School shooting "phenomenom"

[+Sokar 0]

william1, nice one-sided way to justify that. however, i know many people who have the ability of getting a weapon in their own home, even when they have been ultimately pissed off, they still never even JOKED about doing anything so insane. Guns arent the only things that can harm people. Fists can kill a person, especially brass knuckles. Knives are a deadly weapon as well. Don't go around preaching that it's all a guns fault. Anybody can kill anybody at any given time at any given place, it doesn't much matter what you have as a weapon.

I have full acesss to over 15 different weapons in my own home, (all properly bought and legal, i have my firearms license/purchasers permit). I've been extremely pissed off many times at things, but have i ever even THOUGHT of committing something so insane like killing someone? Hell no. In my personal opinion, no human life is worth it. I am sure MANY people out there feel the same way, even those that own firearms.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I cannot possibly believe you guys!

It's like living by the motto: 'Kill your neighbour before he kills you'.

It's completely insane! If you are incapable of handling any situation without the need of a gun, maybe you should seek a scrink.

And to those 'hard areas' you mention: If you meet a group of three tough guys in the middle of Chicago, and you pull a gun - what in the world do you think is gonna happen?!?

No only will you get robbed, you will also be shot dead on the spot - right after you killed one of them.

You can brag all you want about security and freedom. But what is freedom if you have to walk around with your gun!? What's next? Strap on explosives, just so noone will harm you afraid of you blowing yaself up!? Jeeeez!

I'm sorry if i'm rude, but I just feel this is such a narrowminded aproach to this problem, and it will never solve anything - rather the opposite.

Another thing. You tell me you trust all the people at your university. Well, good for you. I must say I don't know many of the 22.000 people going at my university. I do however trust the people I know, and I feel 100% secure, since noone of the people I do not know have any firearms with them into school. Infact, I haven't even heard about anyone being beaten up around campus here for the last 10 years.

If you feel more secure with a gun, be free to carry it - but please stay out of Europe!

[Monkwarrior 0]

The real suffering begins when people are in fear for suffering.

If you switch your mental focus to other things guns are superfluous.

No I haven't smoked pot, it's just something I have learned the past 43 years.

A human being acts out of fear or love: now you decide from which of these 2 you want to act and live.

Peace, Monk

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]It's like living by the motto: 'Kill your neighbour before he kills you'.

 What the hell are you on?

 

Quote[/b] ]If you are incapable of handling any situation without the need of a gun, maybe you should seek a scrink.

 

 I would agree with you if by "any situation" you mean stuff like taking the trash out, opening a jar or taking a shower or such. If you thought you needed a gun for those situation you would be a bit of a basket case. However if by "any situation" you mean being attacked or raped  then I think it is you who need to see a "scrink". Self defense is a human right and all creatures have the right to defend them selves and no one including you has the right to deprive them of that right.

Quote[/b] ][And to those 'hard areas' you mention: If you meet a group of three tough guys in the middle of Chicago, and you pull a gun - what in the world do you think is gonna happen?!?

No only will you get robbed, you will also be shot dead on the spot - right after you killed one of them.

 Lots of things could happen, all three thugs could be shot maybe just two or just one. Perhaps they'll be scared off and flee before a shot is fired. I'll play devils advocate and say that maybe they draw guns and kill you or the gun jams. What ever the case it is still the right of the individual to defend them self and not have to wait for help from the government. Once again it's not the right of the three thugs or you to deprive them of the right to defend them self.

Quote[/b] ]But what is freedom if you have to walk around with your gun!? What's next? Strap on explosives, just so noone will harm you afraid of you blowing yaself up!?

 You my friend are irrational. I hate "whats next" type examples that make so sense. "What good is warmth if you have to wear a jacket, what's next you skin your brother alive and make a jacket from him!" I mean come one where the hell do you make the jump from owning a firearm to suicide bombing? That is just as insane as the stupid jacket to keep warm leap to skining a human to keep warm, example I made to mock you. It just does not makes sense.

Quote[/b] ][Another thing. You tell me you trust all the people at your university. Well, good for you. I must say I don't know many of the 22.000 people going at my university. I do however trust the people I know, and I feel 100% secure, since noone of the people I do not know have any firearms with them into school.

 So these friends of yours that you trust, you wouldn't trust one of them if they owned a gun? That is really sad, infact they do not sound very trust worthy at all. Most my friends do not own guns, however the friends I do keep are decent enough people that If they did own a gun I would still trust them since I know they are not unhinged loons.

 To be honest I wouldn't trust you with a gun, it sounds like you have a one track mind. I do thank you for avoiding guns since from what you are saying it does sound like the first thing you would do if you got hold of one would be to murder some one or commit suicide with it. You seems to project this perception with each of your comments.

