God, it was so awful. And right before Christmas made it even worse. Can you imagine the parents who now have to either return or pass on the gifts they bought for their children? I ache so for them all.

Why do we have these incidents? I know other countries have had them, but nowhere near the number we have. I thought at first the blame was all on guns, but now I think an even more important part of the equation is the lack of mental health care. Look at health insurance policies. My policy, through work, provides for only 3 visits a year. On a personal note, I've been in counseling for almost two years now; the first year-and-a-half it was weekly; I'm now able to go every two weeks instead; but I STILL have things I'm working through! My church helped me with the cost until I got another job, and I've been paying out of pocket since. Insurance coverage is a joke. 3 visits a year would do nothing for any serious problem.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm just so weary of seeing these horrific and UNNECESSARY tragedies played out over and over and over. No child should have to die at school like that! No one should have to be afraid of going to school, or going shopping, or going to a movie. What has happened to our society?

"As per Tony Beasley's comments up thread, mass murders dropped to zero after the Port Arthur Massacre and the tightening of gun laws. "

Not zero.

The Monash University shooting cause more gun control measures to be enacted making handguns have to be made larger to make them harder to conceal."

Two people died in this incident in 2002. Is this a mass murder via guns ? Want constitutes a mass murder ? Semantics, from my point of view any deaths are tragic so you are correct David.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire

With respect to this mass killing, your point is that in absence of firearms an enterprising psychopath will find a way. Perhaps. However I am glad that as a nation we have worked to restrict the option of firearms as a method for mass murder.

Edited by dwhitton on 12/21/2012 03:06:30 MST.

Miguel,

I’m happy I made you smile, and I’m quite aware that you are an American. I did not say you are full of BS, but rather your statement that “Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture.” was BS. Both the pro and anti sides can point to gun laws outside the US to make their point (quite well informed views), often supported by detailed stats.

As an outsider (non-American) looking at this discussion, I would agree with you that the discussion was being polarized between the pro and anti gun factions. The irony is I don’t even see this as a ‘gun issue’ but rather a ‘societal issue’. The mass shootings in the US, and to some extent, Canada, UK and Europe are a symptom of a problem (if one even exists) rather than the problem itself.

I would compare it to a natural disaster like a hurricane or tornado. There is loss of life, you greave, but with a natural disaster, there is no immediate reaction to do something so you move on. Even if that something has no bearing the cause of the disaster (a good portion of this discussion on the thread). However, if you notice that the rate of these disasters is increasing, you might come to the realization that there is a fundamental problem (climate change for example) that you might be able to influence if you take the time to understand the problem.

I see these mass shootings as a societal natural disaster. There is no quick solution, whether it is banning assault rifles (anti-gun stance) or turning your schools into armed camps (pro-gun) that will prevent these relatively isolated events. However, as a society, if you see the rate of these disasters increasing, there might be an underling problem that might need to be addressed. This might mean universal health care (like Canada and Europe) to address mental health issues; it might be better support in local communities for single parents; addressing how the media contribute to these events, or a hundred other causes that you might find if you really dig into the problem.

While the discussion is focused on ‘guns’, prayer in classrooms (that one made me laugh), or arming your teachers, the problem will not be solved.

"The Monash University shooting cause more gun control measures to be enacted making handguns have to be made larger to make them harder to conceal."

Handguns have always been very strongly controlled in Australia - I'm not aware of any size restrictions.

I did not say you are full of BS, but rather your statement that “Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture.” was BS. Both the pro and anti sides can point to gun laws outside the US to make their point (quite well informed views), often supported by detailed stats.

Right. But looking up statistics and trying to convince others with them is also not how the problem will be solved, no matter how informed. You can't know what is going to happen until you actually go ahead and try something. It's the same as taking statistics for how many car accidents occur and using that to determine whether or not you ought to go and drive your car.

While the discussion is focused on ‘guns’, prayer in classrooms (that one made me laugh), or arming your teachers, the problem will not be solved.

That is exactly my earlier point. From the start I have attempted to talk about the way people talk about the issues, not about the guns themselves. I see the main problem as both a misinterpretation and self-deception surrounding the perception of the issue. As long as the perception and way of communicating don't change, the solution to the problem will never be clear.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:31:20 MST.

Michael L.

I also noticed that no one acknowledged your Harvard study. I personally thought it was very comprehensive and the results spoke for themselves. However it doesn't support the gun control groups message.

They also ignore all the FBI statistics that should the 20 year drop in violent crimes and hand gun deaths. These numbers have even dropped since the AR ban was lifted in 2004. Does this have anything to do with gun ownership, probably not. My guess is stronger sentencing of criminals, better law enforcement, systems that track things better, home security systems, etc.

Do we need to improve the process? Sure. Many options have been discussed. Do we need to ban all guns, absolutely not.

Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2009 as in 1968, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1964. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1973, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.[12]

Bureau of Justice Statistics


This implies that the rate on a per capita basis has fallen but on an absolute level hasn't changed since 1973. This was posted pages ago but quickly ignored by the gun owners.

""They want to effectively remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves."

This is coming from someone who owns 20 guns. You are delusional by ignoring the root cause of why you need to defend yourself against the apparent zombies running amuck. Honest to God, you represent part of the problem to which there is no solution. Fire away."



You are an idiot.
We have crime and criminals, not zombies.
People are robbed, beaten, raped, stabbed every day in their homes
Most violent crimes dont involve a gun
Removing guns, doesnt stop crime. It does remove the ability of citizens to protect themselves at minimal risk.

If you dont like guns, great. Live somewhere they arent allowed and be happy there.

It is no coincidence that crime correllates significantly with areas that vote democratic. Figure out the reasons for yourself. Liberals are too tolerant and expect too much from the government.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/21/2012 09:34:33 MST.

