A debate has started about whether more or less people should have guns on this thread about the Virginia Tech shooting. Some members did not want that thread to be about debating USA gun laws and thought it would be more appropriate on the Debates board, so I'm creating this thread just for that debate.

For those of you that haven't been following that thread, here's a recap on the debate:

amarath wrote:

If even one or two students in that classroom had been carrying guns, the death toll would have been far smaller. When (generally) law-abiding citizens do not carry guns, that leaves violent criminals and the police with them. This whole affair is beginning to convince me that we need to have a more armed population in America. Seriously, it's doing that.

agirlinatutu wrote:

^So, amarath, you'd be happier if everyone brought guns to school? I honestly just can't see how that would be safer.

amarath wrote:

Honestly, I would be happier with that than with the current situation.

The students in that classroom in Norris Hall had no way out and no way to protect themselves. There was nothing to stop the mass murder from occurring, at all. The victims had absolutely no way to protect themselves other than trying to hide, or, I believe, jumping out of the window.

If it was more common for everyday citizens to carry a gun, perhaps one of the victims might have also carried a gun. It's not only a matter of self-defense; it's a matter of the defense of others. I do wish that more people carried guns, because that way maybe the mass murderer at Tech could have been killed quickly before he could kill so many innocent people.

Yeah, I would be happier. Basically. The result of limiting gun possession in certain areas is that if a person with a gun DOES get in a certain area, there is nothing to stand in the way or his or her intentions.

agirlinatutu wrote:

While I agree that it would be better for students to have protection, I don't know that everyone having guns would be the answer. Someone gets in a fight with a friend, and has access to a gun, you never know what might happen. A lot of people have hot tempers. I don't know, I just see it being kind of 'Wild West'.

pasdebourretendu wrote:

I agree with aramath. If people that like to protect themselves (as in, can pass a psych evaluation!) were allowed to carry guns... the world would be much safer - or at least I would feel like it is. My youngest brother carries a gun everywhere. My mom does too. My brother has been in several fights - he's young, what can I say? He's never pulled the gun on anyone (well accept as a sheriff venture, duh) just because he could. and he definately got knocked out once... but he knows better. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

oz_helen wrote:

But, do you really think that more people carrying guns is going to prevent tragedies like this?

I draw your attention to the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, Australia, 1996, which claimed 35 lives and wounded 37. en.wikipedia.org . . . The reaction to this atrocity was to make it even more difficult to obtain guns. I actually recall the government instigating a gun buy-back scheme. My father, who owned a rifle for killing livestock, severely injured wildlife and deadly snakes and always kept it locked away, participated in this scheme. Since he gave his gun away, I have not seen a gun at all.

Quoted from Wikipedia:
"Under federal government co-ordination all states and territories of Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns and pump-action shotguns, together with a considerable tightening of other gun laws."

Since this event, there have been no more mass shootings in Australia.

I don't think more guns will solve the problem. I think less guns and more gun restrictions will go a long way to ensure that this kind of event does not occur again.

pelerroja wrote:

More guns = more possibilities of shootings...even if only by accident, brief whims of hot tempers etc.

Aya wrote:

The more guns out there, the more guns potentially in the hands of people like this who go and shoot up a school and kill 32 people, then commit suicide. What happened was so beyond awful I don't have words for it, but giving more people guns is not the answer. Over 30,000 people die in America every year from gun shots. Guns DO kill people, and a lot of people at that. I can't help but believe that if they were not easily accessible, this would not have happened at all.

TheMidlakeMuse wrote:

I don't think you prevent violence when you take away guns. Just look at the number of stabbing attacks in Britain.

Salsanator wrote:

If I was sitting in class surrounded by 5 people with guns I don't think I'd be thinking about how safe I felt. If we were letting everyone into classroom settings with guns, how would we know who would start shooting everyone up and who wouldn't? If guns would help these people protect themselves they'd be able to go through security with them, which in turn means the shooters of the guns could walk right into a room and start killing, no questions asked.

amarath wrote:

My theory, and that of some others as well is -- if someone's going to shoot up a place, they're crazy. They are absolutely going to kill people, in some fashion. If you want to get a gun, you WILL, and you'll use it. Simple enough, I don't think that you can stop people from violence without getting in on it LONG in advance--say, when they're kids. It's just not possible.

