School bus shooting in Las Vegas: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20071212/475f6ad0_3ca6_1552620071212339058999

The problem with covering this stuff in the news is that it might provoke other people with similar thoughts to follow suit. It's a bad week for the pro-gun-ownership lobby in America.

Barmy,
no, it's a good week. Had the people on the bus been armed they could have shot the assaulter. If anything all the cases prove the need for more guns on the streets.

My condolences.

Fox & Friends debate: Should all Americans carry guns? (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_debate_Should_all_Americans_carry_1211.html)

People, there should be at least a 1-day period before arguments for and against gun control are brought up in such threads. I really don't think it shows good taste.

The problem is not guns. The problem is not even the number of people who have access to guns. The problem is the number of crazy people who have access to guns.

I'm not sure how arming the rest of the population will help either. If these people are mentally unstable (and it appears they are), then I doubt they are going to follow a logical, reasoned approach to the situation. If you're f'ing crazy, it may not bother you at all that there are other armed people. From what we've seen of most of these shootings, the perpetrator assumed that he would be killed in the process, so a more heavily armed populace would not be an effective deterent to carrying out the attacks.

Allow me to extrapolate.

The problem is not the number of crazy people who have access to guns. The problem is the fact that crazy people in the US have easy access to guns.

:confused: Well, given that the three incidents this week all took place in the US, I assumed the "in the US" part was a given. I assumed that the Las Vegas being referenced in the article was the one in Nevada, which last I checked was part of the US.

teenage boys with hormones raging fighting over a girl. i can remember fighting over girls in school but never with weapons.

@Aldeth: I think what Tal was getting at was that the problem isn't the number of crazy people with access to guns, but with the fact that crazy people have access to guns at all...and the ease with which the aforementioned crazies can access them.

ummm, drew, how do you tell the crazy people from the sane ones if they havent been commited?

ummm, drew, how do you tell the crazy people from the sane ones if they havent been commited?

Exactly. Martaug, I believe you're slowly coming round to the correct view point... ;)

Newsflash: not every mental illness or disorder means automatic committal, but more often than not they are recorded.

so barmy to you the correct point of view is to punish everybody for a thing that a few might do? (yeah, i saw the smiley however with you i never know!!)

martaug,
is not giving a weapon to you punishment? *ominous theatrical music* Interesting. */ominous theatrical music*

so barmy to you the correct point of view is to punish everybody for a thing that a few might do? (yeah, i saw the smiley however with you i never know!!)

As Ragusa said, it's hardly a form of punishment to make firearms less widely available.

Besides, even if your mindset says it is, I'm sure you know that the actions of a few often mean repercussions for everybody.

I find the idea of everyone carrying guns very, very scary. It would only create more violence. Wild, wild west here we come.

Assault weapons and hand guns are not necessary to the general population. I do not believe in a blanket prohibition of guns but it should be limited and strong, enforced laws in place. They may not stop the hard-core criminals from getting them but I really would prefer that my neighbor didn't have a gun unless there is some valid reason. IE: Law enforcement agent, security guard, jeweler.

Assault weapons and hand guns are not necessary to the general population.

I realize that this is :yot: but I couldn't resist the bait.

Actually according to the Constitution they are. The Second Amemdement is about far more than being able to defend yourself from criminals or hunting game. The entire premise behind the amendement is that a government fears an armed populace and is less likely to become tyrannical. The entire Second Amendment is a check on the power of the government. When the amendment was written, the arms available to both the government and the citizenry were the same; they were muzzle loading rifles and muskets. There was no technology gap and, should armed resistance have become necessary, the citizenry had a reasonable chance against the powers that be.

Now fast forward to today. There have been many laws enacted over the years restricting the types of weapons available to the citizenry. As a result, the gap between the military and the citizenry is huge. Assault rifles versus bolt-action hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. Hardly a parity of arms as these arms are vastly inferior to the arms used by the government. With every law passed restricting gun ownership, the gap widens and the Second Amendment becomes weaker and weaker. By extension, the citizenry becomes weaker in relation to government. When the Federal Government has a monopoly of force, then we cease to be truly free. At this point our liberty only exists at the whim of those in power since we have no effective method of resisting them should they decide to, say, suspend our First Amendment rights or declare martial law. With all the harping about George Bush's actions lately this should be painfully obvious to everyone. So the question is this: Do you trust the government implicitly or not? If so then go ahead and support gun control. If not then gun control in any form should be looked upon with extreme suspicion.

Guns only become a problem becuase of other issues. Guns are tools and can be used for good or evil. The problem is that there are too many bad folks who have no compuntion about using them evilly. As martaug mentioned in one of these threads, guns are used to foil thousands of crimes every year, usually without having to be discharged. That's not interesting news, though. Only the misuse of guns is newsworthy. The media hype about these mass shootings (and many other things for that matter) result in an increase in their occurrence. These nut jobs see it as a way to be famous. The freak in Omaha even said that he would be famous. Without the media saturation then that incentive isn't there and he probably just kills himself. In this case, it seems to be another loser who doesn't know right from wrong...or just doesn't care.