"I also noticed that no one acknowledged your Harvard study."

That's not really unusual in these forums. No one acknowledged my American Journal of Public Health study either, which concluded: "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

In the end, I think we know that the vast majority of people are going to trust a study whose conclusion aligns to what they already have a propensity to believe, and find fault with a study whose conclusion goes against what they already have a propensity to believe, especially when the studies are on a wildly contentious issue.

Edited by idester on 12/21/2012 09:40:49 MST.

"You are an idiot.
We have crime and criminals, not zombies.
People are robbed, beaten, raped, stabbed every day in their homes
Most violent crimes dont involve a gun
Removing guns, doesnt stop crime. It does remove the ability of citizens to protect themselves at minimal risk.

If you dont like guns, great. Live somewhere they arent allowed and be happy there.

It is no coincidence that crime correllates significantly with areas that vote democratic. Figure out the reasons for yourself. Liberals are too tolerant and expect too much from the government."

Nice. Name calling. So when are you bringing religion into the discussion?

In 2010, according to the UNODC, 67.5% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm, so in fact, YES most violent crimes do involve the use of a gun.

The only idiot here is the one who owns over 20 guns for the reasons you mention. You posted previously that it is all about protecting yourself using the same force that would be used against you. Are you expecting a mob of at least 20 gun toting criminals at your door or would one hand gun do the job?

This is where the argument for protection fails. How much weaponry do you need to BE protected versus FEEL protected?

As far as moving, it would seem that you may want to take your own advice. Sounds like your local streets are crime ridden cesspools. Where is Robo Cop when you need him?

Its looking more and more like the solution to our gun problem will be to do nothing.

I don't think anyone is proposing to ban all guns, Brad. Not even me. I used to own a shotgun, and I really didn't see a problem with it, other than the fact that those doves had an uncanny ability to dodge my shot. I did get rid of it, though, when I had my first son. I have not discouraged them from learning to shoot a shotgun or rifle. I just thought, and still think, that we were better off with no guns in the house with curious boys running around.

I think action on handguns makes more sense than long guns.

A lot of people have made good arguments on gun control not having a short term effect because there are already so many weapons out there. I kind of agree with that. I think its more of a long term solution. IMO, handgun control will, over time, change people's perceptions regarding them, which is what I think is really needed to make things better. I think a good argument can be made that other first world countries have such better gun homicide rates than us because of differing perceptions of gun use. Changing those perceptions will take time. Looking at the numbers, its hard to believe there is no correlation between gun control and gun homicide rates among first world countries. Maybe my kids will see some benefit from changes.

My favorite article on the American Journal of Public Health gun study - http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/12/20/a-useless-study-on-gun-possession/. I'm not sure I've ever seen a study whose finding endorsed gun control, where the methodology wasn't skewed to force a bias towards gun control. Kleck couldn't do it, and he was a liberal, Democrat card-carrying ACLU member. But at least he was intellectually honest enough to admit his findings.

It's a shame this won't do anything to change how we deal with the mentally ill, or the desenitizing effect of violent video games, etc.

20 guns? Piker.

I just saw the NRA has taken a new, important stand: We need more guns in the schools.

And Joe, you can pry my game controller from my cold, dead hands. :)

Ben C.

You just completely miss quoted what the NRA said. I'm not an NRA member and have no intentions of becoming one. Below are some quotes from MSNBC (very liberal site):

“With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

""And he noted that there are millions of active and retired police officers, military veterans, and private security guards – “an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens” – who should devise a protection plan for every school."

"He criticized Congress for not creating a national database of the mentally ill and called for increased federal prosecution of those who illegally possess guns."

My county has resource officers in all the schools and yes they are armed. I went to my son's elementary school Christmas party yesterday and the resource officer (county deputy) was walking the halls. His quote was put a "POLICE OFFICER" in every school, not put more guns in schools.

Come on Ben. If you don't like the suggestion, then at least say I don't think we need an armed Police Officer in schools. For all I know the NRA believes all the teachers, staff, etc should pack a gun, but that's not what he said.

He also suggested that maybe a group of qualified law enforcement, military and security experts would be a good resource for helping develop a plan for better securing our schools. I personally think they would do a better job than a bunch of politicians and school administrators.

Brad, I was trying a little bit of humor along with a little of the truth. That's why I didn't use quotes around it. I truly just saw the headline. It translated about as well as sarcasm usually does on here. I should have know better than to try to inject a little levity on a gun control thread without being a little more obvious.

I just thought is was funny that anyone thought the NRA was going to budge a bit on gun control issues. To be fair, they do want more guns in the schools so long as they are in the hands of authorities. I'm pretty sure my principal would have shot at me once or twice in 9th grade if he had a gun back then.

Edited by alexdrewreed on 12/21/2012 12:21:40 MST.

Ben,

And I hope you know that I was harassing you some.... I was giving you the Keyshaun Johnson "Come on man". If you haven't seen him do it on the NFL pregame shows then you are probably lost.

We all know what lobbyist agendas are on both sides of every political issue.... Unfortunately

Football. Unlike you guys, we live in a basketball state. Getting better at obvious humor?

Police in the schools, police in the malls, police in the theatres. Funny how the freedom to bear arms is looking more and more like the freedom to live in a police state.

I think ALL Americans of all colours, ages and creeds, should be forced to carry sub-machine guns around all day. Eventually they would all kill each other and then the country could be invaded (again), this time by some people who are SANE, and the country could start fresh. NEWSTART.

I was thinking of applying for a professorship in a US university, but when I read about armed invader drills, I realised I didn't want to normalize myself to this kind of mad behaviour.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be ridiculous. Somebody needs to step up and objectively re-evaluate this learned behaviour, and change it for the good of everyone. It IS learned behaviour, and therefore, can be unlearned.