 I don't trust myself in a race car, I'm simply not a good driver I'd probably crash at high speed and kill my self and others. For that reason I do not race cars, the difference between me and you however is that while I don't trust my ability as a race car driver I realize that others are capable of handling them just fine.

 

Quote[/b] ]If you feel more secure with a gun, be free to carry it - but please stay out of Europe!

 I really would like to visit Europe some day. Of course I would leave my gun at home since I know it's illegal to have one in most of Europe, that and of course I don't own any firearms.

[Ironsight 1]

Espectro those things you come up with, amazing how ignorant and narrowminded someone can be about the rest of the world...

EUROPE STRONG!!!! right?

[Journeyman 0]

 To be honest I wouldn't trust you with a gun, it sounds like you have a one track mind. I do thank you for avoiding guns since from what you are saying it does sound like the first thing you would do if you got hold of one would be to murder some one or commit suicide with it. You seems to project this perception with each of your comments.

You are talking about Espectro?    ....FFS I give up arguing here! So long as there are ppl here who believe that carying guns in public is a safe and positive thing it's just a waste of time!

The Wild West is history mate you need to move forwards. Like Ebud said earlier you would all be much better off carrying CS gas, Pepperspray or mace. ... Attackers are disabled, nobody gets killed. This is 2007 and you are living in a democratic country?  

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]You are talking about Espectro?    

 Oh please, are you trying to suggest I'm a suicidal murderer? I haven't even been in a mild scuffle in the past decade. The last time I even struck some one with my fist out of anger I was 12, over half my life ago. As for suicidal, nah.

 I speak in jest of espectro but I do find it disturbing that he and you seem to have one track minds when it comes to guns. There is a symptom in psychiatry called projection which is a case where some one "projects" their mental problems onto others. For example when espectro suggest that any one with a gun is going to murder some one or kill them selves he is actually projecting what he believes he himself would do if in possesion of a weapon. That is why in a way I kind of worry about him.

 When I see a police officer or a citizen who legaly owns a gun I do not see a distinction, both are perfectly sane individuals who I have no reason to fear. Espectro however believes the individuals are "sick" and dangerous, that they will snap at any moment and harm him. Honestly I could not live life as espectro does, it's irrational and just down right creepy.  Espectro, no one is out to get you and most of all "guns" are not out to get you.

 Christ you make it out like a gun is some sort of alien brain leeche that posseses a mans mind forcing him to kill and murder.

[AfrographX 0]

The difference between a police officer and a civlian carrying a gun is that 1. the police officer is representing the state monopoly on the legitimate use of force and 2. that the police officer is trained for critical situations. He can or should be able to evaluate such a situation and is able to decide if the use of lethal force is appropiate.

If everyone would carry a gun everywhere there would probably be lot of innocent getting killed because of misunderstandings. In the end I believe such a society would be less safe to live in.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]You are talking about Espectro?    

 Oh please, are you trying to suggest I'm a suicidal murderer? I haven't even been in a mild scuffle in the past decade. The last time I even struck some one with my fist out of anger I was 12, over half my life ago. As for suicidal, nah.

 I speak in jest of espectro but I do find it disturbing that he and you seem to have one track minds when it comes to guns. There is a symptom in psychiatry called projection which is a case where some one "projects" their mental problems onto others. For example when espectro suggest that any one with a gun is going to murder some one or kill them selves he is actually projecting what he believes he himself would do if in possesion of a weapon. That is why in a way I kind of worry about him.

 When I see a police officer or a citizen who legaly owns a gun I do not see a distinction, both are perfectly sane individuals who I have no reason to fear. Espectro however believes the individuals are "sick" and dangerous, that they will snap at any moment and harm him. Honestly I could not live life as espectro does, it's irrational and just down right creepy.  Espectro, no one is out to get you and most of all "guns" are not out to get you.

 Christ you make it out like a gun is some sort of alien brain leeche that posseses a mans mind forcing him to kill and murder.

Please stop putting words into my mouth. I have never said everyone who owns a gun is about to murder other people. I have myself been in the military, and I do not have some kinda weird paranoia towards guns.

But they belong on the shooting range or in the forest hunting. They do not belong in school or on the street.

Yes, you have the right to self defence, but that's the whole problem with the states - When others have guns, and it's 'pretty normal' that criminals use them, you have to have them for self defence.

Why not just avoid them entirely?

And don't give me the crap that it isn't possible. Others have shown it is possible to ban guns on the street with success and therefor lowering the amount of people that are shot. Latest it was Australia.

