April 15, 2008 -
While critics of violent video games regularly seek to blame school shootings on games, an anti-gun violence activist notes that games are popular around the world while school shootings are largely a U.S. phenomenon.As reported by the Guardian, Paul Helmke (left), president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said:
We are seeing more and more of these gun incidents, from a kid waving a gun around right up to the level of mass shootings. Amazingly, no one keeps official statistics at government level about shootings in schools and colleges, but we can see from news reports and research that it's increasing. One of the main reasons is that it is so easy for the wrong people to get hold of guns in this country...
It tears me apart. It's become such a common occurrence and I keep asking why we allow this to happen. I'm not sure that psychological factors or violent movies and video games are any different here than in other countries - the difference is how easy it is to get a gun.
Comments
Just remember: if you want to keep your guns, then stop crying over every school/mall/any other public place shooting. The victims of these shootings are paying the blood tax for your right to have a gun.
Me? I'm glad I can live in a country where the constitution isn't so rigid so that it can't adapt to different times, and I'm glad I can go outside and be confident that no one around me has a gun or any weapon they can harm me with. The state hasn't stripped away my right to have a gun (nb: the right to have a gun is ridiculous. There is no God-given right to possess any weapon, you idiot rednecks), rather, it has given every one of us the right to walk around free of fear of being shot. There are about 2 publicised shootings a year in the UK; there are about 2 a minute in the US.
Also, to Shadowfox: your theory that deterring the perpetrator of school-shootings by letting everyone carry concealed weapons and therefore the shooter will be too scared to open fire out of fear of getting killed has one major flaw: pretty much every perpetrator in school shootings across the world ended up killing themselves, so no, they weren't scared of dying because they knew they'd end up killing themselves anyway. Cho, Klebold, Harris, they were all premeditated suicides, they just wanted to prove a point by killing masses of people as they went down.
I'd hate to live in a country where everyone is so insecure that they feel they need to carry a gun everywhere they walk. If you can't see that this is problem then I pity you. Have fun living in fear, idiots.
@ JQuilty
My point exactly. Now you have law enforcement and its up to them to uphold the law, not just anyone.
And "a sane, rational gun owner doesn’t reach for their gun in every situation", but a lot of hot headed people would, especially if they have all the reason to believe the other guy also has a gun.
Anyway, the overall concept behind the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the people could fight for their rights should a government ever try to take freedoms away again. Americans don't really take this spirit of the 2nd as seriously as they once did, but it's still relevant. But mostly, Americans want guns to protect their homes and to hunt. You've never lived until you've tasted freshly killed deer and turkey. :D
Tighter guns laws would do nothing, NOTHING, except make it harder for legitimate buyers to get a gun. Criminals, by definition, aren't too concerned about obeying the laws. Right now, I know of two places where I can go buy a gun. One is the licensed pawn shop on the other side of town. The other is to contact a guy that sells them out of his trunk. As a law abiding citizen, I'd choose the pawn shop. But someone looking to kill a bunch of people would probably go with the guy with the trunk full of guns.
One side wants them all gone.
One side wants them to stay.
Neither will listen, so no solutions will ever be reached
These shootings by mentally ill individuals may still happen, but then since most of these individuals were prior to their incident not criminals, maybe they wouldn't have gotten ahold of the arsenal of weapons they had. Maybe they would have, but making it more difficult would lower the numbers... as this person indicates, these incidents are less heard of outside the US.. in countries where it's more difficult for individuals to get access to firearms.
IMHO, you can keep your ultimate check/balance as long as you're in a well regulated militia... if not you shouldn't have access to a gun. It seems obvious that this amendment should be interpreted more strictly.
Wrong. Law enforcement still can't stop crime. The reason that the people of the Wild West took guns to the streets is to protect themselves, and that is still necessary. It takes the cops around eight minutes to get to you. You can be dead long before that. So, you bust out your pistol, and if that doesn't stop the crooks with fear, then shoot them in the leg. Gang bangers don't want to use the guns they've got because that calls the cops. You have no such restrictions. You still didn't address JQuilty's point. Crime rates went down in states with concealed carry.
Umm, the Constitution was crafted in 1789 and ratified not many years later
2008-1789 = 219 years NOT 500.
And shouldn't be amended? It's been amended 27 times, well 18 if you want to count the first 10 amendments as a group, which I think is fine
since they were all proposed and ratified at roughly the same time.
