes beserk with a bucket of hot dogs it tends to be only ketchup that is spilled !

But hamburgers are so tasty, and I have no self control. It just makes my endocardium quiver...

Yep the good old USA would wither and die without them

[Freetymes]

I like the conversation so far and appreciate all of the homework you have done. I am to busy at work today and I am going home early to get a jump on a ski weekend. Give me through Monday and I will post responses.

Let me leave you with one reply. The same differential between power of the people with muskets and a standing army was true in our armed revolution as it is in most and as it would be today. Exchange Cruise missiles with cannons etc.
Again as I said it is an awful thought and not pretty but you are sadly mistaken if you think a government is not concerned about an armed populace. If that were not true than despots would not make them illegal as soon as they are in power, see Hitler etc.

Anyway this is a good debate and I respect that the tone has remained mostly civil. I will reply to the where and why of my figures when I can do it well in trying to make my point.

Have a good weekend all!

[Guiscard]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

Are pencils designed to misspell words? No.

Guns are designed to kill people. End of. How people can keep trotting out that ridiculous analogy is beyond my comprehension...

And no, if someone wants to kill someone they aren't necessarily going to. Coleman, who says he knew the guy, said that he had in the past been strangled by the kid. He didn't die. If that guy had had a gun, do you think Coleman would be with us now? I doubt it...

Stricter gun control laws, such as those we have in the UK, gradually reduces gun culture. None of my family own guns. As crazy as I was I could not get hold of a gun and slaughter nine people. As HARD as I tried. If I go into a mall with a knife how many people could I kill? One? two?

[heavycola]

If a gun kills, then does a pencil misspell words?

If some one wants to kill some one, hes going to kill them, gun or not. And getting rid of guns wont do any damn good so get over it.

As Guiscard said, it's a terrible analogy.

'Getting rid of guns won't do any damn good' - look at the per capita figures for gun deaths - US vs UK - elsewhere on this page:- do they therefore mean that americans are simply more murderous?