I think the biggest problems contributing to these issues of violence is American attitudes (and I am an American BTW). The first big attitude is that this country was founded by a revolution, and revolutions are violent. It's ingrained in our collective unconcious; the right to bear arms, the right to take up your guns and beat back your oppressors, the whole rough-and-tumble, American package. It's not neccisarily a bad attitude to have, but some people take it way too far, and use it as an excuse for violence, or to relax restrictions on firearms (As in, "Gun control is un-American, this country was founded by guns")

The second BIG attitude problem is the need for a quick fix. Americans have to have instant gratification. Yeah, the best way to reduce any violence, and especially school related violence, is to change the way kids are raised. But not only will that take YEARS to start working, EVERYBODY would have to get involved in a kid's life. Parents, teachers, communities, the media, everybody. It's much quicker to just buy more guns, put them in the right places and feel protected when the next crazy whips out his .45

The sad fact is that if there had been armed students in those classes, the death toll may have been greatly decreased. But the REALLY sad thing is that society has gotten so bad, it takes violence to stop violence. Vicious circle, anyone?

To answer the original question, I don't think more people should carry guns. We should work on fixing societal attitudes, government practices, the conduct of school officals, parents, everything that needs to be fixed. But maybe at this point, it's safer to be armed.

Treble, I'd give you all my karma if it were possible. That was a fantastic post in every way.

I have to disagree, though, about it being safer to be armed, what with all the suicides and accidental deaths that result from guns.

I live in a house with a gun (but a rifle) that is locked up, with ammunition stored in a separate place with a separate lock, and even with those precautions in place, I'd feel SO much better if it wasn't in the house. But my roommate was an Army guy and so, it's here. Maybe that's a mindset grown from living in a country with extremely strict gun laws (like, I've never even seen a gun in real life, the one in my house included. I know it's there, but I've never seen it), but honestly, with my country's gun-related death statistics where they are compared to the States'...I'm all for tight legislation.

I agree with Laulaa. Treble's post was very well thought out and concise.

I also disagree with Treble's point about it being safer to be armed for the same reasons as Laulaa. An accident with a gun is more likely to be fatal than an accident with a knife, for example. As many people already have stated, a gun is an extraordinarily efficient and effective tool to kill. That's why farmers use them to kill livestock.

kandykane wrote:

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 agree. Guns are sometimes necessary. You wouldn't be able to run a farm without one, for example. In Australia, even with the tightened gun laws, my father would have legally been able to keep his gun (which, I might add, I only saw him use twice and rarely saw at all as it was always locked up) but he decided that since we were no longer on a farm, that he didn't need it anymore.

The safest place for a gun is locked away separate from the ammunition. Carrying them on one's person is far removed from the safest place.

Helen

Okay someone, who had been admitted to a psych hospital got a gun and bought $600 worth of ammo and went on a shooting rage.

Firstly he was had a history of mental problems referrals etc. yet he was still able to get a clean bill of health... WHY??

He bought 2 semi-automatic handguns. These sorts of weapons would be pretty bad hunting wise. Having been hunting before the best to use is a non automatic rifle these are also pretty good for scaring off intruders too.

$600 worth of ammo... seriuosly what did the gun shop THINK he was going to do? hmmm

A large amount of injuries due from guns are for children and family members having the gun lying about.

THUS is what I think (considering you don't like my ban the guns)

To drive a car you must obtain a license, I think its equally important to have to pass a strict license to get a gun, not a simple ... oooo fill out your name and address here please, but a full blown test and a course too.

I think some guns should be taken off the market for civilians, there is no reason to have a semi-automatic handgun or any semi-automatic gun whatsoever.

Medical tests should be stricter, including all mental problems


If someone in the room had had a gun it might have been stopped earlier, however if this man hadn't been able to buy a gun from the store because of his mental problems then this wouldn't have happened at all.

Here is a scenario where carrying a gun on campus gets confusing...