The debate today is this country is over the 2nd Amendment which says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The issue is over whether that language gives INDIVIDUALS the right to keep and bear arms or whether it applies to the militias only. If you care to weigh in on your interpretation, please do.
The interesting thing is that if you look at the statistics, the U.S. actually hasn't had an uptick in school shootings...they are merely being reported to a much greater extent. There has been a minor increase but listening to the media you'd think we had one every week.
Now I am in favor of gun control, guns should be one of, if not the most difficult items to legally obtain. Background checks, criminal history, waiting periods, drug testing, etc...
That being said, a wholesale ban is not the answer. As plenty of people have pointed out, the criminals aren't going to care about a ban. In most cases they are already banned...they get them anyway and they always will.
Oh and gweedo, plenty of people believe the Constitution SHOULD be amended, whether it be over gay marriage, gun control, allowing people born outside the US to be president or what have you.
The issue is that the Constitution itself makes it very difficult to amend. You need the approval of 3/4's of the states (38 out of 50).
I think that's a good thing, it means that the Constitution is difficult to alter based on a "fad" or "political trend" and ensures long term stability. It would be very bad, VERY bad if the Constitution could be changed on a mere whim. It would basically become completely useless since it could be easily "amended" out of existence, Bill of Rights and all.
There is also the issue in the United States of Federalism, which is not common in Europe or elsewhere. In the United States the States are sovereign from the Federal government with their own powers. The Federal Government is not generally permitted to override the States in certain matters.
While state sovereignty has eroded over time it is still an important concept. Each state is permitted to set its own regulations for what goes on inside its borders. Generally, the Feds can step in at the point something crosses state lines. So the Feds can regulate INTERSTATE gun issues, but not those issues that remain wholly inside a state.
I personally don't advocate government gun control, but these kids are getting guns from somewhere (read: irresponsible parents). Maybe we should focus on making it harder for kids to get guns instead of blaming video games. I still think civilians should be able to own guns, I just think they should also be responsible and lock them away where psychotic kids can't get to them.
For future reference, you will find name-calling does not improve your position in any intelligent debate.
I will do my best not to associate your ignorance with the rest of the people of your country, despite the fact you have utterly failed to know the difference between "red-necks" and "pro-gun" citizens.
Or chicago from being the most dangerous city in the country.
The problem with gun control is that it only takes guns from law abiding citizens. The illegal guns are still going to be purchased out of the backs of vans in dark alleys or traded among the members of certain violent "youth organizations" which no one wants to seem to want to blame for urban violence anymore. The average firearm used in a homocide has actually been used in more than a few. Some dumbass banger shoots a kid. The gun gets traded to another banger for some drugs or cash, and used in another homocide. So many of these perps get charged for several, sometimes even more than a dozen homocides because they're the one left holding the gun when the law finally catches up. So even the argument that gun control removes the guns that eventually end up being illicitly traded is bull.
The facts remain: Gun laws at the federal level haven't changed in years, aside from the Brady bill coming and going, while youth crime and violence is as low as it's been since the late eighties. Gun crime drops precipitously when concealed carry laws are enacted, (ask Florida and Texas and Ohio) and the average school shooting perp is between the ages of 15-17. It's illegal for them to own a gun without a supervising adult anyway. You can't ask for more gun laws when the laws in place did nothing to prevent the crime.
Banning anything from the populous at large to stop school shootings is reactionary bullshit, as we, the gaming community, should know better than anyone.
Really? Are you really stupid enough to believe that? What if I replaced "gun" with another type of weapon?
If you feel that grenade launchers should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled.
If you feel that ground to air missiles should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled.
If you feel that nuclear bombs should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled.
Where does it end? Where do you draw the line at what type of weapon is too far? Guns are made for the sole purpose of hurting or killing. They have no other function.
"Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons"
Maybe so, but a person trying to go on a stabbing spree with a knife is going to hurt a lot less people than someone on a shooting spree.
I think perhaps you Americans have a skewed idea of how easy it is to get a gun elsewhere, just because you find it so easy to get them. Perhaps highly organized crime will always be able to get guns, but how often do you have a run in with the mob? Strict gun laws mean that any random criminal from the street can't just get whatever they want, which means that regular people don't need guns to defend themselves either.