However, assuming that in the class the other four gun carriers are sane, I think it's safer that way. Since we can't stop people from killing other people--and I really think that you can't; take away guns and they'll kill with knives; take away knives and they'll kill with sharpened spoons; take away spoons and they'll use sporks; take away sporks ... --you need a way for people to have immediate protection. Police officers everywhere or an armed populace--one or the other.

At the moment, I have nothing to really say about the college shootings. So I'm going to focus on "violence" as an overall issue.

The question shouldn't be:
"Should we all carry guns to protect ourselves?"

The question should be:
"What the hell is wrong with our society that these things keep happening? What are we going to do socially in order to fight and prevent violence- not just gun violence but the culture of violence embedded overall in our culture in general?"

Answer that question and we might actually see a change.

I think people look at social dysfunction as isolated problems. But these issues aren't isolated- they are rampant and related. Our society has embraced a culture of dysfunction on virtuly every level: the glamourization of violence, lack of ethics, morals and values, comprimising the importantace of family and unitity, inequality and on and on and on...and these things, although different "problems," do very much stem from the same overall issues- our society is breaking down and as a result disorder, dysfunction - and violence - happens.

Our society has tossed aside values, morality, ethics and unity-and replaced that with violence in film, tv, music and games. We have also cheapened everything from sex to the way we treat the enviornment...and replaced any sense of values with vial nonsense.

Good job America!

Some days I feel there's hope...but some days I don't... Call me cynical (today) but I think we- and the rest of the world- are so far gone, it's pretty much hopeless. That's not to say we shouldn't go down fighting- we should...but I think we're going to go down anyway.

We're reaping what we've sowed...or should I say- what we've been sowed, we've accepted....and now we're going to have to live with it. Or change it.

Which probably won't happen. I think of America as the modern Rome...we're marching to our own demise...and we're ok with it as long as there's Happy Meals, Tv and cell phones. Happy Meals, cell phones and TV??? Woohoo!

^God, I just reread this and it's very "sociologist" of me. Apparently my college education IS good for something! ha ha ha.

I think it says more that we think we'd feel safer with even MORE people possessing items whose SOLE purpose is to KILL people?

Like crisy says, we need to know, understand, and act on the pressures that lead to this happening.

No matter WHAT gun laws, legislation, or what have you security laws are passed...there will ALWAYS be some LOONY out there able and willing to kill someone.

The comforting thought in all this? Yours and my odds of dying in a car accident, or due to a drunk driver, or due to lung cancer are FAR FAR greater than dying in a shooting, . And guess which possible death situation is easily preventable?

The question should be:
"What the hell is wrong with our society that these things keep happening? What are we going to do socially in order to fight and prevent violence- not just gun violence but the culture of violence embedded overall in our culture in general?"

Crisy, if I could rate you a thousand times for your entire response, I would. Thank you for that.

In response to the original question:

Should More People Carry Guns?

No.

And don't think that I am removed from the Va Tech situation. My youngest sister is an engineering student at Tech, so this hits close to home for me. I still don't think that enabling more people to carry guns will make society a safer place. Absolutely not.

Hell yeah!

Everyone should! Looks like fun!

www.youtube.com . . .

Haha, that's ridiculous. Yes, more people are being shot everyday, therefore more people should be carrying guns... Right...

I really don't have much to say because these massacres just dumbfound me. The truth is, nobody would pull off something like that unless they've been deeply messed up by some event(s). We gotta start figuring out how to prevent these events. Bullying, child abuse, domestic abuse, and like a million other factors all come into play.

This state of affairs is not going to remedy itself. We gotta make it.

No... People shouldn't bring more guns to school..

There was this kid that stapped 3 girls and also said he was bringing a gun to school on the last day and he would shoot everyone who was mean to him...plus all of his teachers.. I'm scared..even though I didn't cause any of his problems...i am scared. I'm sure he probably won't bring a gun to school. but..still.

The 3 school shootings in '06 and this recent one are caused because some idiot brought a gun to school. if people didn't carry guns..this would of NEVER happened. My sister actually knew a kid who knew a kid that was a victim in the shooting.

What does everyone else think.

The question should be:
"What the hell is wrong with our society that these things keep happening? What are we going to do socially in order to fight and prevent violence- not just gun violence but the culture of violence embedded overall in our culture in general?"

I totally agree with Crisy here.

Violence begets violence. We need to break the cycle.

But will more people carrying guns break this cycle? I think not. Does anyone know what the statistics are for people that are killed when the gun being used in self-defense is used against its owner? That is always what scares me the most about the wide-spread carrying of guns.