Shooter "A" walks into a classroom and starts randomly firing.

A student in a neighboring classroom has his own handgun, hears the shots fired, and goes out into the hallway to await Shooter "A".

Shooter "A" walks out into the hallway, and the other student now called Shooter "B" engages Shooter "A" in the hallway.

Down the hall, in another classroom, two students who also had handguns hear the initial shots fired, and they go out into the hallway as well. They are Shooter "C" and Shooter "D" and they are now looking at Shooter "A" and Shooter "B".

Shooter "B" also sees Shooter "C" and Shooter "D".

With 3 of them, the logical question is going to arise..

"Who do I shoot?"

Good point, Musicdude. The only logical thing to do is to get each student a t-shirt that says 'Shooter A' 'Shooter B' and so on, then, the students will know only to shoot the one with the 'Shooter A' t-shirt. Brilliant.

You know those old classic western movies where one guy punches another guy and then before you know it, everyone jumps up and starts punching each other and you have a full-on brawl? (LOL - and someone always throws a chair over someone's head, but I digress...) If everyone had guns I can see one gigantic shoot-out resulting just like one of those brawls.

Let's imagine that everyone has guns. Here’s an interesting scenario: You're standing in line at the bank and the guy ahead of you pulls a gun on the teller. Before he can say, "hand over the money", he hears a whole bunch of clicks. He turns around and about twenty bank customers have cocked guns trained on his head. Grandma with a gun. Mommy with a stroller and a gun. College dude with knit cap and a gun. I got a gun. You got a gun. We all got guns. The mentally unstable would-be robber decides to commit suicide-by-citizen and brandishes his gun in the air. Everyone shoots. Bullets are flying and many people are killed or wounded by “friendly fire”. Wow, we are one amazingly stupid posse.

I’ve often wondered if my father-in-law would have lived when the crazed gunman entered the restaurant and before he could shoot five people, was picked off by someone else with a gun. But the truth is, unless that someone was trained with a gun, he probably would have missed and maybe hurt someone else.

So even though the thought of an unarmed citizenry bugs me to no end, (because I don’t see the people as being truly free if the state is armed and the people are not) in the end, I don’t trust people to do right with guns and would prefer if no one had them.

But it is true, that if a bad guy wants a gun he'll get one, somehow, some way. It doesn't really matter if every gun in the world is outlawed. Unfortunately, just because it hasn't happened in Australia since 1996 doesn't mean it can't.

IF clearer restrictions and traing were placed on owning guns, like a peace officer certification, I think it would eliminate or at least reduce the chance of people going trigger happy.

I don't want everyone to have guns, but knowing there are certain people around who could help in an emergency, I think my chances would be better for surviving a crazed gunman attack. Just like the sky marshalls they have on airplanes now.

Not the best solution, but better.

When you take guns away from the general public, there is no responsible person th help in an incident. Because a criminal can always get a gun. It's the honest people who can't.

kk~

You know those old classic western movies where one guy punches another guy and then before you know it, everyone jumps up and starts punching each other and you have a full-on brawl? (LOL - and someone always throws a chair over someone's head, but I digress...) If everyone had guns I can see one gigantic shoot-out resulting just like one of those brawls.

Exactly what I was getting at with the 'Wild West' thing. I can honestly see that happening. It's inevitable. For the most part, human beings aren't the most rational creatures, and the chances are that something like that would happen.

I don't want everyone to have guns, but knowing there are certain people around who could help in an emergency, I think my chances would be better for surviving a crazed gunman attack. Just like the sky marshalls they have on airplanes now.

I definitely agree there. It makes much more sense to have some people who are there to protect, not just making it legal for everyone to have guns.

Just wanted to add...

Banning people with mental illnesses from getting guns probably will not work, for the same reason that you can't ban a person with a mental illness from a college campus. (UNLESS they show IMMINENT danger to themselves or others.) Why? Because having a mental illness is a disability; to deny someone with a disability from purchasing something/living somewhere/etc is discrimination.