Finally, to any American touting that having guns keeps your government in check: Are you kidding me? Your government does whatever it wants and you let it. You have plenty of guns right now and I don't see anyone doing anything. I'm pretty sure they could take away all your rights BUT the right to bear arms, and so long as you had your guns you probably wouldn't mind that you were no longer allowed to express ideas. Even if you did get upset, the government would probably just mention something about terrorism and that safety has a price, and it'd calm you all down.
i really cant understand why people cant see the CAUSAL link between guns and shootings.
its not hard.
exactly. the gun is just a tool for what they do, you can wipe guns off the face of the earth but you are not going to get rid of the true problem which i believe is the living enviorment these people who do these sort of things are facing. most of these people are or have been bullied, alienated and told their worthless by their peers and society itself for the most part. i dont think they seem to care about what or how they can express or act out, i think the only thing they care about is that they do it and get it done by any means necessary instead of holding it in and letting their inner and external tormenting continue.
while a gun may be the most efficent way to kill and/or kill amount-wise, i think that saying the number of people killed in these incidents is what matters makes no sense. it doesnt matter if its one person or 100 people that are killed, both are equally tragic no more and no less. we shouldnt be looking to make the number lower, we should be looking to making it not exist. we should be tackling the question of why these people act out in violence instead of going after the tools they use to do it with. if they have no reason to kill i doubt they would do it. blaming guns and video games and saying that they are the judge and jury of their logic and reasoning is just downright stupid and annoying. when someone kills another human being, they have a much more complex motivation than video games or easy access to guns.
I am an American. There are very few things that I take true offence to, but your disrespect for my nation is one of them. Now I don't know what T5 meant by tight speech, but I do know that a cop in your "great nation" can enter your house if they suspect a swarm of "foreign bees" in your home. Now tell me, let's be honest here. Does your country have ANY privacy whatsoever? Do you have any guaranteed rights? I know that in the Magna Carta, Britians were guaranteed the right to keep and bare arms, but then...the government took that away.
The right to keep and bare arms is there to allow the people to rise up against a repressive government (see: American Revolution) and to protect the populace. Our Constitution isn't just some peace of paper, it's a symbol of this great nation, the struggles we have been through by ourselves and to help the world in general, and most importantly the rights that all humans should be guarenteed. You guys have lost almost all liberties, and haven't done anything about it, and now you live in a nanny state.
.....sorry. I can't just sit there and let a guy talk about what countries' laws do or don't make sense.
Anyways, let's look at this situation with different perspective. Say kids on campuses are allowed to have a gun. A lecture hall has 100 students, and let's say about 15-20 have guns with them right there. Someone comes in with a gun, and starts firing. Now before you guys start screaming "wahh...but he shouldn't have a gun to begin with," criminals are going to have guns no matter what. People still do drugs, and those are illegal, what makes guns any different. And if it's not a gun he's using, it'll be a machete, or homemade bomb, or anything. Let's ban all household utensils and cleaners while we're at it!
Anyways, 15-20 students (and maybe the professor too) start firing back at this guy (who is most likely psychotic). 1 would-be mass murderer killed, and maybe 1 or 2 innocent bystanders wounded/killed.
Fixed.
If anyone can find a flaw in my argument, please fill me in.
Why are we comparing the US to the UK?
The 2006 population of the UK is about 60,000,000
The population of the U.S. recently topped 300,000,000
That's A LOT more people. The land area is also incredibly more.
You're comparing two very different demographic societies. It simply isn't appropriate from a numbers standpoint to make that comparison. You need to find a similar culture with a similar population to compare (maybe Western Europe as a whole? I'm not sure)
@ Ias Attorney
Do you have a link or report to back up that 2 a minute number? I don't doubt there are more, far more, gun crimes in the US but that sounds high to me.
Explain to me how I'm not giving any liberties up by allowing the government to say what kind of weapon I can and cannot buy. And I think you need to re-read that amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You'll notice that the first part of that, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a preamble of sorts. It says why this right is necessary, but that does not affect the right being granted. It's the
part that says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Note that it says "the People", not "the Police", or "the law enforcement". The people is all of us, and all militias are made up of, and supplied by, the people. You cannot have a true militia if the people do not create it on their own. Note also the background for the amendment. Namely, the British government had tried to take the founder's guns away from them, most notably at Lexington and Concord. This amendment clearly grants the rights to ALL of "the People", not just the one's in law enforcement.