This article gives the gun deaths per capita from 1994 (I couldn't find any more recent statistics). www.medicinenet.com . . . The USA is in front with 14.24 deaths per 100 000 people. This compares with 2.65 deaths per 100 000 people in Australia. Note that these statistics predate the Port Arthur Massacre and the subsequent revision of gun laws in Australia. They also predate the majority of large scale shootings in the USA (and across the world).

You can compare this with the statistics for murders per capita (statistics are from 1998-2000). I couldn't find "violent death per capita" statistics, unfortunately, which would give a better comparison. www.nationmaster.com . . .
The USA is 24th. Australia is 43rd. Many of the countries that feature in the top twenty of the second list are absent from the first because of economic reasons: The first list focused on the "richest" countries.

The third list is murders with firearms per capita. This allows for a better comparison with the other statistics. www.nationmaster.com . . .
It is interesting to note that the USA is 6th on this list as compared to 24th on the overall rate of murders per capita. Australia is at 27th on this list.

It is notable that Jamaica, Venezuela and Russia, while high on the overall murders list are absent from the murders with firearms list.

medicinenet wrote:

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

Japan is 60th on the list of murders per capita and does not appear on the list of murders with firearms per capita.

I'd like to get more information about the sociological influences that prevent violence in Japan. Seems like a pretty safe place to live.

Helen

I actually just took a midterm that partially focused on the social differences of the US and Japan.

One of the biggest differences is that in Japan, people do not focus on themselves as an individual. They focus their motivations, goals and drives on working as part of a social unit. They honor their families and see their production in society not as a personal success- but as a part of an entire social success. They also view their coworkers as part of a family, not as just other people who work with you.

Japan- although a major industiralized power- also has held on to the moral fabric and values of their country. Things like family, honor, and tradition.

In the US we pride ourselves on individuality and achieving for yourself. We take the more "pull yourself up by your boot straps and look out for number 1." American society also values competition and personal achievement...

Unlike Japan, the US is quickly relating morality, ethics and values as subjective and relative to whatever brings about personal gain, or personal convenience. Atleast, this is one school of thought.

Societies are super complecated, as are the social problems with in them. To me it's like this sticky web- and looking at one problem means loking at the millions of strands of web connected to that problem.

As a random sidenote- I find it interesting that some of the most grusome, violent and disturbing films I've ever seen have come right out of Japan. Battle Royale and The Audition...anyone?

Thanks for that, Crisy. You confirmed what I suspected. I didn't want to come out and state that as fact as I hadn't done any research in that area.

Come to think of it, perhaps the Australian culture of mateship (ie looking out for your group, putting the needs of the group before the individual) coupled with the stringent gun laws work together to keep violence and death relatively low.

Looking over these lists, I've noticed that political unrest + free availability of guns = high rate of murder with firearms.

I find it very interesting that even though the USA is quite politically stable, that it still rates 6th on murders with firearms per capita. That says a lot to me about the ingrained culture of violence coupled with a long history of the "right to bear arms".

Helen

It amazes me how easily accessible guns are in America. Tragedies like this don't exactly come as a 'shock' when the constitution is placing the tools to commit mass murder in every and any unstable teenager's hands...

There was this kid that stapped 3 girls and also said he was bringing a gun to school on the last day and he would shoot everyone who was mean to him...plus all of his teachers.. I'm scared..even though I didn't cause any of his problems...i am scared. I'm sure he probably won't bring a gun to school. but..still.

BJH, please tell me that you've reported this to a school official. Things like that can help prevent terrible cases like we just had with VT. Even if you don't think he'll do it, it doesn't matter. You never know. Please report this immediately.

I'm with crisy on this. This is the product of what we've been creating. We teach our children that violence is okay when they watch television shows and play video games like Grand Theft Auto. In my opinion, if you're going to own a gun, then you need to be thoroughly checked out beforehand.

"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."

This is what the 2nd amendment states about gun control. I do not believe that it grants a full, complete right to bear arms. No personal right is complete- for example, free speech is also a right that everyone is granted, but I cannot go out and use slander, I can't use my "freedom" if it is going to harm somebody else, and I can't yell "fire!" in a movie theater at will. The Constitution is a flexible document, not meant to be the end-all-be-all of laws. It sets guidelines, but there are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

Now the problem with decreasing gun ownership is this: the people who use the guns to attack and harm others are not the ones that are going to be following the rules, unfortunately. This is where the whole "society is the problem" argument comes in. Many anti-gun control people argue that if we controlled guns, it wouldn't do any good, because the shooters would find a way to get a hold of them anyway. This is not an answer to the problem, though- it's a way around the problem. We need to get to the root of the problem right now. That means starting fresh and using some elbow grease, not just allowing guns to whoever wants them.