I have a history of mental illness. Now I've been treated, am on medication, and have a clean bill of health - I have a mental illness, but I should definitely be able to get a gun. {When I get my own house, I'm going to have a gun. It's going to be with its ammunition, hidden someplace in my bedroom. Someplace where kids can't get at it, with its safety on, but unlocked and easily attainable in an emergency.} My brother was hospitalized for cutting himself and my boyfriend for attempting suicide. Neither of them is going to shoot themselves or anyone else. None of us is dangerous. Weapons are usually for self-defense, people do have the right to defend themselves, and that includes people with mental illnesses. I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture that most people with mental problems (which I'd say is a very good portion of the population, mostly untreated) are not violent.

Now, does that mean Cho should have been able to attain a weapon? Hell no. The guy was most certainly completely and totally off his rocker. He should have been locked up in a little rubber room. But, who knows, it's possible to fool even psychiatrists and maybe he did. People like him are the exception to the rule.

I like gun control laws. But Mr Crazy's weapons were purchased completely legally. (And the ammo was purchased at several different stores on several different days, not $600 all at once. Mr Crazy was not that crazy.) He was of age, a legal resident, clean background check and waited 30 days after the purchase of the first gun to get the second. Gun control is not the issue there, if there is an issue. I am a fan of crazy violent people not having guns, but I want a gun too.

But I mean, whatever. If they ban guns then we can just go underground and buy them just as easily. A few phone calls and I could probably have one within a week (disclaimer, this is pure speculation). I don't think it will stop anything.

Here are some thoughts that have been running though my mind in the last week or so since the shootings at VT. Some of these points have already been brought up, but I'm saying them anyway to get my point across:

-More students with guns. Seriously? Have you guys MET a college kid recently? Better yet, do you have any idea the percentage of kids who go and get trashed on a regular basis? Have you contemplated at ALL that social situations that hormone-crazed, possibly drunk/high, know-it-all students get themselves into on a regular basis? Because basically, I live on campus and don't trust 90% of us kids with a gun. Plenty of us are "rational" and "sane" and quite a few never ever do anything illicit by any stretch of the imagination. All the same, I've seen enough angry, drunken college kids to know that I don't feel safe around them even if they ARE unarmed. There are enough people that attend school with me that I have to question their intelligence... I would NOT feel safer if these kids were running around with firearms.

A lot of people argue that hey, if more kids had guns during such and such event, they could shoot the offender and be done with it. I think not. Let's take a look at what happened in Virginia... if someone comes in and just opens fire on you- completely unexpectedly- do you ACTUALLY believe that the average citizen would be prepared to take out their gun and use it? Because frankly, even if I were there and had a gun, I'd be in such a state of shock I don't even think I could move, let alone take out a gun and use it. I'd be under a desk, hiding like everyone else. I don't know about you, but to me it doesn't seem that easy. I don't think its as simple as noticing a shooter, casually pulling out a gun, aiming, and firing. No, because pretty much anyone in that situation- not expecting it and not having much formal training with a weapon- would react that way.

I've recently heard blurbs about how less rape would occur if people were allowed to carry guns. Consider this: most rapes occur by someone the victim already knows. Or on dates/parties. Basically, I doubt girls would ever stop to think "hey, I'm going on a date. Better take my gun." It's just not going to happen. And geez, can you picture some girl toting a pistol to the local frat party, just in case? You know she's going to be drinking, and I'm not sure how carrying a gun while intoxicated protects anyone from anything... And even in the proposed situation: girl walks alone at night and is attacked by some guy in a bush. If you were alone and attacked randomly, would you have the sense to pull a gun out of your purse and shoot the attacker? And has anyone considered that if guns are easier to obtain, the attacker himself may be armed? Then what?

Repeat after me: college kids do not need guns.