Read it again.... -_-
I only said that we should consider what the US Government would do if we didn't have a means to overthrow them. Right now we do, and they are chipping away at our rights regardless.
Guns, while not directly at fault, are obviously closer to the problem than games. Guns don't kill people, true, but people will have a tougher time killing without them.
Guns are like cars:
Incrediblly Useful,
Incrediblly Powerful
Incrediblly Dangerous.
Yet no one complains about Traffic Control. But Gun control doesn't violate the constitution any more than stop signs.
My argument was so watertight that you couldn't find a fault so you attacked my debating style instead? Great! I win!
Just because you see the problem being guns does not make it fact. There are deeper problems than legal ownership of guns. Owning a gun and/or owning a violent video game does not a killer make. I own a handgun for several reasons (Zombies!), and I have taken all necessary precautions to secure my weapon, have the proper license to carry it in public, and it is registered with the local police department.
The illegal trade of firearms that is part of the problem, but past that is the socio-economic situation and a culture that is fine with showing extreme violence on TV but shudders at the thought of nudity. Our puritanical leanings have created a sense of paranoia and righteousness in people that carries with it a tendency to condemn based on a limited set of evidence and execute immediately afterwards. This is not however limited to just our country, as violence across the world is much more prevalent than in our country.
Bah anyway I gotta get back to work.
Ummm, hate to break it to you, but 100 people getting killed IS more tragic than one person getting killed. About 100 times as tragic in fact.
Obviously, everyone wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is why I think we need incredibly tight gun control, but not a wholesale ban. Banning simply won't work, the criminals will still get the guns if they really want them.
But, restricting legal ownership might keep them out of the hands of the dangerously pychotic. Simply put, if you have committed a violent crime - no gun for you.
Increase the background checks, require mandatory drug testing, mandatory mental health evaluation. Sell them only at state licensed stores that can be tracked (No more gun shows), require waiting periods etc...
If you want anything more than a pea-shooter you should have to jump through some serious hoops
I know as a fact that several underground/state militias have come within inches of starting a revolution already.
None of that surprises me.
Guns don't make it all that easier. They're use is as a killing tool, true, but they usually leave a small hole, and have a fairly low chance of critically injuring a major organ without clear aim. Once again, they also call the cops. They leave forensic evidence all over the place. Even the bullet can be used to trace it back to it's owner. A knife, on the other hand, can be untraceable, makes no sound beyond a scream, and can make a hole the size of your choosing. In addition, Las, the school shooters DO usually kill themselves, but I could say just as easily that Cho would have been killed by an armed student before he could have killed as many people as he did. Didn't someone mention something like that happening a while ago in Israel? March 9, Arab comes into school with AK, gets killed by armed Israeli?
I could agree with those suggestions.
@nightstalker160
You've had a lot of good posts, and I agree with most it. Kudos!
The language of the 2nd is open for interpretation, which is what makes the Constitution so workable as a blueprint. Does it literally mean "militias," or does it mean individuals? You have to remember at the time it was drafted, the social climate was very different. Everyone had a gun, EVERYONE. It's how people lived, and survived, in an untamed land. Militias also weren't the same as they are today. Back then, a militia both meant State-run organizations, AND individually-run groups of landowners. So which did the founding fathers mean? Or did they mean both?
Personally, I think they expected for every American to be allowed to carry a gun if they chose.
No. I chose not to refute your points since you obviously have a bias against American gun owners. Why speak with someone who peppers their debate with insults and cannot keep an open mind?
And why haven't they? Did they happen to change their minds all of a sudden, or did your government stop them? And if your government stopped them, then how did having guns help them at all?
"Does it literally mean “militias,” or does it mean individuals?"
That's about to be put to bed this year. The Supremems have already heard arguments for it and even the news media thinks they are all leaning towards "individuals".
"If anyone can find a flaw in my argument, please fill me in."
All normal students with guns would have been searched at the doors and suspended from their lectures. The nutter with the gun would shoot his way in.
Other flaw being the obvious that assuming that you are going to be a victim of a fatal shooting is the reason why the US HAS so many shootings. If you all live in constant fear of your lives and fearing the worst will happen, you are more likely to make rash decisions and end up being the perpetrator of a gun crime rather than a victim.
I'm afraid that's the whole problem with your society (or at least part). You live in fear. You should be calling out for better conditions and a more peaceful environment, not more guns. As for your depiction of an encounter with an armed criminal: that seems optimistic at best. I very much doubt things would turn out that way.