~Adagio

Actually, and correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Constitution-placed "tools of mass murder" are actually "tools to ensure a free and equal society".

It's been 8 years since American Revolution History, and I am Australian so I'm not extremely familiar with the US Constitution, so if I'm way off the mark, please correct me.

It's not the Constitution's fault that people are shooting each other.

Erin.
::righteous babe::

Looking over these lists, I've noticed that political unrest + free availability of guns = high rate of murder with firearms.

Oh yes, absolutely! There's actually serveral hundred years worth of philosophy and sociology theory to back that up. If you're interested look up "Conflict theory" or "Critical Theory"...it's interesting stuff.

And it really relates directly to the issue of WHY people do this stuff.
Ihope I don't bore anyone...but this is precisely the type of stuff I study daily...so I kind of get excited about it...otherwise feel free to ignore it.

The basic idea is that in an society where people are force to comptete for their individual survival- there will inevidibly be a division of that society- as people have to compete to survive. In essence- this type of society forces people to use/expolit/hurt other people because the very social structure demands it.

Pair that with the breakdown of the afore mentioned things (family, tradition, morality, values, honor, ethics) and people not only have the pressure to compete and conflict...they begin to lack the moral compass to be decent.

Another interesting and related concept is called anomie...it was origionally refering to why people commit sucide, but can be extended to other social dysfunctions as well.

Anomie means that when a society or an individual within that society lacks the influence of moral/ethical values, and is alienated from others in a society directly or indirectly- they lose that social connection and therefore do really anti-social- and sometimes deadly things.

In other words- people will not care about others if they don't feel a connection with the society they live in. and as society becomes more fragmented- the people within the society begin to pull away from each other rather than pull together. And some of these people are crazy enough to kill other people as a result.

Odessa,

It's not entirely clear what was the intent of the 2nd Amendment...the NRA and the Republican Party has a very clear opinion though.

You can also say though that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (as progun folk often do). To a certain extent that's rationally true.

However ANY anti-gun laws...even one's which prohibit guns who's ONLY possible intent (i.e. fully automatic weapons, or huge caliber, or assault rifles)-ALWAYS get defeated OR watered down to being useless and not worth the paper they're printed on, by the NRA and it's GOP lobby.

This article gives the gun deaths per capita from 1994 (I couldn't find any more recent statistics). medicinenet.com . . . The USA is in front with 14.24 deaths per 100 000 people. This compares with 2.65 deaths per 100 000 people in Australia.

Does that include suicides in that statistic? And accidents, or self-defense?

Because some 58% of all gun deaths in America are suicides. That's how Americans kill themselves--with guns. Approximately 60% of all suicides are done by gun, because, let's face it--it's obtainable, quick, and unless you miss, probably not too painful.

58% of all gun deaths in America are suicides, according to this. www.harvardmagazine.com . . .

37% of all gun deaths are homicide (which I'm assuming includes self-defense, as there was no specific self defense category) and the remaining deaths were accidental.

I have relatives that are law abiding, licensed gun carriers.

I would feel much safer in a room with them and someone like the VT shooter, than without them. I KNOW I would stand a better chance of surviving if they were in the room, too.

This problem is deeper than if people should or should not carry guns. His teachers were concerned enough over his behavior and writings to refer him to counseling services, who REFUSED to help him because he didn't want help and they couldn't make him get help. The warning flags were there. Once again, officials couldn't or wouldn't be proactive.

Incidents like this should be categorized as domestic terrorism. Not just some random nutcase.

kk~

How stupid, I really can't believe this

Lets look at some other countries

Australia has strict gun control laws, Australia has 1/4 homicides of the homicides then America (working from percentages, not actual figures)

Other Countries

Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.




Did you know the most person a gunholder is most likely to hurt is themselves or a family member. Particually young children.

I think before you get a gun you should have to go through a strict test, like a driving test, and there are some guns that should not be sold unless you are a police officer or soemthing along those lines.

In many cases you are only allowed to defend yourself against a burgler with the same force they use against you. ie if you shoot a burgler who has no gun, then YOU will go to jail, even if they were trespassing. (if they had gun too, that's different)

Americans should look to the successes of other countries to base their new laws on, instead increaing guns, it just makes it worse.

