You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Could be a hobby, or collection. Some people like to horde shoes, maybe their fetish were guns.
But, if that were the case, the mom is an idiot for not locking them away safely.
But, it said he failed to buy a gun the day before, so did her mom buy these, or did he?
Ok so if normal people collect things like shoes or model toys, who collects killing instruments? Not model guns or replicas mind you, actual guns that kill people (like herself for instance) Posted via RS Mobile
I did not at any point insult educators, nor would I ever. I'll elaborate further.
A person who reacts to something in a moment of need, spontaneously without predilection, is not comparable to a person poised and actively training for that aforementioned moment.
Any fight will be determined by three factors: mindset, training, and tools. You must have the mindset that you will stop the threat regardless of harm to yourself and you will not back down. The principal and several teachers in this incident showed they had this proper mindset. Mindset is the only part of the three that cannot be given or learned.
For educators that have the right mindset, all they need is the training and tools. They can be trained to use weapons to defend themselves and students. Believe it or not, if educators were given one week and then 2 days per year afterwards of firearms and active shooter training, they would be more trained than half the Law Enforcement officers in North America.
Quote:
Israel is at war, it is being attacked by nations with a clear agenda. Israel cannot prevent the attacks from occurring, because they are launched or facilitated by sovereign foreign powers which they cannot influence.
Israel HAS prevented attacks from occuring. Since the Ma'alot Massacre in 1974 which followed many other terrorist shootings at schools, Israel has armed civilians at many school grounds. Since then, terrorist gunman attacking Israeli schools has been virtually non-existent. One 2002 incident involved no students harmed, and the armed civilians killing a terrorist gunman.
Quote:
America has the power to influence the people who attack it, because the attacks arise internally and are facilitated by policies on guns and treatment of the mentally ill.
Agreed. So it comes down to two different solutions to a problem with many favouring one. Yet that one solution doesn't prevent the problem, it only attempts to deal with the means to commit a tragedy.
I think it was posted earlier in this thread: society has no problems blaming a tool or machine because it cannot be personified and has no logic or reason of its own. Society cannot blame the person because that would mean society failed him.
Quote:
MAJOR societal changes are not accounted for in these charts.
I agree. I was hoping that posting these diagrams would lead to a dialogue, especially the American CCW and homicide statistics. I would like to know what evidence everyone has of other changes from 1991 to 2010 that could lead to the homicide rate dropping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBishop
Though certainly pertinent, that correlation is definitely not as clear cut as you make it out to be. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the relationship is strictly spurious, but to ignore other factors would be extremely shortsighted.
That's the right thing to wonder. I urge you to now counter those diagrams, especially the American one since this is about American shootings. Especially interesting is that the scope (1991-2010) encompasses the entire American Assault Weapons Ban, from 1994-2004, yet in 2010 homicides are still below 1991 levels.
I find this very relevant because all these shooting incidents are happening around the time Obama is talking about renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Is the Assault Weapons Ban effective at preventing these incidents? (aside: the Columbine shooting occured in 1999 while the Assault Weapons Ban was still in place). Is it a "feel good" law that gives people a false sense of security without addressing the root issue?
Looking up the 1999 Columbine shooting now and the aftermath is very intriguing. This is a similar type event with high media coverage that occured 13 years ago now.
A United States Secret Service study concluded that schools... should be paying more attention to the pre-attack behaviors of students. Zero-tolerance policies and metal detectors "are unlikely to be helpful," ....The researchers focused on questions concerning the reliance on SWAT teams when most attacks are over before police arrive
Most schools have now implemented "lockdown" plans in case of active shooter scenarios. Teachers at the elementary school shooting followed this plan. The plan is to lock your classrooms and wait for police assistance. Notice that this contradicts the Secret Service study which raises concerns of over reliance on police intervention.
Does a lockdown plan save lives? I'm very sure it saved many lives in this most recent incident. Did it do anything to help the 26 victims shot? No.
Quote:
In May 2002 the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 US school shootings. They had the following findings: Incidents of targeted violence at school were rarely sudden, impulsive acts.
Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker's idea and/or plan to attack.
Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
What is VERY interesting in the Wiki article is that it has a whole section dedicated to gun control measures implemented afterwards, but only has ONE sentence related to addressing the behavior of the perpetrators:
"some schools across America have renewed existing anti-bullying policies"
Further reading has revealed to me that most of these anti-bullying policies involve no preventative measures, they only suspend or expel students that are accused of bullying. This contradicts the Secret Service study posted in the Wiki page which states "expulsion is the spark that pushes some to return to school with a gun".
