9 ms·

I know American's do not like to hear this but I am of the opinion that it's easy access to guns which is the cause of these mass murders. Now that Australia ha

I know American's do not like to hear this but I am of the opinion that it's easy access to guns which is the cause of these mass murders. Now that Australia has gun control, the crazy's just stab a few people. It's very hard to kill so many people with a knife. If you take away easy access to guns then sure the hard criminals will still have guns but the wannabe criminals and the lunatics will do less damage.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- corin_ 14y ago
  Maybe... but two big differences. First: I live in the UK. I've never wanted to kill someone. If I could legally buy a handgun and use it on a shooting range I would. Let's say someday I, for some reason, become a psycho and want to kill people. Right now I don't have anything like a gun to use, best I could come up with is a kitchen knife. Under US gun law, I'd have a glock, even though when I purchased it I had no intention of using it illegally. Second: Imagine a psycho in a country where you can't own guns. He could buy a gun on the black market - hell, you can even do that online with bitcoins now - but a.) this creates a waiting time between when he wants to do it and when he can do it, during which he might change my mind and b.) there's a chance he might get caught while buying it - if it's legal to own and carry a gun, then he a killer isn't breaking a law until he starts killing, so a smaller chance of preventing him.
  - Frozenlock 14y ago
    Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY? Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more). And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have to sacrifice himself by driving into you. It's easy to point the gun, because its sole purpose is to cause harm (be it in defence or offence), but if someone wants to kill, he can do with or without a firearm.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      Give person A a gun and person B a car and I suspect I know which one would manage to kill more people. edit: Assuming they were both trying to kill as many people as possible.
    - Jach 14y ago
      There's also explosives, home-made or otherwise, and more mundane "domestic terrorism" that goes after food (I mean, grocery stores just put out all the food on easy-access display..), city water supplies, electricity, gas lines... It's fortunate that there are very few real psychotics who want to cause a lot of damage, and also that of those few only a few again are intelligent or imaginative. People have a good reason to suspect a lack of imagination of imaginary killers: real ones don't seem to have much of one. What intrigues me currently about Holmes is that his residence was booby trapped sufficiently that federal experts had to get involved, so he's more capable than the average spree killer. Yet he alerted the authorities about them, he didn't let them "figure it out" with the death of some cops. I don't see any sort of twisted logic in that. But I initially approach this topic with a gamer's "high score" mentality such that even Brevik's count seems small, the behaviors of killers are thus constantly perplexing from that angle.
    - corford 14y ago
      I often think exactly the same thing about terrorists. What kind of half arsed nutbag thinks "I know, I'll strap some explosives to my underpants and get on a plane. That ought to do it!" ?? If you wanted to do serious damage in a reasonably guaranteed way (i.e. not having to get past strict security checks), why not just walk in to a crowded arrivals hall and detonate yourself there? Same goes for large railway stations, shopping smalls etc. I mean, it doesn't take much imagination. Either we're very lucky that most terrorists are completely incompetent or the terrorist threat itself is hugely overblown. I think it's the latter.
      - corin_ 14y ago
        The ones that get me are the ones where we're strictly not allowed to do something yet it seems that if it was actually dangerous terrorists would be doing it. The most oft-talked about example being using a phone on a flight, another being a flame in a petrol station - if that was dangerous, surely terrorists could target 10s of them with no preparation other than recruitment?
- nodemaker 14y ago
  Maybe a handgun, but I find it pretty hard to imagine a PhD grad student managing to buy a semi automatic assault rifle or 100 round drum magazines off the street. It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - 54mf 14y ago
    I agree with your first point. The "black market" isn't a place you just go to if you want to buy illegal shit. The fact is, if the shooter didn't have legal, easy access to an assault rifle, he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did. Period. "It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other." Well, yeah, it is. Assault rifles are legal in most states. What does being in Colorado have to do with anything?
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      No, not "Period." There are any number of other ways he could do the same damage. We all know that. So don't force in an absolute where it doesn't belong.
      - 54mf 14y ago
        He rigged his apartment with, supposedly, 30 or so IED/IIDs, and had full body armor during the assault. As far as I can tell, he pulled out all the stops. If he could have done more, I'm pretty sure he would have.
    - nodemaker 14y ago
      Yeah to a great degree it is coincidental I believe. My point being that it happened in a state with lax gun laws as opposed to a state like NY. But yeah I would like to know more about what else is amiss with that area.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kiba 14y ago
If you take away easy access to guns then sure the hard criminals will still have guns but the wannabe criminals and the lunatics will do less damage. Taking away legal access != eliminating easy access to guns. It still may well be the case that it is easy to buy guns on the black market. On the other hand, you also disarm the population, making them easier target for mass murderer.
- base698 14y ago
  It works so well with drugs. I mean they are illegal and you can't buy them on the street--oh wait.
- pronoiac 14y ago
  On the other hand, you also disarm the population, making them easier target for mass murderer. Has a massacre in the US ever been stopped by someone with a gun, who wasn't a cop?
  - nixme 14y ago
    Possibly the Appalachian School of Law shooting, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_sho...
kabdib 14y ago
A blanket ban will (a) have a miserable compliance rate, (b) dramatically increase the value of firearms, and (c) help ensure that law-abiding citizens are defenseless against criminals (who generally don't care if they're already breaking the law). In the 1990s, California attempted mandatory registration of "assault rifles." Compliance was about 10 percent, and was officially acknowledged a failure. I can't imagine what a total ban would look like. House to house patrols? With whom, the army? I'm guessing that nobody would want that job. I conjecture it'd be unconstitutional, or appear that way to enough soldiers and policemen that they wouldn't enforce it. There are 300+ million guns in private hands in the US, in 50M+ households. This is a "wicked problem" if you're looking at a gun ban as the solution. Estimates I've read put the time to effectively zero guns in private hands in the 200-250 year range. A ban just isn't going to be pleasant; it might result in /worse/ violence, both immediately (in reactions and protest) and over time (through creation of victims) -- of course this is not testable, so it'll have to remain rhetoric. I'm going to guess that arming lots of citizens isn't the answer, either. States with concealed carry permits /appear/ to be safer than those without, but a rational deterrent is not going to stop someone who's irrational. In an ideal world we don't need guns, and everybody has a pony. We don't live in an ideal world. tl;dl; Firearms bans in the US are really really hard.
evan_ 14y ago
> It's very hard to kill so many people with a knife. The Rwandan genocide was largely carried out with machetes.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