As for JQuilty's point that crime rates went down after legalizing concealed carry, I really do not have enough information to to go into that debate, although I could argue that there might be other factors. But note that I'm not defending that people should be prohibited of carrying guns. I'm just saying that tight, efficient controls are necessary.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
To sum it up, a town made it so that every household must have a working firearm (unless the person is extremely against it), and there has not been a murder since. In fact, violent crime in that down has dropped dramatically, because every house has a gun! No one would try anything in that town, I think that's a clear-cut undeniable truth.
Because there isn't one.
I don't know man, I was planning on going down to the corner store and getting myself a thermonuclear device. Something around five megatons.
@Are'el
A militia is made up of the people and supplied by the people. If an organization is run and supplied by a government, then it is government armed forces, not a militia. So, in order for any well regulated militia to exist, the people creating it need the supplies to supply it. In other words, if a militia is to have guns, guns must be available for the populace.
First of all, I'll stop insulting people when they stop calling the country and my views backwards and saying the UK is wrong for banning guns and saying we have no rights.
Secondly, I do have an open mind, it is just I haven't heard a decent argument yet against gun control.
That's right, guns don't make people shoot other people.
You think I'm an idiot redneck for actually *liking* my right to bear arms in defense of my home and family? You honestly believe that I'm a moron for wanting them safe? That I'm insecure about it? You may be right on that last point. But you know what? It doesn't bloody matter. if you're not willing to step up to the plate and defend yourself, but rather, you're gonna stand there and yell for someone to call the police while someone shivs you in the bollocks, in my mind, your Darwin Award is well-earned. Me, I'll take the gun, and the dead bad guy, over detached genitals any day of the week.
@omegaman
And if everyone else has a gun, that guy is going to get his just desserts for being a hotheaded pillock. And if he doesn't, you know what happens? He gets charged with reckless endangerment (at the very least), and becomes a felon. At which point, he's no longer legally allowed to carry a firearm.
From the United States Offices of Drugs and Crime, 2000
United States
Non-homicide rate per 100,000 population: 4.55
Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population: 2.97
% homicide with firearms: 39
Overall homicide rate per 100,000 population: 7.52
Now that 39% figure and 2.97 figure are high comparatively, it is in the same neighborhood as countries such as Colombia, Slovenia, Guatemala, Switzerland, Germany, and Ireland
By contrast, England and Wales have an 8% rate, Australia has a 16% rate.
So there certainly are more gun homicides and a higher percentage of gun homicides in the United States.
But I think it's important to note again that the United States has a much higher population than the countries it is often compared too (England, France, Germany etc...) and the majority (high majority in fact) of homicides in the United States are NOT committed with firearms, contrary to the common perception.
As for complete banning of guns, no way. Then the deer and the zombies will have won. Mostly the deer.
Did you not read what I said? I said that IF GUNS WERE ALLOWED ON CAMPUS. They wouldn't be getting suspended because they would be allowed to have a gun!
To your other point, yes, I am afraid of being attacked by someone. I won't just stand by and let someone (including myself) by raped, assaulted, robbed, murdered, or hurt, which is why us law-abiding citizens need something with which to protect ourselves. Call it American dignity, but it's not right to stand by and let others be hurt, or to let myself get hurt/run away. We stand, and we fight for whats right.
Then I'm calling for more guns, which would make a more peaceful environment. Besides, it's not like we'll stop being scared if nobody but governments have guns. People kill people. Always have, always will.
Your reasons still fit nicely inside what I said. Militia can have guns, but not individuals. Gun control laws to limit who can buy would limit the number of guns just floating about, finding ways into dangerous individuals.
And @Dark Sovereign, Thanks for rewriting the 2nd amendment on here... I still don't read it as saying that individuals who are not in well regulated militias should be allowed guns. It says that the people who make up those militias that protect our status as a free state can have guns... as they need guns to keep King George away from taxing me unfairly (ha, I was saying that as the actual KG back in colonial america.. but I guess it works w/ our current pres too). Militias are not the police, the police are gov funded and thus gov controlled... a militia made to protect our civil liberties should not be controlled by the government it is to protect us from. But by the people. Thus if you want to start a militia, and be armed to be able to keep your free state... then more power to you. But without being part of a militia that has it's own rules and regulations you're just a person with a gun... and are a potential danger (should you get all messed up in the head, god forbid)