US Shoppers Killed In Gun Rampage.....

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave

To my knowledge, no one has gone on a killing spree armed with an automatic knife. Automatic guns designed for no other reason that to kill many people very quickly, should never be in the hands of people such as him. The fact that they are so easily available with very ineffectual, and the most minor checks, is another reflection on the state of a poor society.

I agree with what both Dustinsgirl and Dave just posted.

Although the argument doesn't go to the next step and directly cite the ability to own guns in America, I am sure, and rightly so, that is an issue at the forefront of most minds. It is on mine, for example. I am really torn on that Amendment issue. I think, however, it is worth noting that the automatic weapon he used to, well, do what he had absolutely no right to do regardless of his social woes cannot be legally sold or owned. I am interested in finding out how the heck we can stop the trafficking of these weapons in America. They do seem far too easy to get.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Dave

Also what JD said.

Dustinzgirl - I agree with you on most of your points about the comments in this thread, and if what you say about the killer is true then it is wrong for everyone to use this as some kind of proof of the breakdown of anything, and certainly to immediately jump to conclusions without any substance, but I would like to pick up on just two points:

1) But you also said:Surely in an ideal society there would be safety nets in place to prevent this ever happening. The fact that this happens and absolutely nobody cares is a reflection on the state of a poor society.

2) To my knowledge, no one has gone on a killing spree armed with an automatic knife. Automatic guns designed for no other reason that to kill many people very quickly, should never be in the hands of people such as him. The fact that they are so easily available with very ineffectual, and the most minor checks, is another reflection on the state of a poor society.

Well in an ideal society, icecream would be free. But its not.

What I meant by break down of society is the whole end of the world thing. People are buying into the media's negative sensationalism so much that they forget that society has always been like this. It has always sucked because people are, by their instinct, greedy and territorial. Buying into the media frenzy that ZOMG ITS THE END OF TEH WORLD is just dumb. This is not the first, nor the last, time this has happened and it will happen again. Even in a perfect society. Even in a caring society. World history proves that. Even when humans had small numbers, we still murdered each other in mass and we always will.

Humans go crazy. Its a normal reaction to the brain being overly stressed and the particular individual being unable to control it. Many of us won't actually feel that kind of stress, and most of us who do experience that level of stress can control it. We see this even in people who have what outsiders would call perfect lives.

I don't want this kids incident to be compared to serial killers because this kid was no Gacy or Bundy. He was just a kid who experienced too much stress and was hopeless and acted out in a more extreme manner than most. Serial killers are a whole nother animal entirely.

And personally, I hope guns continue to be available to the public. Because when the day comes that the cops and feds can have guns and I can't, or they can have better guns than me, you can bet I'll jump ship. Thats a bad freaking idea. An armed society is a polite society.

I really hate the fact that we will use an incident which occurs less than one percent of the time to ensure that society doesn't have access to guns. The same way they say that 800 kids shoot themselves on accident every year. Yes, the entire removal of guns would prevent these from occurring. But would it really be worth it? Do you want the criminals and the cops to be the only ones with guns? Because quite honestly, I think that would make America much worse. Everytime we give the government an inch, they take everything, as we know from the taxes (implemented during the wws as an emergency fund needs, never removed), habeas corpus (removed whenever the government thinks the constitution is dumb because they have a special little clause that allows them too) and so forth and so on. I don't know, but the thought of being without my 9 mm scares the crap out of me, because of these crazy mo fos.

[j. d. worthington]

On the actual thread topic...

Yes, we've seen an increase in such things, for a variety of reasons; at least partly because the media does make this a circus. Kids who feel they've reached the end of their rope (in some cases) or who simply have far too much belligerence in them naturally, see this as a way to "become famous" and thumb their noses at the society that let them down. And, yes, the society does bear some of the blame here, though that particular topic would be an endless discussion, I'm afraid.....

Understand: I empathize with the kid for being kicked out of the house, for living on the street, for all the negative things that happened to him and were done to him by others. But once he pulled that trigger, he brought any horrendous consequences on his own head. There my sympathy stops completely. I could even have kept it had he got the idea into his head and taken the gun to the mall, taken it out, and aimed it... and not pulled the trigger. But the moment he took action to take another person's life... that's when he crosses a line, and it is strictly a one-way street. I'm sorry that it went this way, and I would still like to see us, as a society, invest time, effort, and money into finding out the underlying causes for such things and finding reasonable ways to prevent them... but that, too, I fear, is something for we are simply not prepared to undertake....