The Second Amemdement is about far more than being able to defend yourself from criminals or hunting game. The entire premise behind the amendement is that a government fears an armed populace and is less likely to become tyrannical.

Well, it's not the ENTIRE premise. We didn't exactly have a huge standing federal army at the time the Constitution was written. Local militias were absolutely necessary for defense of the country. While I agree that it can be looked upon as a check on the government, the 2nd Amendment also served a far more practical issue. I will concede that currently the need for local militias is far less than what it was a couple hundred years ago.

Maybe not the ENTIRE premise, but a very, very important one that is almost always ignored these days, even by the gun lobby.

In the 18th century the continent of North America was primarily a wilderness. People lived with a variety of danger and most men and many women knew how to use a gun and knew what it would do. In this modern day and age few people know how to use a gun or have killed anything except maybe a fly or a mouse in a trap. We do not gather our own food. Maybe you think that a population that is armed is a wise thing but I certainly don't. Husbands and wives would be killing each other in a fit a spite. Children would accidentally or intentional be shot or shoot others. We do not live in a wilderness. The days of the wild west are gone and for that I am grateful.

Yes, I think Bush has miss used his powers as President but he isn't the first to do so and he won't be the last. We have survived and are still free to complain about and post our opinions on forums such as this one. Even the less powerful rifles and handguns in modern hands are dangerous as these threads show.

I'll probably upset a few people saying this but in my very strongly held opinion anyone who advocates a populous armed with high powered assault weapons is at best a fool. Even less powerful rifles and handguns in modern hands are dangerous.

I guess I do trust our government or at least in this instance I trust it more than the general population.

Nakia, considering how prevalent guns already are, you'd think that your scenario would already be played out all the time. This country would be an endless bloodbath. It isn't, though because most people have the sense and moral compass to know that killing their spouse or some stranger is the wrong thing to do. Also, the whole wild west analogy is pretty tired and not at all convincing. The west was wild because it was lawless, not because of the prevalence of guns. Men used guns the way they did because of the absence of law.

Now fast forward to today. There have been many laws enacted over the years restricting the types of weapons available to the citizenry. As a result, the gap between the military and the citizenry is huge.Surely that should be somewhat comforting. I mean what if one of these shooters, instead of just having access to a semi-automatic pistol had say a tank or nuclear grade missiles?

When the Federal Government has a monopoly of force, then we cease to be truly free. At this point our liberty only exists at the whim of those in power since we have no effective method of resisting them should they decide to, say, suspend our First Amendment rights or declare martial law.This isn't exactly a feature of modern, western, constitutional democracies is it...
By extension you'd all be safer should there be an alien invasion.

Guns only become a problem becuase of other issues....which are undeniably already present.

Guns are tools and can be used for good or evil.Agreed, however there seems to be somewhat of a disparity between users. Law enforcement rarely uses guns for evil, while school children rarely use them for good.

That's not interesting news, though. Only the misuse of guns is newsworthy. The media hype about these mass shootings (and many other things for that matter) result in an increase in their occurrence. Absolutely I think the media has a lot to answer for.

Finally - I couldn't resist - Family Guy clip - Right to Bear Arms (http://thatvideosite.com/view/1835.html)

By extension, the citizenry becomes weaker in relation to government. When the Federal Government has a monopoly of force, then we cease to be truly free.

Er, that's called living in a state. Max Weber once said that something is a state if and only if it retained monopoly on the use of violence, or at least legitimate violence (as opposed to, say, crime). Anyway, if the government is to do its duties in protecting peace from within (i.e. banditry, organized crime etc) or without (invasion from other countries) it needs to have an advantage to allow it to enforce its decisions. It does limit its citizens' freedoms, but the alternative is usually something like Afghanistan, where local strongmen and militia leaders do what the government can't. In the 10th or 18th century things could maybe be different, but today few people can afford the newest weapons and technologies - most of us will be at a disadvantage anyway.

The question right now isn't, however, whether the state should have more power than the citizens, or vice versa: those kids weren't killed by federal agents. The question is whether we can limit, if not deny, psychopaths and thugs in killing innocent people, and how far we are willing to go for that.

Originally Posted by Dinsdale
By extension, the citizenry becomes weaker in relation to government. When the Federal Government has a monopoly of force, then we cease to be truly free.

Thats a dictatorship you are referring to.

The fact is gun's in America are a fact of life until the number of pro-gun people are outnumbered by those opposed to guns. That is not to say they shouldn't add some stricture regulations.