Why is it that after all of these events that happen time and again, everyone lobbies for gun control, and new gun control measures are actually implemented with shootings still happening, yet very little of the aftermath discusses the psychopaths themselves?
Ok so if normal people collect things like shoes or model toys, who collects killing instruments? Not model guns or replicas mind you, actual guns that kill people (like herself for instance) Posted via RS Mobile
People who enjoy target shooting? People who are interested in the history surrounding firearms?
You really need to stop making it seem like gun owners are nuts for having a hobby. Firearms are pieces of metal, plastic, and wood, what makes the owner a nut is how he chooses to use one.
We don't need any of the fancy cars out there, most are deemed to be too fast for the street, yet thousands of people are interested in collecting mobile hunks of steel that weigh thousands of pounds and can be driven at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.
It's all in how you use it, and where. There have been plenty of fatal incidents involving vehicles, hit and runs, drunk driving, you name it. None of those incidents mean that owning a car makes you less mentally stable. Sure, guns may have been invented to kill, but there's more to them than death and destruction nowadays.
Notice how licensing and regulations do not stop people from using vehicles to kill others, whether it's an accident or not.
Last edited by Yodamaster; 12-16-2012 at 01:10 AM.
Any fight will be determined by three factors: mindset, training, and tools. You must have the mindset that you will stop the threat regardless of harm to yourself and you will not back down. The principal and several teachers in this incident showed they had this proper mindset. Mindset is the only part of the three that cannot be given or learned.
For educators that have the right mindset, all they need is the training and tools. They can be trained to use weapons to defend themselves and students. Believe it or not, if educators were given one week and then 2 days per year afterwards of firearms and active shooter training, they would be more trained than half the Law Enforcement officers in North America.
I've already responded to your thoughts on teachers training for urban combat scenarios part-time, and you've not said anything that even attempts to dispel any of my prior responses in this passage.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, short of re-iterating the point from my prior response: the psychological profile associated with a person capable of spontaneously responding to an act, is not comparable to a person capable of arranging and training for a pre-planned response to an act. The qualities that makes a person a good kindergarten teacher are juxtaposed to those that make a person a good police officer.
Quote:
Israel HAS prevented attacks from occuring. Since the Ma'alot Massacre in 1974 which followed many other terrorist shootings at schools, Israel has armed civilians at many school grounds. Since then, terrorist gunman attacking Israeli schools has been virtually non-existent. One 2002 incident involved no students harmed, and the armed civilians killing a terrorist gunman.
I'll give you that Israel's approach of protecting schools might be effective, but the issue in the Middle East is complicated and I'm not familiar enough with it to carry on much further. I return to my basic point, because Israel cannot control access to the weapons used to attack its people the attacks will continually occur. In Israel, if the attacks are not executed by gunman they will be car bombs, if not executed by car bombs they will be by missiles, the enemies attack will perpetually attack the weakest target and civilians continue to die. Americas terrorists are fundamentally different in that they arise internally, so a different approach is needed.
Quote:
Agreed. So it comes down to two different solutions to a problem with many favouring one. Yet that one solution doesn't prevent the problem, it only attempts to deal with the means to commit a tragedy.
I think it was posted earlier in this thread: society has no problems blaming a tool or machine because it cannot be personified and has no logic or reason of its own. Society cannot blame the person because that would mean society failed him.
Guns are designed to enable humans to easily kill humans.
Guns used for hunting enable humans to easily kill non-human animals, not much of a difference there though.
Guns used for target shooting substitute paper for humans or non-human animals, but often the targets are images of humans.
Trucks are designed to enable humans to easily transport objects.
Knives are designed to enable humans to easily cut vegetables, boxes, and such.
A person can commit mass assault or murder with a truck, and there will be no calls to restrict access to them.
A person can commit mass assault or murder with a knife, and there will be no calls to restrict access to them.
If a person commits assault or murder with a firearm, there will be an instant response to restrict access to them.
Why?
A person who commits mass assault or murder with a truck or knife is grossly manipulating the intent of its design.
A person who commits mass assault or murder with a firearm is using it for the purpose it was designed.
I do find the earlier idea interesting, and there's some truth in it.
It's not completely unjustified that some fault is given to firearms though, they're fufilling the purpose of their design.
There needs to be a better system for catching the people before they fall so low. It is a very difficult proposal to catch all those people, and restricting the access of those who slip through the cracks to have to firearms effectively limits the harm they can do.