[Stag 0]

Worth reading:

Quote[/b] ]It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get meâ€. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.

But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.†This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.†But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that†Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.â€

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone†forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zoneâ€. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun†policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

@ WarDog

So your point is, we should all be carrying guns? Great...

Now imagine it the other way around: Guns in the USA would only be available to cops and the military. Not even hunters would be allowed to have guns - hunters were able to kill animals with other weapons besides guns for centuries. Anybody feeling the need to go into a rage would have a challenge to kill even 1 person, say with a bow and arrow or crossbow, since said projectile could be deflected by a chair or table or whatever available (or even good reflexes! ) .

I think this latter scenario is much more preferable than having to look over your shoulder at everybody else carrying guns to see if they're having a "bad day"...

[igor drukov 0]

...

Well I'm sure the mothers of the victims killed in all stories are staunch supporters of gun possession now.

Dear me, why don't all those people unable to spot a killer beforehand follow a course on pre-emptive action so the killers get shot before they even actually become killers?

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

...

Well I'm sure the mothers of the victims killed in all stories are staunch supporters of gun possession now.

Dear me, why don't all those people unable to spot a killer beforehand follow a course on pre-emptive action so the killers get shot before they even actually become killers?

Hate to rain on your parade, but I guess that happens because if someone would shoot the to-be-killers before they actually killed someone, those that would fire first would be considered killers themselves...

Better just not have guns around period.

[Stag 0]

BUZZARD @ April 18 2007,22:11)]@ WarDog

So your point is, we should all be carrying guns? Great...

Now imagine it the other way around: Guns in the USA would only be available to cops and the military. Not even hunters would be allowed to have guns - hunters were able to kill animals with other weapons besides guns for centuries. Anybody feeling the need to go into a rage would have a challenge to kill even 1 person, say with a bow and arrow or crossbow, since said projectile could be deflected by a chair or table or whatever available (or even good reflexes! ) .

I think this latter scenario is much more preferable than having to look over your shoulder at everybody else carrying guns to see if they're having a "bad day"...

Actually, it was just an observation. there are some people I wouldn't trust with a peashooter, Let alone a firearm.

And in the UK where I live, theorectically there are very few people that can legally own guns, and forget about getting semi-autiomatics, but there are fully automatic weapons being used on the streets, despite our strict firearms laws.

All Legislation ensures is that any armed psychopath that enters an area finds it full of victims. What's the answer? because if a crazy wants a gun badly enough he's going to be able to get one. Maybe the US should start to look at bearing arms as a privilege, not an automatic right.

[Dallas 9]

It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant...

Should have stopped right there.

Cho Seung-Hui could with ease access two semi-automatics, several magazines and ammunition. School massacres doesn't seem to be executed by people with extensive criminal records. In retrospect several people were serverely conserned about Cho Seung-Hui mental state and were intimidated by his macabre mindset. Those who knew him well, when learning that the shooter was asian, though of him immediately. Several alarms and conserns could not prevent him to exercise his rights to legaly purchase two handguns.

Quote[/b] ]Actually, it was just an observation. there are some people I wouldn't trust with a peashooter, Let alone a firearm.

A liberal gun control does not care about trust, only a criminal record. Nothing could prevent Cho Seung-Hui from getting those weapons.

[Stag 0]

A liberal gun control does not care about trust, only a criminal record. Nothing could prevent Cho Seung-Hui from getting those weapons.

A note regarding his mental state should have. The ability to breathe should never be considered as being sufficient right to own deadly weapons. From the reports coming out the signs were fairly obvious. How obvious does it need to be?

[billybob2002 0]

Yes, you have the right to self defence, but that's the whole problem with the states - When others have guns, and it's 'pretty normal' that criminals use them, you have to have them for self defence.

Why not just avoid them entirely?

And don't give me the crap that it isn't possible. Others have shown it is possible to ban guns on the street with success and therefor lowering the amount of people that are shot. Latest it was Australia.

For starters, the average law-abiding American citizen doesn't carry an concealed weapon (firearm). Only a minority of law-abiding citizens do. For example, my state, Maryland, almost never grants concealed weapon permits. In 2003, there were 6,784 armed robberies on the streets/highways of Maryland. It is hogwash to assume that the average armed criminal wouldn't/will pull out an firearm because of the possible of the victim having an firearm on them.

I can bring out Russia but I'm not going to play your game. It sort of goes against your point.

Look, stop trying to compare the United States to Western European countries, and Australia, with strict firearm laws because even before many of those nations introduced strict gun laws, they still had way lower murder rates/numbers compared to the United States.

It is socio-economic and cultural reasons....not the availability of a firearms.