[Kissmequick]

I don't want this kids incident to be compared to serial killers because this kid was no Gacy or Bundy. He was just a kid who experienced too much stress and was hopeless and acted out in a more extreme manner than most. Serial killers are a whole nother animal entirely.

And personally, I hope guns continue to be available to the public. Because when the day comes that the cops and feds can have guns and I can't, or they can have better guns than me, you can bet I'll jump ship. Thats a bad freaking idea. An armed society is a polite society.

Yes people go crazy and act to extremes, that has always been, and will never stop. BUT if he'd gone crazy without free access to a gun, he'd probably have hurt only himself, not a load of people who were just minding their own business.

Else why would it be that a country with one of the highest ( if not the highest I don't know) rates of private gun ownership be the one with one of the highest rate of *kid goes mad and shoots people*?

Like it or not, the two ARE connected.

As for the feds/ police having guns and you not - if the public didn't have so many guns, do you think the police / feds would need to carry them as a matter of course?

In the UK only special units have guns to carry with them because the vast majority of citizens don't own guns, so your bog standard bobby doesn't need to.

It's a self perpetuating circle - the more people have guns, the more people think they need guns to defend themselves.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Kissmequick

It's a self perpetuating circle - the more people have guns, the more people think they need guns to defend themselves.

It's (at least largely) a question of fear... which is always a self-perpetuating condition.....

[dustinzgirl]

Also...just to remind everyone...I'm just rambling thoughts in the above.

PS: We also have some of the highest rate of serial killers, children on death row, and rape for westernised countries.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Kissmequick

As for the feds/ police having guns and you not - if the public didn't have so many guns, do you think the police / feds would need to carry them as a matter of course?

I believe the Second Amendment of the United States' Bill of Rights is more focussed on securing the rights of the common citizen against an overbearing central government or an invader, rather than addressing local police force operations. In addition, (the proverbial) you will find that much of the structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an absolute response to unfavorable British rule, so a contrast between UK laws and American practices may not carry much influence.

The Second Amendment is the following:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

We may not like it, but it is in our Bill of Rights; thus, it is an undeniable pillar of the law of the land. I struggle with my support for it. I'll admit that freely. But I struggle more with the abandonment of an Amendment, and the far reaching ramifications on all our rights for allowing such a departure.

[Kissmequick]

But I struggle more with the abandonment of an Amendment, and the far reaching ramifications on all our rights for allowing such a departure.

Even if it might stop this kind of thing? Why? Is your right to have a gun if you want more important than the life of some poor bugger who was doing their shopping at the wrong time?

No, not having a go, just an interested party. Why do you think everyone should be allowed to bear arms? What for? Does that include people with mental conditions? Shouldn't there be some limits? If there were stricter controls, that if you passed the tests you could do so ( as in UK, you can have a gun, but you need a license from the police, to lock up your guns in a scure cabinet, show you have a good reason for owning a gun etc) wouldn't that serve the same purpose but at the same time limit this kind of thing?

And I have to disagree that a well armed milita is necessary for a free state. If milita means army, fine. If milita means every person who wants to - no( and if I recall, isn't that part of the anti gun movement arguemet, that a militia is an army?) And if your Bill of Rights is purely, or even mainly, against British Rule - isn't it time you updated it? Live in this century perhaps?

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Kissmequick

Even if it might stop this kind of thing? Why? Is your right to have a gun if you want more important than the life of some poor bugger who was doing their shopping at the wrong time?

Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin.

Our founding fathers would have been safe from persecution had they relinquished their militia. They did not, and thank goodness for that. I fear a world where the only ones with power are criminals and government. Everyone should fear that world. Guns are a tool of power. This is a simple fact, in the same way a claymore used to be, a mace, a scimitar, a staff, and before that a club with saber tooth tiger teeth on it. In any case, weapons are tools of power. This power can be used for good or for evil. If we hand that power over, we as a people are saying that we, as a society, do not have any rights to power over our own land and safety. We are essentially relying wholly on the government to protect us from the criminals , and hoping that the government doesn't take that and run with it. Both those hopes are false.

There will always be psychotics (by nature or nurture) willing to kill in mass. They will always find a way to do so with or without guns.

It is my right to form an armed and regulated militia. This is a right guaranteed by our constitution. I may do so through proper legal channels, but I can still do so. If you propose to take that right away from me because you fear a free country, then that is your mistake. My grandfather did not fight in the wars so we could change our constitution and remove power from the people.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Kissmequick

Even if it might stop this kind of thing? Why? Is your right to have a gun if you want more important than the life of some poor bugger who was doing their shopping at the wrong time?

