Gun laws

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: There are ways to be responsible with weapons, and there are idiots. The one on the campus earlier today was the latter.

I can't agree with that. This wasn't a guy playing with a gun he didn't know how to handle. This was a guy who intended to kill a lot of people.

Ok, but he was still an idiot.

Mentally ill. There's a difference. He might also have been an idiot, or might not have, but mental illness is behind today's tragedy, not his lack of intellect.

Like cath said, the warning signs are there, if people would just notice. He needed help, and either nobody noticed, or nobody bothered when they did notice. Dunno what one could do anyway if one did notice.

MINX, I respectfully disagree. I'm so glad we are not like Britian and the rest of Socialized Europe. For someone who hails from a country that does not allow guns, you sure fancy yourself as knowing a lot about them..

The places in the USA that RESTRICT guns the most, also have the highest number of gun incidents.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jon Murphy wrote: The places in the USA that RESTRICT guns the most, also have the highest number of gun incidents.

Well, without going and looking things up, I'm going to guess that you are referring to New York and California...but could the fact that those are two of the most populous states have anything to do with them having high numbers of gun incidents??? Maybe???

Hmmmmmmmmm....

So you're saying we should analyze gun incidents per capita, instead of just looking at raw numbers? Why, you just might be on to something there, Jeffari-al-Texani!

Obviously there is no corelation between owning a gun and shooting someone, and not owning a gun and not shooting someone. I dislike the things intensely.

There seems to be a consensus among the disparate views on gun control (for/against) that only a "madman" would commit an act like today's.

But by what, or who's definition of madness? Madness, mental illness, is more often than not a societal construct, and it's often a way of describing a mode of personal behaviour someone else finds "odd" or "off". (e.g. it can be threatening, alarming, worrying, or even just mildly bloody annoying etc). What made/makes this person mad? The fact that he killed, or the fact he killed so many? Or the fact that it wasn't sanctioned by the state? Are the mass murderers sanctioned by state's throughout history not also madmen?

Is it any wonder so many kill? Living in a society that glorifies gun's and violence, and upholds war as heroic and glorious. Where life's dirt cheap and profit is put before people?

Wanting to own or use a gun, seems like a mental illness to me! Violent death is always horrific.

ps talking of offensive madness that should be banned, I've just noticed Jeffari-al-Texani's avatar/pic, and I think he should be banished to a Siberian gulag forthwith for such an affront to humanity. I am shocked and deeply upset!

It's a silly anarchist bookstore comparison you're making, MIMX. You can't just lump all people who kill into the same basket, and label it either "mad" or "sane." Some state-sanctioned killers are mad; some aren't. Some civilians who kill are mad; some aren't. If some guy hears voices in his head telling him to kill everybody on the street, that's not just a "social construct," it's an illness.

Or do you believe that all illnesses are a social construct?

Or do you believe that only somatic illnesses are not social constructs?

That said, the Navajo recognized the problem you're talking about, and have a ceremony for returning warriors that exorcises their madness.

It's haulf five in the mornig here, I've been up awe night, I've never set foot in an anarchist book store in my life, and yes unless it's madness caused by a genetic fault or some form of psychical injury to the brain, diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!

In order to think you need something to think about, the material world is the real underpinning of thought (even the means of coherent thought; language, is a societal construct) it's par for the course that a sick society will throw up sick individuals.

ps in fact even the exact nature of this outrage backs up what I'm saying, this is just the latest in a line of school/college/uni killings; it's not something completely independent and fresh this guy has just dreamed up independently! Which further begs the question just how mad was/is he? Fucking cuckoo, obviously but you get the point.

MIMX wrote: It's haulf five in the mornig here, I've been up awe night, I've never set foot in an anarchist book store in my life, and yes unless it's madness caused by a genetic fault or some form of psychical injury to the brain, diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!