Quote:
I agree. I was hoping that posting these diagrams would lead to a dialogue, especially the American CCW and homicide statistics. I would like to know what evidence everyone has of other changes from 1991 to 2010 that could lead to the homicide rate dropping.
That's the right thing to wonder. I urge you to now counter those diagrams, especially the American one since this is about American shootings. Especially interesting is that the scope (1991-2010) encompasses the entire American Assault Weapons Ban, from 1994-2004, yet in 2010 homicides are still below 1991 levels.
I find this very relevant because all these shooting incidents are happening around the time Obama is talking about renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Is the Assault Weapons Ban effective at preventing these incidents? (aside: the Columbine shooting occured in 1999 while the Assault Weapons Ban was still in place). Is it a "feel good" law that gives people a false sense of security without addressing the root issue?
Here's an article that attributes the decline to a number of possibilities: policing strategies, sentencing strategies, the state of the economy, the decline in cocaine use, and... iron levels in the blood of children. Why Crime Keeps Falling - WSJ.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodamaster
It's all in how you use it, and where. There have been plenty of fatal incidents involving vehicles, hit and runs, drunk driving, you name it. None of those incidents mean that owning a car makes you less mentally stable. Sure, guns may have been invented to kill, but there's more to them than death and destruction nowadays.
Notice how licensing and regulations do not stop people from using vehicles to kill others, whether it's an accident or not.
Read my babbling above, I think it's relevant to what you've said here.
Last edited by MindBomber; 12-16-2012 at 01:50 AM.
People who enjoy target shooting? People who are interested in the history surrounding firearms?
You really need to stop making it seem like gun owners are nuts for having a hobby. Firearms are pieces of metal, plastic, and wood, what makes the owner a nut is how he chooses to use one.
Actually I am interested in firearms myself, especially the history. I enjoy reading and learning about guns, the companies behind them, etc.
But I don't keep loaded guns around, not just because it would be a pain in the ass to do so, but because it is stupid and pointless.
When I want to go shooting, I run hit up the gun range in Washington. They have all these guns to choose from, in a controlled environment, where guns belong - on the shooting range. Not in your fucking closet. There is no good reason to keep guns and ammo in your home, even if you're a huge gun buff. Collect the guns, take it to the range to shoot, but why do you need ammo right there with the gun? There is literally nothing good that can come from it.
People who enjoy target shooting? People who are interested in the history surrounding firearms?
You really need to stop making it seem like gun owners are nuts for having a hobby. Firearms are pieces of metal, plastic, and wood, what makes the owner a nut is how he chooses to use one.
We don't need any of the fancy cars out there, most are deemed to be too fast for the street, yet thousands of people are interested in collecting mobile hunks of steel that weigh thousands of pounds and can be driven at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.
It's all in how you use it, and where. There have been plenty of fatal incidents involving vehicles, hit and runs, drunk driving, you name it. None of those incidents mean that owning a car makes you less mentally stable. Sure, guns may have been invented to kill, but there's more to them than death and destruction nowadays.
Notice how licensing and regulations do not stop people from using vehicles to kill others, whether it's an accident or not.
But the purpose of a car is transportation. It was never designed with the idea it could kill someone. Sure it could kill and has but it's a trade off we make because the benefits out weigh the risk. Fire could kill too but it serves a even bigger purpose in life.
Guns were designed to kill and nothing more. It's a hobby for many but I don't see the benefits of allowing people to carry weapons to outweigh the cost. Posted via RS Mobile
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver
Posts: 988
Thanked 428 Times in 95 Posts
We don't need Jesus, We need Magneto so that we can collect all the guns together and keep one for himself so that he can rule America!
Arguing about Gun control is like saying We need AIDS control cuz AIDS is bad. No shit, I think we all know that.
But its too late, you can't convince half of America to give up all their guns. The genie is out the bag. So I guess they just have to accept that innocents will die every year because of this necessity to be armed in case the US government turns on its own people cough Patriot Act cough
__________________
Give them nothing, but take from them... EVERYTHING!!! - King Leonides
7seven: I really can't stand all these idiots who hit the gym now just because they watched 300 and want to be like a spartan. Case in point, this skinny guy comes into the gym the other day, must have only weighed ~ 140lbs, loads on 2 plates on the bench rack, mutters to himself, for sparta, unracks the barbell and proceeds to drop it directly on his chest.
I've already responded to your thoughts on teachers training for urban combat scenarios part-time, and you've not said anything that even attempts to dispel any of my prior responses in this passage.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, short of re-iterating the point from my prior response
I believed I did, but I guess we've reached a stagnant point in this debate. My main point on educators remains that many actively tried to stop the shooter bare handed. They are not cowards.
