The Horror that happened today...

[Racetyme]

I posted mine too soon, it was still in the middle of the grief. I'm sorry for that. But really, having strict gun laws doesn't prevent people from getting weapons. It just prevents the people who aren't interested in breaking the law with them. Sure, there might be less third degree murder charges with guns, but there would be more stabbings. Just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean that angry wife beater isn't going to kill someone. I would also be willing to bet that first degree homicide, with guns, would stay exactly the same. If you are really going to take the time to plan out killing someone, you can get yourself a gun to do it with, regardless of legality. As I said before, I feel safer in a school filled with weapons.

[deadboy]

I can't see the point of a nation that owns the stronger army in the world (any seven nation army in the Earth would't be enough for winning against USA alone)

I agree with you on every point there, but would just like to point out that just because the U.S.A has the strongest army in the world that doesn't mean that no-one can beat them, for that matter they haven't really won a war since WW2 (Vietnam, Iraq, take your pick) and that's the problem with their culture that leads to them saying things like having more guns would have stopped it. They think that power and agression can stop anything, even an idea, which has time and time again failed to work, and yet their answer is still to stop these sort of shootings happening by making sure they are more powerful by giving everyone a gun. What they need to understand is that what needs to be solved is the cause. Find out -why- these people are doing these things and help them instead of trying to stop it through further acts of aggresion. That is the only way to stop this sort of thing popping up in the headlines time and time again

[SekoETC]

The things that Chris posted were about terrorists, military related killings and drug gangs. This was a young guy without a military or gang background shooting other young people.

[Junesun]

Guns shouldn't be regulated, just the types allowed. If there were more people with guns, he would have been shot. No guns at all, he'd have used a crossbow or petrol bombs or knives or a hammer. The weapon isn't the problem, it's society not noticing and dealing with the people in question.

But really, having strict gun laws doesn't prevent people from getting weapons. It just prevents the people who aren't interested in breaking the law with them. Sure, there might be less third degree murder charges with guns, but there would be more stabbings. Just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean that angry wife beater isn't going to kill someone. I would also be willing to bet that first degree homicide, with guns, would stay exactly the same. If you are really going to take the time to plan out killing someone, you can get yourself a gun to do it with, regardless of legality. As I said before, I feel safer in a school filled with weapons.

I really have to wonder here. Imho, having more people with access to deadly weapons, especially immature ones who are more likely to over-react in grief, jealousy or rage, is a sure way to get more innocents killed.

Germany has quite tight weapon laws. In all the time that I have watched the news, there has only been one school massacre (the one in Erfurt in 2002). Also, the rate of homicides (no matter what the weapon) is 5 times lower than in the USA. Killing isn't easy when you don't have guns, least of all automatic ones, and stabbing or strangling somebody is also less anonymous than pulling the trigger. And I don't see anybody going on a stabbing or strangling rampage; he'd be overwhelmed so soon.

If in countries with strict weapon laws, weapons are more accessible to criminals and gangs, it doesn't show here. Germany has less gang violence problems than the USA. And at least love-sick but otherwise ordinary students like the one that caused this massacre can't easily access guns. Most school massacres are not organised crime and it's not by suddenly developing a criminal intention that you get access to weapons. If you have a weapon in your home, statistically there is a bigger chance that one of your family members gets hurt through it than that you can use it to defend yourself against a criminal.

[Cdls]

Why is it that some of you will go the way of the ignorant and blame everything else then the actual problem itself? The problem is that this guy was messed up in the head. All blame should go on him.

But if you shoot one person and everyone starts screaming and people might be trying to stop you, you most likely just panic and start shooting at everyone that seems hostile. Or then people start running away and you get the thought that you don't want anyone to tell others it was you, you get the crazy idea that if you shoot them all, there will be no more witnesses.

Considering what witnesses have been saying, this is not what happened. Apparently he appeared calm and knew what it was he was doing. There was also a note that he left stating how much he hated "rich kids" and all this other crap. It was not some panic induced killing, it was what he wanted to do.

but am I the only one who feels that it isn't so much the gunman's fault but whatever it is in American society that causes these people to do this every-so-often, I mean, it's not going to be the guy (Or girl)'s fault that they are messed up.

Reading that, I wanted to post something but think I would probably get banned for it so what I will say is refer to my first couple sentences.

[Arlequin]

One of the sons of Sci-fi writer Michael Bishop was killed too.