Well, I won't disagree with you about what causes disease. It can be nature-- some chemical imbalance, or a physical injury to the brain-- or it can be nurture. In the U.S. at least, if you track unemployment rates, as unemployment goes up, there's a couple months lag, but then you start to see substance abuse and domestic violence go up too. It's obvious that one's social situation, or family, or some other aspect of society can also make one ill.

What I disagree with is the notion that these people aren't ill. For some reason, we all recognize something like pneumonia, or cancer, or AIDS, and we acknowledge that the person is ill. And we don't then proceed to punish that person for manifesting their illness-- at least not directly. But if somebody is mentally ill, we often don't recognize that as an illness, in terms of being something that can be and should be treated, like pneumonia or cancer, and if the mentally ill person violates some law as a result of being mentally ill, we label that person a "criminal" and punish them.

What you argued sounded to me like the mirror image of that-- not recognizing mental illness, by saying nobody is mentally ill.

Sorry for the anarchist bookstore jab, it wasn't fair.

Here's another thing about mental illness in America. if you're on the right, there are no mentally ill. There are people who don't take personal responsibility for obeying laws. And therefore, there's no need to provide mental health care. But there is a need for prisons and executioners.

If you're on the left, again, there are no mentally ill. So you advocate for the right of the mentally ill to live and die on the street. Again, there's no need to provide for mental health care, because it's all about personal freedom.

And that's a crock. I'd expect it from the right, but leaving the mentally ill to live and die on the street is NOT a program of the left. Except in America.

Fucking left here is utterly lost up its own arse. Has NO agenda for governing America, because it doesn't believe in America, and therefore has utterly abandoned any sense of responsibility for putting forth a coherent social agenda of governance, so it ends up adopting anti-social cause celebres as its agenda-- leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves being but one example.

MIMX, I suppose what you are discussing then is the human race in general. If you look through history, all races,ethnicities, social clans, religons, and any other way you want to lump them have had sick individuals in them. I suppose you could blame society, civilization, modernism, or nature's call; regardless, it is not set on one nation. In the light of that thought, why not exterminate the entire race? and yes, that would include yourself.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Here's another thing about mental illness in America. if you're on the right, there are no mentally ill. There are people who don't take personal responsibility for obeying laws. And therefore, there's no need to provide mental health care. But there is a need for prisons and executioners.

If you're on the left, again, there are no mentally ill. So you advocate for the right of the mentally ill to live and die on the street. Again, there's no need to provide for mental health care, because it's all about personal freedom.

And that's a crock. I'd expect it from the right, but leaving the mentally ill to live and die on the street is NOT a program of the left. Except in America.

Fucking left here is utterly lost up its own arse. Has NO agenda for governing America, because it doesn't believe in America, and therefore has utterly abandoned any sense of responsibility for putting forth a coherent social agenda of governance, so it ends up adopting anti-social cause celebres as its agenda-- leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves being but one example.

Never thought I'd ever agree when you talked on politics, but this time you are spot on.

I should run for President. :D

Almost, but why does the Left here have New Order's agenda.....I didn't know Barney and Hooky didn't believe in America

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

What I disagree with is the notion that these people aren't ill. What you argued sounded to me like the mirror image of that-- not recognizing mental illness, by saying nobody is mentally ill.

MIMX wrote:

Wanting to own or use a gun, seems like a mental illness to me!

MIMX wrote: ... diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!
... it's par for the course that a sick society will throw up sick individuals. Which further begs the question just how mad was/is he? Fucking cuckoo, obviously but you get the point.

What I'm suggesting is that any murder, whether state sanctioned or not, is always abhorrent and should be viewed as mental illness.

EdelBrock wrote: MIMX, I suppose what you are discussing then is the human race in general. If you look through history, all races,ethnicities, social clans, religons, and any other way you want to lump them have had sick individuals in them. I suppose you could blame society, civilization, modernism, or nature's call; regardless, it is not set on one nation. In the light of that thought, why not exterminate the entire race? and yes, that would include yourself.