Quote:
I'll give you that Israel's approach of protecting schools might be effective, but the issue in the Middle East is complicated and I'm not familiar enough with it to carry on much further. I return to my basic point, because Israel cannot control access to the weapons used to attack its people the attacks will continually occur. In Israel, if the attacks are not executed by gunman they will be car bombs, if not executed by car bombs they will be by missiles, the enemies attack will perpetually attack the weakest target and civilians continue to die. Americas terrorists are fundamentally different in that they arise internally, so a different approach is needed.
I admire you pointing out the flaws in this comparison, because it leads me into another argument: method of attack. You mention if guns are not used, attacks will come via other means.
While attacks on Israel and America are different, the same logic of method used applies. If not guns, home made bombs, knives, etc. Controlling guns is society avoiding the base issue which is mentally ill people are being ignored in America to the point where they justify themselves making these attacks.
You made a previous argument that making bombs is difficult to learn or do for the average person. The Aurora theatre shooter booby trapped his apartment with home made bombs. If you take away one method, psychopaths will find another.
There needs to be a better system for catching the people before they fall so low. It is a very difficult proposal to catch all those people, and restricting the access of those who slip through the cracks to have to firearms effectively limits the harm they can do.
I'm glad we're starting to agree on some points here. I believe society and media puts a disproportionate amount of lobbying and effort into gun control versus mental health. As in one of my previous posts, in the aftermath of several high profile shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora movie theatre), much discussion took place on gun control and virtually none on mental wellness. Perhaps a combination of the two is going to be the most effective solution, but I believe little progress will be made while almost 100% of the effort is on gun control.
Quote:
Here's an article that attributes the decline to a number of possibilities: policing strategies, sentencing strategies, the state of the economy, the decline in cocaine use, and... iron levels in the blood of children. Why Crime Keeps Falling - WSJ.com
This article makes no mention of homicide, not even generally about violent crimes, and instead focuses on property/monetary crimes. While listing off a long list of possible reasons for decline in property crime, even far fetched ideas as heavy metals in the bloodstream, it doesn't once mention armed citizens. In his studies this author must have encountered that argument at least once, which makes me believe he has a bias on the issue.
I would still love to be presented with an article dispelling causation between increasing armed citizens and decreasing homicide rates.
Actually I am interested in firearms myself, especially the history. I enjoy reading and learning about guns, the companies behind them, etc.
But I don't keep loaded guns around, not just because it would be a pain in the ass to do so, but because it is stupid and pointless.
When I want to go shooting, I run hit up the gun range in Washington. They have all these guns to choose from, in a controlled environment, where guns belong - on the shooting range. Not in your fucking closet. There is no good reason to keep guns and ammo in your home, even if you're a huge gun buff. Collect the guns, take it to the range to shoot, but why do you need ammo right there with the gun? There is literally nothing good that can come from it.
Your original remark was that simply owning multiple firearms meant that you must have some sort of mental problem. You didn't add the part about ammo or having the guns actually loaded until now.
There is no reason for a gun to be loaded if you only intend to use it at a range, I'm not disputing that, because I already agree.
The only part I have a problem with, is the ammo arguement. Anybody that has owned a firearm, knows that you have to experiment with yours to find what ammo is best for it. A gun range is not guaranteed to have the spec of ammo your firearm operates safely with.
But even then, your ammo and weaponry are supposed to be separated in a locked container, in a safe.
My parents are strongly against having guns in the apartment, but we've come to the agreement that they would be safe enough at our shop (in an industrial area).
I really hate to say this but I highly doubt you'll see any new gun laws even after this massacre. The gun lobby is too powerful and way too many elected officials are linked to the NRA and other lobby groups, they would never vote for laws that would ban or restrict guns because it risks losing elections.
Your original remark was that simply owning multiple firearms meant that you must have some sort of mental problem. You didn't add the part about ammo or having the guns actually loaded until now.
There is no reason for a gun to be loaded if you only intend to use it at a range, I'm not disputing that, because I already agree.
The only part I have a problem with, is the ammo arguement. Anybody that has owned a firearm, knows that you have to experiment with yours to find what ammo is best for it. A gun range is not guaranteed to have the spec of ammo your firearm operates safely with.
But even then, your ammo and weaponry are supposed to be separated in a locked container, in a safe.
My parents are strongly against having guns in the apartment, but we've come to the agreement that they would be safe enough at our shop (in an industrial area).