corin_ 14y ago
Maybe... but two big differences. First: I live in the UK. I've never wanted to kill someone. If I could legally buy a handgun and use it on a shooting range I would. Let's say someday I, for some reason, become a psycho and want to kill people. Right now I don't have anything like a gun to use, best I could come up with is a kitchen knife. Under US gun law, I'd have a glock, even though when I purchased it I had no intention of using it illegally. Second: Imagine a psycho in a country where you can't own guns. He could buy a gun on the black market - hell, you can even do that online with bitcoins now - but a.) this creates a waiting time between when he wants to do it and when he can do it, during which he might change my mind and b.) there's a chance he might get caught while buying it - if it's legal to own and carry a gun, then he a killer isn't breaking a law until he starts killing, so a smaller chance of preventing him.
- Frozenlock 14y ago
  Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY? Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more). And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have to sacrifice himself by driving into you. It's easy to point the gun, because its sole purpose is to cause harm (be it in defence or offence), but if someone wants to kill, he can do with or without a firearm.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    Give person A a gun and person B a car and I suspect I know which one would manage to kill more people. edit: Assuming they were both trying to kill as many people as possible.
  - Jach 14y ago
    There's also explosives, home-made or otherwise, and more mundane "domestic terrorism" that goes after food (I mean, grocery stores just put out all the food on easy-access display..), city water supplies, electricity, gas lines... It's fortunate that there are very few real psychotics who want to cause a lot of damage, and also that of those few only a few again are intelligent or imaginative. People have a good reason to suspect a lack of imagination of imaginary killers: real ones don't seem to have much of one. What intrigues me currently about Holmes is that his residence was booby trapped sufficiently that federal experts had to get involved, so he's more capable than the average spree killer. Yet he alerted the authorities about them, he didn't let them "figure it out" with the death of some cops. I don't see any sort of twisted logic in that. But I initially approach this topic with a gamer's "high score" mentality such that even Brevik's count seems small, the behaviors of killers are thus constantly perplexing from that angle.
  - corford 14y ago
    I often think exactly the same thing about terrorists. What kind of half arsed nutbag thinks "I know, I'll strap some explosives to my underpants and get on a plane. That ought to do it!" ?? If you wanted to do serious damage in a reasonably guaranteed way (i.e. not having to get past strict security checks), why not just walk in to a crowded arrivals hall and detonate yourself there? Same goes for large railway stations, shopping smalls etc. I mean, it doesn't take much imagination. Either we're very lucky that most terrorists are completely incompetent or the terrorist threat itself is hugely overblown. I think it's the latter.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      The ones that get me are the ones where we're strictly not allowed to do something yet it seems that if it was actually dangerous terrorists would be doing it. The most oft-talked about example being using a phone on a flight, another being a flame in a petrol station - if that was dangerous, surely terrorists could target 10s of them with no preparation other than recruitment?
nodemaker 14y ago
Maybe a handgun, but I find it pretty hard to imagine a PhD grad student managing to buy a semi automatic assault rifle or 100 round drum magazines off the street. It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- 54mf 14y ago
  I agree with your first point. The "black market" isn't a place you just go to if you want to buy illegal shit. The fact is, if the shooter didn't have legal, easy access to an assault rifle, he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did. Period. "It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other." Well, yeah, it is. Assault rifles are legal in most states. What does being in Colorado have to do with anything?
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    No, not "Period." There are any number of other ways he could do the same damage. We all know that. So don't force in an absolute where it doesn't belong.
    - 54mf 14y ago
      He rigged his apartment with, supposedly, 30 or so IED/IIDs, and had full body armor during the assault. As far as I can tell, he pulled out all the stops. If he could have done more, I'm pretty sure he would have.
  - nodemaker 14y ago
    Yeah to a great degree it is coincidental I believe. My point being that it happened in a state with lax gun laws as opposed to a state like NY. But yeah I would like to know more about what else is amiss with that area.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kiba 14y ago