Yes, I suppose I am saying all hitherto existing society's were to a greater or lesser degree sick, including the capitalist society's extant today. But of course as the common denominator of all these society's is class struggle, it's hardly surprising that the strife and violence inherent to these struggles, sometimes express themselves through the deranged actions of violent madmen.

It's not gun laws or mental health provisions which caused this outrage, but capitalism and it's ruling ideology. A sick society and a sick philosophy!

Burt Reynolds wrote: South London's always had its fair share of shootings. You just hear of it more through media, as the focus is clearly on youth behaviour/crime and random murders. This is due to a lack of news, (i.e. something to report), rather than an increase in frequency. If anything the media reports are aimed at knife crime.

I don't know if thats statistically true or not, (there must be some actual _facts_ out there somewhere, dammit) I can only say that growing up and going to school in South London I remember almost no shootings, and certainly not with hand guns or automatic weapons (admittedly the ticket collector at the local tube got shot dead by someone with a shotgun), whereas now I seem to see places I know well appearing on the telly with police tape all around them all the time (e.g. Streatham ice rink) and find myself walking past those yellow 'police information sought' signs regarding shootings or armed robberies disturbingly frequently. I mean, its definitely nowhere near US levels, but it does seem to be getting worse. When I lived in the US a drug dealer got shot dead a hundred yards from my parents house in South London, just when I was being smug about our less violent society, goddamit.

I note its now reported the killer in Virginia was a South Korean. Just after I blame US society for producing maniacs. Teach me not to post till all the facts are in.

I think its generally true that the amount of damage a single person or small group can do is increasing all the time. the 911 plotters wouldn't have been able to cause as much carnage before we had huge skyscrapers and huge airliners. Things like that Tokyo nerve gas attack I find more scary than any threats from Iran or North Korea.

NOOLigan wrote:

It is true that guns don't kill people, but people who use guns kill people.

They do Ron Ron Ron, they do Ron Ron.

Anyway, it's "guns don't kill people, rappers do".

404 error wrote: But even in the UK, with, I think, the tightest gun control laws in the world, shootings seem to become more and more frequent. They are certainly commonplace in South London now, where once they were almost unheard of. It seems there's some sort of inevitable increase in the destructive power available to individuals, whatever the law says.

Burt Reynolds wrote: South London's always had its fair share of shootings. You just hear of it more through media, as the focus is clearly on youth behaviour/crime and random murders. This is due to a lack of news, (i.e. something to report), rather than an increase in frequency. If anything the media reports are aimed at knife crime.

404 error wrote: I don't know if thats statistically true or not, (there must be some actual _facts_ out there somewhere, dammit) I can only say that growing up and going to school in South London I remember almost no shootings, and certainly not with hand guns or automatic weapons (admittedly the ticket collector at the local tube got shot dead by someone with a shotgun), whereas now I seem to see places I know well appearing on the telly with police tape all around them all the time (e.g. Streatham ice rink) and find myself walking past those yellow 'police information sought' signs regarding shootings or armed robberies disturbingly frequently. I mean, its definitely nowhere near US levels, but it does seem to be getting worse. When I lived in the US a drug dealer got shot dead a hundred yards from my parents house in South London, just when I was being smug about our less violent society, goddamit.

I note its now reported the killer in Virginia was a South Korean. Just after I blame US society for producing maniacs. Teach me not to post till all the facts are in.

I think its generally true that the amount of damage a single person or small group can do is increasing all the time. the 911 plotters wouldn't have been able to cause as much carnage before we had huge skyscrapers and huge airliners. Things like that Tokyo nerve gas attack I find more scary than any threats from Iran or North Korea.

True, we can criticise the US's 'Right To Bear Arms' laws which fuel gun use but in the UK we also have problems with youth's - some scarcely into their teens owning, using and sometimes willing to kill with guns. Yes South London has been making all the headlines recently but shootings occur to a greater or lesser degree in every town/city in the UK, and sometimes they're over petty disputes boiling down to disrespect and/or which area the individuals are from. The flow of illegal guns is something we need to address here just as much as the 'Right To Bear Arms' issue in the US. All I know is events like this end up in tragedy and loss of someone's son/daughter and all you can hope for is it doesn't affect yourself and the people around you. Cheers!