About that weird theory that if everyone had guns he would have been shot down... just think about it: each time someone goes mad somewhere, do you want that he has a gun at hand? Many people get angry each day, many people think to do stupid things when they are angry, the minute or two it takes them to think twice. They shouldn't be able to reach a gun during that critical timespan. Like this man was.

So, maybe someone else will have a gun to shot him down, his odds to survive a so unexpected event against a determined one will be still small. Maybe he will just increase the panic and confusion. Maybe everyone will take their guns to defend themselves amid the chaos. May you be one among them, and tell me: when you see that other man wielding a gun, are you going to wait to ask if he's friend or enemy?

No. You can't. You will shot and kill him, because you are confident on your gun only, and distrust your fellow citizens. In the end you think you are alone in this world: that's why you got the gun, to accompany you till you are the last man standing... or not.

By the way, the only reason for a black market to exist is that a demand exists for it. You got a black market because some of you feed it.

Sorry for turning the post in a rant against guns, but it's almost unbelievable that these events are just becoming part of USA folklore (a country that actually has many, many good things, and I really love all of them), without barely any real measures to stop it.

If nothing changes, this is going to happen again, a hundred times. Mad and desperate people will keep mimickizing these actions in their disturbed need to horrorize people with the nature of their own 'pain'.

[Sicofonte]

I'm sorry, I didn't want to offend nobody, inside or outside USA.
Just that I got "dislocated" when I imagine all the sorrow of those families.

The solution won't ever be to give more guns (and rights to use it) to the people.

Mad fools, violent paranoids, psychopaths and vulgar assassins can be found in any nation of this Earth. But, strangely and noticeably, they tend to show up (for killing people left, right and centre) only in USA.

Tend. Maybe I use that word improperly. I want to meant that it is in USA where most of the "non-sense" massacres occours. At least, that is what I have learned from news and some TV-docs.
Of course, when a mad can't take an automatic weapon when he becomes out of control, s/he will take a knife or whatever. No matter the country s/he is or the applicable laws.

It's hardly an American problem

And I think it is spreading all over the world. I mean, it is becoming worse, on every country. In Spain, 20 years ago it was rare to hear about a murder, and usually always with a knife and involving "only" one or two victims at the most (it is easier to flee from a knife than from a M4). To see a fire weapon different from a two barrel shotgun for hunting birds or the pistol of a policeman was inconceivable. Nowadays, I can say that I have been aimed with a gun (in a disco, I'm still wondering why that unknown fool guy decided to intimidate me with a fire gun... maybe because he was so unsecure with his other... qualities, and tried to show off of anything else... and of course, he was drank).

...

I think all those sad news were related to war or terrorists actions (and terrorism is a (ussually coward) way of making the war).

The problem that I was refering to is not related to war (or pseudo-war), but to senseless massacres like the one that opens this thread, in which one or a few guys becomes crazy and decide going to hell with a plentiful company.

Please, don't misunderstand me. I'm not telling that war and terrorism has a sense. I mean that soldiers and terrorits has a goal further on killing as much people as possible before they die. They want to win a war (whatever the reasons for starting it), to get some concessions that (they think) can't be achieved through diplomacy.
Mad killers don't want anything else than causing sorrow and suffering.


There are mad killers everywhere. But they are better equipped to bring death to its neighbours in USA.

Also they show up all over the world Sicofonte, but they only get publicity in America so it seems like theres more. This then means more do it for the attention. Alot of serial killers and such do it for the media attention they get.

-nods- You are right in that USA has more publicity (through thick and thin).
But I picked up, from the Michael Moore "Bowling for Columbine", that America has de record (from far away) of the ammount of deaths by shot. Canada has a similar ammount of weapons per family, and similar laws regarding guns, but they are rather far below USA's record.
I don't know why, but people in USA seems to be more ready to use his weapons until its last consequences.

The problem was the person not the weapon

Of course. If weapons were in the proper hands...
But, meanwhile the mankind becomes able to detect those potential mad killers and/or to fix up their minds, what can be done in order to avoid senseless massacres at hands of those mads?
Restricting weapons for everyone can be a good solution.

Don't ban a tool because someone will use it to hurt someone else.

Weapon and tool are different things, I used to think.
Well, ok, yes, I understand you, tools are the means whereby some act is accomplished. But, I know that some acts are frowned upon or even forbidden. So it is logical to expect that some tools become forbidden.