Yes, I suppose I should have made that clear. I have nothing against guns or owning guns as a hobby. My main point is that to live in a safe, quiet community, and think you need several loaded guns with ammo, especially weapons that are specifically made for self defense, there is something going on in your head that makes you think unclearly. Whether it's a mental issue like insanity, or just straight up paranoia, I couldn't say.
To me, the main thing is that nothing good can come from that situation. Only bad.
There's an inherent flaw in comparing gun ownership to owning multiple vehicles. As has already been stated, vehicles were built with a vastly different purpose in mind when compared to a firearm. Yes, a car can be used to drive through a crowd full of people, but that doesn't mean it was built for the purpose. Virtually anything laying around you can be used as a weapon. Sure, most would be pretty useless, but some can be quite deadly.
If anything, compare firearms to a bow and arrow, or even a crossbow. The latter two have been long since phased out as old technology, yet people still go to an archery range and fire off some arrows. Hell, I know someone who still hunts with one. They were bred for the same purpose as firearms: to hunt and kill. Doesn't stop it from being fun to play around with, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp
Actually I am interested in firearms myself, especially the history. I enjoy reading and learning about guns, the companies behind them, etc.
But I don't keep loaded guns around, not just because it would be a pain in the ass to do so, but because it is stupid and pointless.
When I want to go shooting, I run hit up the gun range in Washington. They have all these guns to choose from, in a controlled environment, where guns belong - on the shooting range. Not in your fucking closet. There is no good reason to keep guns and ammo in your home, even if you're a huge gun buff. Collect the guns, take it to the range to shoot, but why do you need ammo right there with the gun? There is literally nothing good that can come from it.
While I'm not a firearm owner, I know many people who are. I used to go to DVC many, many times. I still go into the bush (usually out in Mission, at "Little Iraq") with my friends and shoot of a bunch of rounds. Every one we meet up there are also responsible and make sure there's no issues with cross shooting. Police also love to patrol that area, so that's an even bigger incentive to make sure everything is going by the book.
Shooting at a range can be fun, especially if you're looking to fire off a gun you don't own, but there are often restrictions. Typically, indoor ranges don't allow center fire rifles and limit the calibre you can use. Many outdoor ranges are the same as well.
To address the fact that no one needs to own a gun in their house... to a certain degree I agree. If you live in a Yaletown condo or reside in a random suburb of the GVRD, that's more or less true. There's no "real reason" why you need to have a firearm locked up in your place of residence. The laws are clearly not on the defendants side if a burglar breaks in and you shoot him. That's been made clear multiple times in the past. However, for many people who live outside of the GVRD (or any major metropolis in Canada), a rifle is often a necessity. My best friend lives in the middle of butt fuck nowhere land, on property that often sees many top-chain animals of prey roaming through it on any given week. Add to that fact that she has two young daughters to watch out for, and a rifle suddenly becomes an attractive proposition. And keep in mind she only has twenty acres to contend with. Many of her neighbours and family friends have multiple hectres of land to look after. Their crops and livestock are constantly under watch by wolves, coyotes, bears and other animals. For people like these, a firearm is simply part of their tools: typically not needed, but glad it's there for when it is.
To touch again on your main point, however, I think restricting guns to only ranges is the wrong step. In Canada, guns and ammo have to be locked up separately from one another. Most owners I know also either take out the firing pin or put a trigger lock on when they know it wont be used for a while. Responsible gun owners such as these are the ones that suffer when the government pulls it's knee jerk reaction. No, it's not "hard" to get your PAL, but it's a long enough process that it would deter the typical hot-headed person from deciding to get a gun and shooting up a populated area. Again, you say that there's no "real reason" to own a gun, but what about responsible hobbyists? A guy I know collects pre-WW2 prohibited handguns. Many aren't in working condition anymore, but some are. These guns are as much interest to a firearms historian as an old 1930's Bolex H-16 film camera is to me.
I would never spout the Second Amendment as a valid reason for gun ownership. Instead, I would say that through proper background checks and formal, government approved methods of training, gun ownership should be open to all who pass. Banning firearms entirely will never solve mass murders and it only ends up affecting those who are responsible.
That is, of course, simply based on ownership. Tackling mental health issues is another thing entirely and one I wont bother going into.
I believed I did, but I guess we've reached a stagnant point in this debate. My main point on educators remains that many actively tried to stop the shooter bare handed. They are not cowards.
I might not be presenting my point clearly, it's been a very long week.
I do not think that teachers are cowards, not at all.