I don't like guns, and I've a distrust of people who feel the need to own them. There's defineatley something lacking in an individual if they feel the need to own a gun. If you're into shooting at targets then just hire one when you get to the shooting range. If you're into stalking animals or humans then you're a sick fuck and always will be in my book.

That said, if anyone seriously thinks that banning guns would prevent things like what happened yesterday from happening then you are wrong.

I may think you're a sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak for wanting to own a gun but I'll defend your right to be a sick-fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden gun toting freak til the cows come home.

GlasVegas wrote: I don't like guns, and I've a distrust of people who feel the need to own them. There's defineatley something lacking in an individual if they feel the need to own a gun. If you're into shooting at targets then just hire one when you get to the shooting range. If you're into stalking animals or humans then you're a sick fuck and always will be in my book.

That said, if anyone seriously thinks that banning guns would prevent things like what happened yesterday from happening then you are wrong.

I may think you're a sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak for wanting to own a gun but I'll defend your right to be a sick-fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden gun toting freak til the cows come home.

Thanks glas for sticking up for us!

regards, One sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak

Regardless of the 2nd Amendment issues, which I think are glossed over by the courts, there is a legitimate concern that people have about being able to protect their families if necessary. You can't necessarily count on the police to do it for you. On the other hand, violent crime isn't as pervasive as one might believe if one watches the news and crime dramas. Still, it only takes that one time.

I've had my own share and then some of run-ins with would-be criminals in this town, so it does happen.

Jon Murphy wrote: MINX, I respectfully disagree. I'm so glad we are not like Britian and the rest of Socialized Europe. For someone who hails from a country that does not allow guns, you sure fancy yourself as knowing a lot about them..

I don't think I know a lot about them at all, I'm just voicing my opinion on the subject.

For example I wasn't aware of the fingerprint safe until it was mentioned by EdelBrock; I think that it's a great idea and does solve one of the concerns that I raised.

I however am glad that I don't live in a country where any half wit has the right to own a gun and where unfortunately not all gun owners are as responsible as EdelBrock is.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

MIMX wrote: It's haulf five in the mornig here, I've been up awe night, I've never set foot in an anarchist book store in my life, and yes unless it's madness caused by a genetic fault or some form of psychical injury to the brain, diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!

Well, I won't disagree with you about what causes disease. It can be nature-- some chemical imbalance, or a physical injury to the brain-- or it can be nurture. In the U.S. at least, if you track unemployment rates, as unemployment goes up, there's a couple months lag, but then you start to see substance abuse and domestic violence go up too. It's obvious that one's social situation, or family, or some other aspect of society can also make one ill.

What I disagree with is the notion that these people aren't ill. For some reason, we all recognize something like pneumonia, or cancer, or AIDS, and we acknowledge that the person is ill. And we don't then proceed to punish that person for manifesting their illness-- at least not directly. But if somebody is mentally ill, we often don't recognize that as an illness, in terms of being something that can be and should be treated, like pneumonia or cancer, and if the mentally ill person violates some law as a result of being mentally ill, we label that person a "criminal" and punish them.

What you argued sounded to me like the mirror image of that-- not recognizing mental illness, by saying nobody is mentally ill.

Sorry for the anarchist bookstore jab, it wasn't fair.

I agree with you Commie, An illness caused by environmental factors is still an illness, for example cancer caused by exposure to dangerous chemicals is still as bad as any genetically caused cancer, the same is true of mental illness a mental illness that is caused by being abused as a child for example can have all the same physical symptoms as one that is genetic IE fundamental changes in brain chemistry. and one is no better or worse than the other nor easier to treat.

Minx wrote: For example I wasn't aware of the fingerprint safe until it was mentioned by EdelBrock; I think that it's a great idea and does solve one of the concerns that I raised.