No, not having a go, just an interested party. Why do you think everyone should be allowed to bear arms? What for? Does that include people with mental conditions? Shouldn't there be some limits? If there were stricter controls, that if you passed the tests you could do so ( as in UK, you can have a gun, but you need a license from the police, to lock up your guns in a scure cabinet, show you have a good reason for owning a gun etc) wouldn't that serve the same purpose but at the same time limit this kind of thing?

And I have to disagree that a well armed milita is necessary for a free state. If milita means army, fine. If milita means every person who wants to - no( and if I recall, isn't that part of the anti gun movement arguemet, that a militia is an army?) And if your Bill of Rights is purely, or even mainly, against British Rule - isn't it time you updated it? Live in this century perhaps?

Oh, there are conditions set for gun ownership, and they depend on which state you would live in; however, no state allows for a free-for-all mentality when it comes to regulations and limitations to arms ownership and selling.

As far as disagreeing with the thought process behind the 2nd Amendment, that is fine. Just keep in mind that a disagreement doesn't negate the power of written law, and, for myself, I must admit that I couldn't begin to approach the notion that I am "wiser" than the Founding Fathers. If I was, for example, able to reel back in the powers-that-be to follow more closely the Constitution, I would live a freer life as intended.

Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding by what I meant as British Rule. It is the system and set up of law that the Colonies had a grievance with, not simply because it was "British" in nature. Thus, the issue is not about timing or a relationship to a revolution. It is about building a, in some people's eyes, more progressive approach to law and order as it relates to citizens. Whether or not an UK citizen has issue with one of the core Rights of the citizens of America bares no significance over our domestic proceedings. That was the point I was wishing to make.

I understand it is a common theme that, out of frustration, people wonder why we can't just change anything we would like in the Constitution amongst the burn of a terrible event, but it far too dangerous. If we allowed for the ability change or disregard the Constitution without one heck of a legal battle, then we have set the precedent for other areas as well. For some misguided souls in the US, nothing would have been grander to them than utterly sweeping aside the entire Bill of Rights immediately after 9/11. That is only one example of abuse.

It is also a large misunderstanding to believe the only effective recourse in curbing such heinous events is to attack the citizens' rights, as would be if one was to assume that a supporter of the 2nd Amendment (in some form) is also a supporter of crimes such as this thread topic. Also, I must repeat a prior point of mine: the type of gun used was not even legal for him to possess, so the Amendment citation is moot in this case.

[dustinzgirl]

Just to clarify, militia basically means that I have the right to organize an armed group of persons for the purpose of petitioning a grievance to the government as long as our guns are registered and we are not acting like moronic terrorists or breaking the law or otherwise injuring the populace (like those crazy environmentalist people that bomb buildings up here).

Originally Posted by McMurphy

If we allowed for the ability change or disregard the Constitution without one heck of a legal battle, then we have set the precedent for other areas as well. For some misguided souls in the US, nothing would have been grander to them than utterly sweeping aside the entire Bill of Rights immediately after 9/11. That is only one example of abuse.

Quoted for truth.

Also, I might be a bit jaded when it comes to the government, I have very little faith in a government that chooses to follow the constitution when it suits them (Japanese war camps, Indian camps, Black Lists, Racial Profiling, Removal of Habeas corpus--our American history is filled with moments where a FEARFUL populace gave the government control and the government abused it.)

Yes, I am afraid of crazy people breaking into my house and killing my family.

I am even more afraid of our government breaking into your house and arresting you with or without a cause.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Yes, I am afraid of crazy people breaking into my house and killing my family.

I am even more afraid of our government breaking into your house and arresting you with or without a cause.

I couldn't have said it better.

Although I attempt to at great lengths.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Just to clarify, militia basically means that I have the right to organize an armed group of persons for the purpose of petitioning a grievance to the government as long as our guns are registered and we are not acting like moronic terrorists or breaking the law or otherwise injuring the populace (like those crazy environmentalist people that bomb buildings up here).

Well, the definition of "militia" is as follows:

NOUN:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

So it can definitely apply to Dustie's use of it, as well as several others. It does not, however, seem to apply to a force designed to cause civil unrest, violent uprisings, or depose the government (except under extraordinary circumstances, perhaps, such as the abandonment or suspension of the Constitution by the federal government).