Finally, in the paper today there was an article about the differences in gun control in Britain and in the US. In one paragraph, it stated that the handgun ban in Britain has really helped a lot, and that last year, there were only 46 homicides involving a firearm in Britain. Last year in New York City (whose population, according to the article, is about seven times smaller than Britain's population) there were 573 homicides involving a handgun. I don't know about you, but to me it seems that having less guns means that less people can be killed by them.

I also agree with tons of what Crisy said. Gun control laws could help, but it may be time for us to step back and question the social system that breeds such violence. BTW, Crisy, I've totally seen Battle Royale and Audition. Holy freakin cow. Easily two of the most violent movies I've ever seen (the rest on that list, also from Japan), yet they have one of the lowest rates of crime anywhere.

^ It's okay, none of us can affored guns anyway. We spend it all on booze.

I also agree with tons of what Crisy said. Gun control laws could help, but it may be time for us to step back and question the social system that breeds such violence. BTW, Crisy, I've totally seen Battle Royale and Audition. Holy freakin cow. Easily two of the most violent movies I've ever seen (the rest on that list, also from Japan), yet they have one of the lowest rates of crime anywhere.

Oh I know- that's what I find so interesting!

Those films are craaazy.
I actually liked Battle Royale...it's extreamly disturbing though. Half-way through it I got so wrapped up in the story-I forgot about the fact that they're 7th graders (or were they 8th?) and when you think about it- it's really insane. I had to go:

"Holy crap. I'm watching a movie about junior high kids hunting each other like animals." Really disturbing...but also a pretty darn capitivating film.

But The Audition...really made me uncomfortable and uneasy...but that's clearly the point. I covered my eyes a bit and don't think I'd watch it again. That one really creeped me out.

^I always forget which grade the kids are in. I agree though, it's a great movie. My boyfriend has two versions of it on DVD and I've watched it a few times. So, so freaky. Apparently they're remaking it in the US (what Japanese horror movie hasn't been remade? seriously? can't we come up with our own?) but "toning down the violence". Personally, I think they point will be completely lost in translation if that's what happens.

But to make this more relevant to the thread, the movie is set sometime in the future when Japanese children have gone out of control and have stopped respecting their elders and there's loads of crime. As a result, every year, the Japanese government picks one of the worst middle school classes in the nation and sends them to and island. They're kidnapped, hooked up to tracking devices that explode on command, and each given a weapon. They're given several days to wipe each other out. If there is more than 1 survivor at the end of the alloted time, their tracking devices will explode, thus killing all survivors. It's used as a scare tactic to get kids back on track...

Very interesting stuff. It's fascinating how Japanese culture is focused on the group and on being polite, and yet we're focused on ourselves and try to "tone down" the Japanese movies we remake because we can't stomach the violence. Ichi the Killer is another movie that exemplifies this... it's almost like the violence portrayed is such an extreme that it's whimsical. It doesn't happen like that in real life (well, not as that often anyway) so perhaps it's easy to just sit back, watch it, take it for what it is and realize that the odds of that happening to anyone in real life are slim to none. Perhaps it's the idea that it is fake and extreme that is the key... whereas often times, in the US, violent movies are shunned because they supposedly give kids ideas. The cultural ideas about it are so different. In Japanese culture, it's almost like "maybe it happens, but I'm disgusted by this and wouldn't shame anyone by doing that" whereas again, we have this notion that it will give people bad ideas and then they'll act on them. Our way of thinking, to me, seems a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Well, I've effectively turned this into a debate more about cultural differences and views about violence than I have about gun control. So I'll end my hijack with this: College kids don't need guns.

Uh oh- now you've started a hijack....ha ha ha...or was it me?

The thing I found so interesting about Battle Royale is that in order to prevent the kids from acting like animals- they pick groups of them and force them hunt each other like animals...a bit ironic.

And when the teacher says "Don't worry- your parents all sign permission slips." HA HA HA...permission slips to send you to an island to kill each other? Alrighty.