[Sicofonte]

just because the U.S.A has the strongest army in the world that doesn't mean that no-one can beat them

I agree.
And having more and more weapons among its plain people (I mean, not professional soldiers) won't increase their chances of "victory".

What they need to understand is that what needs to be solved is the cause. Find out -why- these people are doing these things and help them instead of trying to stop it through further acts of aggresion. That is the only way to stop this sort of thing popping up in the headlines time and time again

Wise.



And I hate that fool... oh, I forgot his name.... that actor in Ben-Hur.... ah, yes, Charlton Heston.

[Cdls]

Tend. Maybe I use that word improperly. I want to meant that it is in USA where most of the "non-sense" massacres occours.

Oh...so I guess that when Hitler slaughtered all those Jews, he did it in America? Or maybe all that genocide that is in the news thats all over Africa, I guess the USA owns that now as well? What about the various terror attacks, most of those are outside of America. Get your facts straight.

[SekoETC]

Those are examples of persecuting a group of people, they were targeted due to being different from the attackers, and perhaps considered a threat or a target of envy. Jews were often rich, the stereotype goes that they are good with business and often described as greedy. Nazi people envied their wealth so it was easy to convince the masses that these people are enemy of the state #1.

Well, in school shootings a kid may see their classmates as the enemy, people who have turned against him or how about the majority that ignores the bullying you must encounter? Massacres may seem mindless but usually the killer had a reason, even if others could not agree with it. A lonely kid attacking the popular kids. A poor kid attacking rich kids.

[Cdls]

I see where you are coming from but I cant agree with it. There are people all over the world that have these problems, and worse, yet they all dont pick up guns and such and go on a rampage. There is no justification, and no excuse for those actions.

[Schme]

Glad to hear everything worked out. I used to be very liberal, gun wise, but recently I've been libertarian in pretty much everything. What if one in every five of those people on campus had a gun? It wouldn't have happened. I live in an urban school with gangs and concealed weapons. I feel safe. This will never happen at my school, the gunman would be dead in minutes.

You're fucked out of your mind, brother. What if they'd all had guns? There'd probably be a lot more dumbasses shooting each other. With a gun, a fist fight ends in a death.

What if what if. That wouldn't have solved shit. Yeah, I'm sure a shootout would have killed less people. Let's give daycare employees guns, save money on hiring a security guard. I'm sure it'd save everybody's life in a spree shooting if they could shoot back.

I don't think you're know what you're talking about at all, brother. I've seen that, gang. And let me tell you something about how people use guns in that culture. People do not use guns to defend themselves, not from an attack.

What someone does with a gun. They flash it around and threaten people. Or they shoot a rival in a fight. For example, someone might get beat up or insulted, or, most gravely, threatened you. You can't have that. You have to redeem yourself. So you bring eight guys and beat down on whoever laced you out or called you a pussy or said he's going to fuck you up. Alternativly, you can shoot them. Then you have respect. Because you're violent. THAT is how you protect yourself with a gun. You show people you are so violent that they must not come after you or they'll be hurt.

Or, if you're the kind of person who's making real money. Someone is messing with your bussiness in whatever way, rips you off, for example. You shoot them, again, sending the message that "I will shoot you." Or we will shoot you, if you're acting on behalf of your affiliates, whatever the case may be. A gun is just a a weapon with which you magnify the effectiveness of your violence. A gun in the hands of a law abiding and righteous person, who is naturally not aggressive enough to break the law and use violence to advance themselves in the first place, is as good as a piece of shit.

But let me tell you this. A gun cannot protect you. Maybe in a fight you can pull it on someone without a gun and shoot them if you're losing. Yeah, sure. But if I decide that I am going to shoot and kill you, and I don't mean I just pull it in anger, I mean, I decide "I am going to kill Racetyme.", you're dead. There's absolutly nothing you can do. Chances are you won't survive. Yeah, people survive sometimes, but you probably won't.

A gun can't protect you, trust me.


You say the gunman would be dead in minutes? Fuck that, man. If I'm firing at you with a semi automatic, trying to kill you, when you're sitting in a chair, let's see how fast you pull your gun. You're out of it, bud.