Quote:
I admire you pointing out the flaws in this comparison, because it leads me into another argument: method of attack. You mention if guns are not used, attacks will come via other means.
While attacks on Israel and America are different, the same logic of method used applies. If not guns, home made bombs, knives, etc. Controlling guns is society avoiding the base issue which is mentally ill people are being ignored in America to the point where they justify themselves making these attacks.
You made a previous argument that making bombs is difficult to learn or do for the average person. The Aurora theatre shooter booby trapped his apartment with home made bombs. If you take away one method, psychopaths will find another.
I'm glad we're starting to agree on some points here. I believe society and media puts a disproportionate amount of lobbying and effort into gun control versus mental health. As in one of my previous posts, in the aftermath of several high profile shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora movie theatre), much discussion took place on gun control and virtually none on mental wellness. Perhaps a combination of the two is going to be the most effective solution, but I believe little progress will be made while almost 100% of the effort is on gun control.
It is impossible to prevent a person set on murder from committing it if they can freely move within the general public.
If I chose, I could go to a hardware store and find a dozen instruments to kill in as many minutes.
Whether I find a hammer, axe, chainsaw, nail gun, or knife at the hardware store, none of those items would be anywhere near as capable as a firearm, and that's the whole point. Firearms are very good at what they've be designed to do; they're so good at it they've changed the outcome of wars, and revolutionized society.
I do not dispute, controlling firearms is a pathetic alternative to catching mentally ill people before they reach such a low level. I don't think it's possible for society to catch all mentally ill people though, no matter how much effort is applied to the task. Humans, are, humans, we're very flawed and limited in our abilities. The US army officer who went on a killing spree at Fort Hood, BTK serial killer, and Canadian army pilot serial killer, are very good examples of just how difficult it is to catch everyone.
If we accept that it's simply not possible to kill everyone, restricting access to firearms can limit the damage they're capable of doing.
One minor correction - I didn't say an IED was difficult for an average person to build, only that is more difficult than legally purchasing a gun.
Quote:
This article makes no mention of homicide, not even generally about violent crimes, and instead focuses on property/monetary crimes. While listing off a long list of possible reasons for decline in property crime, even far fetched ideas as heavy metals in the bloodstream, it doesn't once mention armed citizens. In his studies this author must have encountered that argument at least once, which makes me believe he has a bias on the issue.
I would still love to be presented with an article dispelling causation between increasing armed citizens and decreasing homicide rates.
It's difficult to find an article dispelling causation between an increase in armed citizens and decreasing homicide rates, because if you enter those search words into Google you will receive dozens of fanatically pro-gun American pages offering conclusions based on questionable evidence. I would concede if those pages offered very good evidence, but they don't, and they're written by the type of people who support private citizen armies (ad hominem, I know).
Here's another article, it focuses more on violent crime, but applies the same basic reasoning:
Spoiler!
HIGH-SPEED car chases, shoot-outs, dealing with politicians: life for a Los Angeles police officer can be trying. Yet for sheer stress little can compete with the ordeal of the Compstat meeting. Every seven weeks bureau commanders are grilled by a senior panel, often including the police chief himself, on the whys and wherefores of crime in their jurisdictions. They are expected to have an on-the-spot grasp of the statistics: if there has been a spike in burglaries from vehicles, the captain’s interrogators will want to know what is being done about it. There is no hiding from the numbers: data-laden documents are distributed before the meeting, and overhead map projections pinpoint the sites of individual incidents in pitiless detail. The pressure has reduced officers to tears.
Although some think Compstat introduces incentives for police to fiddle the figures (or “juke the stats”), most analysts agree that it has improved the effectiveness and efficiency of the police in Los Angeles, and other cities with similar systems. (Compstat was brought to Los Angeles from New York by Bill Bratton, a tough-talking police chief who oversaw declines in crime in both cities.) It helps in two ways. First, by mandating the collection and management of detailed crime data it makes it easier to allocate police resources. Second, it introduces accountability of the strictest sort. If you are not reducing crime in your bureau, it doesn’t matter if your children play baseball with the mayor’s: you can forget about that promotion.
Crime in America has plummeted since its numerical peak in 1992; the violent sort by 38%, according to FBI statistics. To what extent can innovations in policing like Compstat explain the decline? Naturally, police departments and politicians take much of the credit. In July Charlie Beck, chief of the LAPD, said that new crime figures showed Los Angeles to be the “safest big city” in the country (though only three other cities matched his definition of “big”: New York, Chicago and Houston). The mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, boasts that the city is safer than at any time since 1952. Both agree that the police have been doing a fine job.