Let me get this straight....

Students with guns? On campus? Allegedly for self defense?

Okay, so then we'd have situations with this combination..
Students + drugs + alchohol + guns.

Gee, what could possibly go all wrong in a hurry?


I'd much rather see energy put into a hi-tech surveillance security system, and a highly trained aggressive police task force that can actually *PRODUCE RESULTS*.

amarath wrote:

Does that include suicides in that statistic? And accidents, or self-defense?

Yes it does. That's why I included the other statistics as well, as comparison.

amarath wrote:

Because some 58% of all gun deaths in America are suicides. That's how Americans kill themselves--with guns. Approximately 60% of all suicides are done by gun, because, let's face it--it's obtainable, quick, and unless you miss, probably not too painful.

And extremely effective. No chance of being revived by paramedics.

You've just illustrated why death by firearm is so easy. Do you really think that increased availability of guns is going to lesson the rate of deaths?

Helen

I have relatives that are law abiding, licensed gun carriers.

I would feel much safer in a room with them and someone like the VT shooter, than without them. I KNOW I would stand a better chance of surviving if they were in the room, too.

I'm quoting myself because I believe what I said was important and I don't want it taken out of context. My relatives are trained, educated, licensed, mature gun carriers. They don't carry guns just to look cool.

I don't think that just anyone should be able to carry a gun, any kind of gun. I'm all for restrictions, like some kind of peace officer certification. But I'm not for a total ban.

I know more people who have been killed in car accidents than in gun accidents. Are we going to suggest taking cars away from people? There are many drivers who shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car, but we can't just make a blanket statement and say 'no more driving because people are getting killed'.

Banning guns will not keep them out of the bad guy's hands. A determined, terroristic person can find ways around the system We have been witnesses to that. When you start taking away firearms from the general public, you also take them away from the people who could help in a life or death situation.

Students carrying guns? A bad idea. But, if even one of those VT teachers had been a trained, licensed, gun carrying peace officer, then lives could have been saved.

kk~

Letting college students run around with guns just isn't a good idea. Having to pass a psyche evaluation might limit the number of insane people with guns, but really, you don't have to be crazy to shoot someone. All you need is simply a short fuse, mixed with an argument of some sort. A lot of people would do something they'll regret for the rest of their lives, not to mention end someone else's life.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Eddie Izzard wrote:

The National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, uh, people do." But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that.

Thanks, Eddie, couldn't have said it better myself.

EDIT: kk, I agree that teachers being trained gun carriers could have saved lives. Teachers are much less likely to do something stupid with a gun than a 20-year-old... Sadly, it's possible that a measure like that must be taken. It's so sad.

Up until Monday (April 16th), the most deadly school shooting was the Ecole Polytechnique school massacre of 14 women by Marc Lepine in Montreal, Qc, Canada in 1989.

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and
1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

That sounds great, but this past fall (Sept. '06) witnessed the death of one girl in a school shooting (in the same city) that also injured 20 others.

So this recent shooter still had access to guns, but just did less damage...

My heart goes out to the friends and the families of the victims at Virginia Tech - but I honestly don't know how the issue of violence is going to be resolved in our country and continent.

I don't believe violence can be resolved by providing easier access to more guns.

Gun people claim that 'guns don't kill people, people do'- true. Of course, if you're hell bent on killing you'll use anything from bare hands to an AK47. It's just that the AK47 is going to get the job done a lot quicker. (I doubt anyone would kill a full classroom with only their hands or a stick)
Guns kill people! I can't believe you can't see this. Yes people are responsible, yes they will kill anyway, but come on, can you really say that guns don't make it easier?

Seriously, the logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is ridiculous. If we're using that reasoning, why have any sort of illegal weapons at all? If people will find a way to kill anyway, why limit their resources? Why not make everything legal and leave the decisions to the people who are angry and unstable enough to make the choice to use them on other human beings. It just doesn't make sense.

If the gunman at Virginia Tech had been armed with a knife, there is no way the number of fatalaties would have been so high. Guns are one of the fastest and easiest methods out there to murder somebody. How on earth would it improve society to increase the number of them? I'm Canadian so maybe I don't totally understand American gun laws but in my opinion, if the number of guns in society was greatly decreased and security was much higher (ex: more extensive background checks, fewer models availabe, licensing), there would be much less of a need to use them in self defense.