If you take away easy access to guns then sure the hard criminals will still have guns but the wannabe criminals and the lunatics will do less damage. Taking away legal access != eliminating easy access to guns. It still may well be the case that it is easy to buy guns on the black market. On the other hand, you also disarm the population, making them easier target for mass murderer.

base698 14y ago
It works so well with drugs. I mean they are illegal and you can't buy them on the street--oh wait.
pronoiac 14y ago
On the other hand, you also disarm the population, making them easier target for mass murderer. Has a massacre in the US ever been stopped by someone with a gun, who wasn't a cop?
- nixme 14y ago
  Possibly the Appalachian School of Law shooting, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_sho...

kabdib 14y ago

A blanket ban will (a) have a miserable compliance rate, (b) dramatically increase the value of firearms, and (c) help ensure that law-abiding citizens are defenseless against criminals (who generally don't care if they're already breaking the law). In the 1990s, California attempted mandatory registration of "assault rifles." Compliance was about 10 percent, and was officially acknowledged a failure. I can't imagine what a total ban would look like. House to house patrols? With whom, the army? I'm guessing that nobody would want that job. I conjecture it'd be unconstitutional, or appear that way to enough soldiers and policemen that they wouldn't enforce it. There are 300+ million guns in private hands in the US, in 50M+ households. This is a "wicked problem" if you're looking at a gun ban as the solution. Estimates I've read put the time to effectively zero guns in private hands in the 200-250 year range. A ban just isn't going to be pleasant; it might result in /worse/ violence, both immediately (in reactions and protest) and over time (through creation of victims) -- of course this is not testable, so it'll have to remain rhetoric. I'm going to guess that arming lots of citizens isn't the answer, either. States with concealed carry permits /appear/ to be safer than those without, but a rational deterrent is not going to stop someone who's irrational. In an ideal world we don't need guns, and everybody has a pony. We don't live in an ideal world. tl;dl; Firearms bans in the US are really really hard.

evan_ 14y ago

> It's very hard to kill so many people with a knife. The Rwandan genocide was largely carried out with machetes.