Driving one evening through Watts, a poor part of South Los Angeles with a troubled past, Sergeant Steve Lurie explains that his colleagues find they are called on to be social workers, child psychologists and marriage-guidance counsellors as often as they are police officers. He knows the projects, the gangs and the problems. He describes the challenges of “hood days”: on dates that correspond to numbered streets (eg, October 3rd for 103rd Street), the gang within whose territory the street falls holds a big party. Often this means nothing more than food, drink and music. But sometimes the gangbangers take the opportunity to go on a murderous shooting spree on neighbouring turf.
At around 10pm Mr Lurie is called to the site of a suspected burglary. There is a hint of danger in the air when police eject an entire family from their home after they think they spot the suspect hiding inside. Neighbours, many of them small children, spill on to the streets to see what is going on. But Mr Lurie and his team delicately reduce the temperature, separating the aggressive men from the rest of the crowd. These are hardly the experiences most parents would want for their children on a Monday evening. Yet residents seem by and large to see the police as arbiters and protectors, and Watts bears little resemblance to the crime-ridden hellhole of 20 years ago. Mr Lurie says he wouldn’t be surprised if this year there were as many murders in all of Los Angeles as there were in his division in 1992.
Yet good policing is not the only factor behind the decline in crime. The fall in violent crime in Los Angeles began in 1992, a decade before the introduction of Compstat, and a time when the LAPD was hated by many residents, particularly blacks and Latinos. The truth is that no one predicted America’s great crime decline, and no one has a definitive explanation for it. Particularly confounding has been an acceleration in the drop since 2008; many observers thought a poorer country would be a less law-abiding one.
Everything from the removal of lead from petrol to the increased prescription of psychiatric drugs has been credited with the decline. A controversial theory proposed in 2001 by two academics, Steven Levitt (of “Freakonomics” fame) and John Donohue, which attributed half the previous decade’s drop in crime to the legalisation of abortion in the 1970s, still has fans. Today there is growing interest in the role of video games and social-media technologies in providing young men, who are responsible for the lion’s share of violent crimes, with alternative ways to spend their time.
Other analysts look to structural or demographic explanations. Jack Levin, a criminology professor at Northeastern University in Boston, acknowledges the success of policing strategies, but notes that an ageing society like the United States should expect to experience less violent crime. Immigration also matters, he says: studies have repeatedly shown that cities with large immigrant populations experience lower rates of violent crime.
Then there is the awkward issue of incarceration. America continues to lock up a scandalously large number of its people: around 1% of the adult population is behind bars at any time. But, says Mr Levin, “the relationship between the incarceration rate and the violent-crime rate is not very strong.” New York has not followed the national mania for imprisonment, and yet the decline in its crime has been among the most impressive. Indeed, in states with a particular fondness for imprisoning citizens, such as California, the policy may have done more harm than good. Jonathan Simon, a law professor at Berkeley, points out that removing young men from their communities for long stretches erodes the social links—an older relative, say—that might otherwise help prod them out of crime. Today, under a controversial policy known as “realignment” forced on California by the Supreme Court, the crowds of inmates in the state’s prisons have at last begun to thin out.
Brusque encounters
An emerging challenge for police in some cities is that tactics that prove effective in the short term may also lose them trust. Their widely used “stop-and frisk” powers in New York City, for example, may have taken thousands of guns off the street, but they have also led to furious allegations of racial profiling. “We’ve figured out that encounters with young people reduce violence, but they also have negative effects,” says Mr Simon. “Let’s see if we can separate the two.” A growing number of police are being killed on duty.
Moreover, the good news hardly extends to every corner of the country. Violent crime remains extremely high in some troubled cities, such as Memphis and Detroit, and in smaller places such as Oakland, California, and Camden, New Jersey. Most striking is an unexpected spike of gang-related violence in Chicago, where murders are up by 28% so far this year. Against a backdrop of a long-term decline in all crime in the city, as well as a 10% decline for the year, the sudden unrest has caused some alarm.
The real challenge will come when crime rates bottom out nationally, as one day they will. Compstat may have given some police officers sleepless nights, but in a broad environment of falling crime there is more credit than blame to go around. When the crime rate starts to rise, Compstat meetings will become that much harsher.
Everything it points out sounds more plausible than guns detering crime, except maybe the lead thing. If guns do deter crime, how could America have such high crime rates, despite having so many guns compared to other areas of the world?