Also, I might be a bit jaded when it comes to the government, I have very little faith in a government that chooses to follow the constitution when it suits them (Japanese war camps, Indian camps, Black Lists, Racial Profiling, Removal of Habeas corpus--our American history is filled with moments where a FEARFUL populace gave the government control and the government abused it.)

Yes, I am afraid of crazy people breaking into my house and killing my family.

I am even more afraid of our government breaking into your house and arresting you with or without a cause.

A moment's facetiousness on your first comment: "I might be a bit jaded," etc.: Ummm... ya think?

More seriously, though... I share your distrust of the government; I think any reasonable person does (at least to some degree). Certainly the founding fathers did, and Jefferson himself gave reason to during his own presidency (as did Andy Jackson, not to mention a host of others).

However, I don't think I was wrong in asserting that the entire debate has much to do with fear -- the fact that that term seems to have hit a nerve would tend to back me up on that. It may or may not be an acknowledged fear, and the fear may or may not be rational (at least in part); but fear definitely plays a strong factor in why this is such a heated debate.

History has taught us time and again not to give power entirely over to any government. To do so is to beg for a totalitarian state. There must always be a struggle to maintain a balance between those in authority and those who put them there (as well as those who voted for the opposition): the general populace. An ochlocracy (government by the mob) is also no solution. Far too many people lack the skills (not, necessarily, the ability) for critical thinking -- and are therefore easily swayed by demagogues or emotion rather than reason -- for this to end up as anything other than, eventually, a totalitarian regime brought about by an even more vicious type of power-politics.

The argument for the people to continue owning guns in case the government goes too far, while having some points of merit, may nonetheless be almost entirely fallacious, as the government will invariably own the superior weapons, the largest arsenal, and disciplined forces to implement the use of such... all things which make the individual's firearms -- even automatic or semi-automatic weapons -- sort of in the class of a pea-shooter against (literally) a hydrogen bomb. In other words, short of a complete uprising of the populace, it's a foregone conclusion which will win, and that the death toll would be enormous.

Should we "hand over our guns" to the government? No, I don't think that's the solution. But I do think that we need to periodically reexamine the standards required to own guns and the necessity for periodic testing of gun-owners to see if they maintain not only their ability to use the gun properly but to follow proper safety procedures... and quite possibly psychological testing (though I'd say that one is a very dangerous precedent itself); and certainly the easy accessibility of guns to the marketplace needs to be changed. As for the average citizen owning things such as automatic and semi-automatic weapons... I'd say that's something that should be very strictly examined. There should be an overriding reason for that sort of weaponry is my point of view. Perhaps I'm wrong on this; but I've yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

At the very least, in light of the increasing number of such incidents, we need to seriously reconsider our stance on this issue, and how to find a workable solution that balances the rights of all. That in itself is one hell of a thorny problem; and the less we're ruled by our own innate prejudices either way, and more by actual reasoning and debate on points of merit, the more likely we are to at least approach something of a viable result.

[dustinzgirl]

I agree that the idea that I could fight the government with my .22 is rather ridiculous. So instead I'll pull a Red Dawn and head up to the mountains where I will certainly need them to kill Bambi. (Yes, my movie-freaked mind does wander there. Don't giggle.)

Anyways, I agree with you JD for the most part.

I would even go so far as to say that as a society, we rely on bad people (or good people) doing bad things to maintain an order of control (fact, there would be no police if there were no bad deeds, or government or state, local, and federal taxation).

So it would be safe to say that what it really boils down to is who do we, as a populace, fear the most? The sadistic people with the gun or the sadistic government with the gun? Since in either case, we could do little to protect ourselves from either element. Its all that balance stuff you were talking about, I agree with that.

[Dave]

On the subject of gun crime:

IMHO the complete ban on guns in the UK has not worked. We now have the ridiculous situation where our Olympic Pistol team has to go to Sweden to train, whilst criminals can easily get hold of any guns they require illegally, and you can even order then on the Internet and have them posted to your address! We already had the strongest gun control laws in the world, with every gun needing a certificate and a locked box, but now it has gone too far to the extreme. Shootings are still rising, and in London this year, a teenager has died either through a shooting or a stabbing, approximately every two weeks. One death happened quite recently near to where I live, and my daughter knew boys who knew the victim.

On the other hand, the US seems obsessed with these historical rights to arms, which come from a different era.

On this particular shooting:

He had planned this for some time, hence the note about being famous. Given how many guns per household there are in the US, then he would have been able to get hold of a gun given that amount of time, whatever laws were in place to prevent him.