And you don’t keep a gun in your pocket in school. A locker, sure, but not on you, unless you’re nuts. Anybody who’s doing that is too stupid to be in school anyways. And that’s not that I mean “They shouldn’t do that because I feel it’s wrong.” I’m saying if they’re that stupid, so stupid that they don’t know that doing that is a bad idea, for themselves, they won’t make it that far in school, because they’re too stupid to understand how society works and use it for their own benefit. And most everyone is at least smart enough to do that.





As for firearms regulation. Whether it’s a good idea or not depends on the society in question. For Canadian and American society, it’s a very good idea. Not that I believe it would have changed anything in this case, but I still think it’s a good idea.

Some other news from the past week....

Those are all targeted killings, not spree killings. They all make sense. By that I mean, they have a specific end. This guy was just shooting people. Though it probably made sense to him.

But for a militiaman shooting a member of a rival militia, or someone planting a bomb in their bussiness rival's car (Whatever bussiness that may be.), makes sense. They plan to continue their life. Whereas this guy's deal was pointless, seeing as he was going to kill himself anyways.

Even when people kill and die for ideology, they have an end in mind, or what have you. This guy was just pissed. Perhaps with reason, but still.

I posted mine too soon, it was still in the middle of the grief. I'm sorry for that. But really, having strict gun laws doesn't prevent people from getting weapons. It just prevents the people who aren't interested in breaking the law with them. Sure, there might be less third degree murder charges with guns, but there would be more stabbings. Just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean that angry wife beater isn't going to kill someone. I would also be willing to bet that first degree homicide, with guns, would stay exactly the same. If you are really going to take the time to plan out killing someone, you can get yourself a gun to do it with, regardless of legality. As I said before, I feel safer in a school filled with weapons.

You're right, there'd still be a huge market for guns and they'd be used more or less exclusivly for crimes. The problem is not so much with the guns as with the societal problems that make people kill each other. There'd still be all the same problems. But a gun makes things a lot simpler. And stabbing someone is hard. You have to get up close to them and do it with your own hands. Shooting someone is infinitly easier. It can be pretty impersonal.

[Antichrist_Online]

Speaking from personal experience, if I'd have my gun [I've a shotgun for hunting] in primary school, I'd be another statistic. At the time I used a baseball bat and the teacher ended up with a limp. (Continous bullying, including destroying my books, letting kids beat me up, and spreading rhumours around the parents resulting in one attacking me).
Now, I would use my bare hands at most. Immaturity is far worse as is other problems. Licence the guns, make people take courses in safe usage, but banning them all together won't work. All the shootings have taken place in places where guns were illegal to carry even with permits, nobody's ever tried to shoot up a NRA meeting, the fear of guns is sufficient, even if they aren't there.

[Sicofonte]

I really would like to put all this as my signature

But let me tell you this. A gun cannot protect you. Maybe in a fight you can pull it on someone without a gun and shoot them if you're losing. Yeah, sure. But if I decide that I am going to shoot and kill you, and I don't mean I just pull it in anger, I mean, I decide "I am going to kill Racetyme.", you're dead. There's absolutly nothing you can do. Chances are you won't survive. Yeah, people survive sometimes, but you probably won't.

A gun can't protect you, trust me.


You say the gunman would be dead in minutes? Fuck that, man. If I'm firing at you with a semi automatic, trying to kill you, when you're sitting in a chair, let's see how fast you pull your gun. You're out of it, bud.

And you don’t keep a gun in your pocket in school. A locker, sure, but not on you, unless you’re nuts. Anybody who’s doing that is too stupid to be in school anyways. And that’s not that I mean “They shouldn’t do that because I feel it’s wrong.” I’m saying if they’re that stupid, so stupid that they don’t know that doing that is a bad idea, for themselves, they won’t make it that far in school, because they’re too stupid to understand how society works and use it for their own benefit. And most everyone is at least smart enough to do that.

I'll have to make an abstract...

[Schme]

All the shootings have taken place in places where guns were illegal to carry even with permits, nobody's ever tried to shoot up a NRA meeting, the fear of guns is sufficient, even if they aren't there.

Why would someone shoot up an NRA meeting?

Sure, people are scared of getting shot when they know someone has a gun. What's your point? That we should all pack heat?

I really would like to put all this as my signature
I'll have to make an abstract...

Why? I don't get it. What's an abstract? No offence, I just don't understand.

And no offence to you either, Anti. I'm just not get your point.

If you don't mind my asking, why you beat up your teacher? I can understand taking a bat to someone, for sure, but your teacher really pissed you off that much?