Think we all need to stop with the political stuff. Yeah it has great value in what you guys are saying. But just think of the children and the other victims, and pray for their families.
__________________
Quote:
[03-07, 03:26] Yodamaster - The feeling when you quickly insert without hitting the sides
I really hate to say this but I highly doubt you'll see any new gun laws even after this massacre. The gun lobby is too powerful and way too many elected officials are linked to the NRA and other lobby groups, they would never vote for laws that would ban or restrict guns because it risks losing elections.
As much as I think owning a loaded gun at home and/or carrying one around is stupid, I also don't agree with banning them. The government controlling people that much is never a good thing, especially when the government is as inept as the one in America.
Take a look at the article I posted a while back about Japan. They have super strict gun control - and it is working. However look at the rights the people had to give up to do it. It might work there, maybe because that's just the way it's always been. But for the government to straight up ban guns goes directly against why they were allowed to carry them in the first place.
It's really tricky... I hate the government - especially federal - telling people what they can and can't do.
Something does need to happen though, maybe something along the lines of banning the ability to have guns and ammo in the same place, or something like that.
Think we all need to stop with the political stuff. Yeah it has great value in what you guys are saying. But just think of the children and the other victims, and pray for their families.
Think we all need to stop with the political stuff. Yeah it has great value in what you guys are saying. But just think of the children and the other victims, and pray for their families.
I think it's because we are all thinking of the children and victims that we're having this debate.
We're all heartbroken and angry and want something done that can lessen the chance of this happening again.
__________________
GO Canucks GO!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) hi there
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ・。*。✧・゜゜・。✧。*・゜゜・✧。・$$$$$゜゜・。*。・゜*✧ .
I lay the blame on the parent(s). Not the guns. There are too many irresponsible parents out there. Violence or drug/alcohol abuse stems from poor parenting. If the kid does have mental health issues, a stupid prepper mother shouldn't be buying guns and ammo and storing it in the house.
Personally, I think if any minor commits a crime, the parents should be held as accountable and be laid with the same charges. It's like have a potentially vicious dog loose in the neighborhood - the owner in the end is held responsible.
I was just watching Fox News and CNN and it's refreshing to see them finally talking about the other major issue in America that is directly linked to mass shootings which is mental health and the collapsing mental health industry. The indusry has been in decline because insurance companies are finding ways not to pay for issues related to mental health. It's the same problem up here; prefect example is the story about that guy last week that almost killed those 3 elderly women in DT. He went to St. Paul's a few days before the attack asking for help and he was turned away, the mentally ill have nowhere to turn.
And I can't stand people who say "I have a friend who has mental issues but he/she would never kill innocent children", news flash: not all mental illness is the same, it affects people differently and needs to be diagnosed individually.
Video description ... is crusading to STOP mandatory mental screening and forced drugging of our children. This video highlights the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence, including nearly all recent mass-shootings and school shootings.
Discover more truth about Psychiatry's evil reign as the true shadow governments that have a chokehold on all sectors of society
With all the sadistic and degenerate media that is shown on our TV's and movies, couple that with the drugs and poverty rates in the U.S. ... you'd be stupid not to have arms in your home. Whether its for the fear of a night time attacker, day time house invasion, or another bank schemed depression causing nation wide chaos... making it known you have a weapon when there's intruders could save ones life or from you and your family being raped.
If suspects and deranged persons know citizens are armed, they would think twice about doing such crime and would only have the upper hand against weak defenseless individuals.
Same with the political situation, intellectuals knew elites will eventually encroach on America, citizens having guns is one layer of protection in keeping some sort of sovereignty.
Right, because the people with a mental disposition appropriate for educating elementary students are often equally suited to a role as a close-quarters urban combat soldier.
A good look at what's its like to parent someone with mental illness; a parent who's someday worried that she may be raising her own Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris but doesn't have the heart to send him to jail.
This article really focuses on the problem of dealing with mental illness rather than gun control.
In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.
Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.
“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.
“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”
“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”
“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”
I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.
A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.
That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.
We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.
At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.
Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.
The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”
“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”
His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”
That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.
“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”
“You know where we are going,” I replied.
“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”
I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”
Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.
The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with....at what age did your child....were there any problems with...has your child ever experienced...does your child have....”
At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.
For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”
By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.
On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”
And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.
I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.
According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. (A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones). Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.
When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”
I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. (U.S.: Number of Mentally Ill in Prisons Quadrupled | Human Rights Watch)
With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail, and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011 (Nation's Jails Struggle With Mentally Ill Prisoners : NPR)
No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”
I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