I however am glad that I don't live in a country where any half wit has the right to own a gun and where unfortunately not all gun owners are as responsible as EdelBrock is.

awww, shucks

GlasVegas wrote: I don't like guns, and I've a distrust of people who feel the need to own them. There's defineatley something lacking in an individual if they feel the need to own a gun. If you're into shooting at targets then just hire one when you get to the shooting range. If you're into stalking animals or humans then you're a sick fuck and always will be in my book.

That said, if anyone seriously thinks that banning guns would prevent things like what happened yesterday from happening then you are wrong.

I may think you're a sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak for wanting to own a gun but I'll defend your right to be a sick-fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden gun toting freak til the cows come home.

What's struck me, in my very limited experience, is that I've known Americans (and Canadians) who owned guns who were perfectly normal decent ordinary people, whereas the only Brits I've encountered who were into guns (members of a gun club) were, well, a bit odd. (Out of curiosity I tried a session in the gun club once - completely boring, making holes in a bit of paper at the end of a room - what _is_ the point? Why legalise lethal hardware just for such a dull 'sport'?)

In the US people own them for hunting and out of a sort of philosophical conviction that they are entitled to defend themselves...here they are not part of the culture and it seems only the oddballs actually want them. (And far fewer criminals have them, and burglars strike when homes are empty not occupied as they are wont to in the US).

But still, it is true that by most crime stats Brits are easily as violent, if not more so, than Americans (probably why we rush to join in every war thats on offer, no matter how ill-advised it is), yet we don't kill nearly as many people. Which does suggest that gun availabilty makes a difference. But can you ride roughshod over many people's cultural identity just to put a brake on an increase in violence that is ultimately caused by something else (that 'something else' I'd say in the UK's case is 25 years of no-such-thing-as-society all-that-matters-is-how-much-bling-you-have Thatcherism). If I were an American politician I'd stand on the platform 'guns don't kill people, unrestrained capitalism kills people' and thus alienate everyone and get no votes at all.

Actually I think American culture is much less aggressive and violent than British culture. Maybe its true that 'an armed society is a polite society'. Brits are drunken aggressive and rude, but will only give you a kicking at worst, while Americans are polite and good natured, right up to the moment when they shoot you.

404 error wrote: Brits are drunken aggressive and rude, but will only give you a kicking at worst, while Americans are polite and good natured, right up to the moment when they shoot you.

That's right there, better be nice to us, don't want to have to pull out my piece now.....

Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit. - Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998

Crazy gators!

I don't like guns. I've held one a few times and I've gone hunting exactly once as a boy.

That said, I want to point out the the Right To Bear Arms is in the US Constitution for one reason only: to protect the people from their own government.

The social and political climate in this country grows more toxic every day, and until the new Democratic Congress begins impeachment proceedings I won't feel safe from this administration.

I don't want to own a gun, but I will defend myself against an oppressive government if I have to - and as an openly gay, educated athiest that day may come sooner than anyone dares to think.

I do believe most types of guns should be illegal and the hurdles one should jump to obtain a gun should be far more difficult - extensive background check, extensive training, etc.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Once again, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, 404 Error. Bizarre country, the U.S., split down the middle the way it is.

I've been having similar thoughts about the so-called United States of America recently. There are differences of opinion in other countries but whilst in the UK the centre ground of politics has become crowded in the last decade the USA seems to be polarising into two groups (conservatives and liberals), each of which has their own heartlands. I can imagine these two bitterly opposed groups eventually deciding to divide the USA into two separate countries, one where evolution is taught in schools, abortion is legal and gun ownership is heavily restricted and another where creationism is taught in schools, abortion is illegal and gun ownership is almost unrestricted.

It's not an original theory: in 2004 there was a message board discussion about "Jesusland" and someone created a map showing Jesusland and "The United States of Canada" and this idea has been discussed in newspaper articles. However, I think this theory will become a reality and I think it could happen soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map