[shinRaiden 0]

BUZZARD @ April 19 2007,11:11)]@ WarDog

So your point is, we should all be carrying guns? Great...

Now imagine it the other way around: Guns in the USA would only be available to cops and the military. Not even hunters would be allowed to have guns - hunters were able to kill animals with other weapons besides guns for centuries. Anybody feeling the need to go into a rage would have a challenge to kill even 1 person, say with a bow and arrow or crossbow, since said projectile could be deflected by a chair or table or whatever available (or even good reflexes! ) .

I think this latter scenario is much more preferable than having to look over your shoulder at everybody else carrying guns to see if they're having a "bad day"...

In Australia a former Army member is on trial for falsifying armory records to hide his theft of 10 M72 LAW packages. Only one of the 10 has been recovered, and it was altered so as to be unable to be traced back to that particular depot.

The loss was only discovered as part of an ongoing investigation into the trial of an Al-Qaeda associate who was arrested for purchasing the launcher for approximately $5000, and allegedly plotting an attack on a nuclear power plant.

Rocket Launchers and other such 'exotic' destructive devices are extremely tightly controlled, and are most definitely not legal for the general public. Yet losses persist.

The famous Thompson M-1 was a similar case. When Congress cracked down on private gun ownership with with the national firearms act to restrict private machine gun and destructive devices, particularly to crack down on the not all that widespread usage in organized crime, the crime syndicate's simply put 'clean' schil's into the army to leech guns and ammo out. MS-13 does that today as well in El Salvador and the US.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Now imagine it the other way around: Guns in the USA would only be available to cops and the military. Not even hunters would be allowed to have guns - hunters were able to kill animals with other weapons besides guns for centuries.

 And people were able to kill people with other weapons besides guns for centuries as well.

Quote[/b] ]Anybody feeling the need to go into a rage would have a challenge to kill even 1 person, say with a bow and arrow or crossbow, since said projectile could be deflected by a chair or table or whatever available (or even good reflexes! ) .

 Where there is a will there is a way. What makes you think they'll obey the law and not use a gun any way if they are going to rage, or worse a bomb?

Quote[/b] ] I think this latter scenario is much more preferable than having to look over your shoulder at everybody else carrying guns to see if they're having a "bad day"...

 You sir are paranoid. I for one don't look over my shoulder in fear that some one is going to shoot me.

Though Balschoiw could probably mention a situation that has me looking over my shoulder  lately do to some threats I received. However I don't believe the group of thugs I live by are willing to shoot me they just want to beat the crap out of me for some reason, maybe take my wallet I don't know, they are punks and probably drink too much. Long of the short I don't fear being shot at, there is no reason to. I have more tangible real problems to fear.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now imagine it the other way around: Guns in the USA would only be available to cops and the military. Not even hunters would be allowed to have guns - hunters were able to kill animals with other weapons besides guns for centuries.

And people were able to kill people with other weapons besides guns for centuries as well.

Quote[/b] ]Anybody feeling the need to go into a rage would have a challenge to kill even 1 person, say with a bow and arrow or crossbow, since said projectile could be deflected by a chair or table or whatever available (or even good reflexes! ) .

Where there is a will there is a way. What makes you think they'll obey the law and not use a gun any way if they are going to rage, or worse a bomb?

Quote[/b] ] I think this latter scenario is much more preferable than having to look over your shoulder at everybody else carrying guns to see if they're having a "bad day"...

You sir are paranoid. I for one don't look over my shoulder in fear that some one is going to shoot me.

Though Balschoiw could probably mention a situation that has me looking over my shoulder lately do to some threats I received. However I don't believe the group of thugs I live by are willing to shoot me they just want to beat the crap out of me for some reason, maybe take my wallet I don't know, they are punks and probably drink too much. Long of the short I don't fear being shot at, there is no reason to. I have more tangible real problems to fear.

If people arent afraid of being shot at, why carry a gun?

//Edit

I know you cannot be seen as the average American, but you bring yourself into a discussion of the general aspect of this issue.

Also, Yes - America is different than Western countries - but that doesn't mean that it cannot change (unless you want it to be this criminal of course).

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now imagine it the other way around: Guns in the USA would only be available to cops and the military. Not even hunters would be allowed to have guns - hunters were able to kill animals with other weapons besides guns for centuries.

And people were able to kill people with other weapons besides guns for centuries as well.

1 or 2 persons, perhaps, but 32? I somehow doubt that...

Quote[/b] ]Where there is a will there is a way. What makes you think they'll obey the law and not use a gun any way if they are going to rage, or worse a bomb?

The reason why police carry guns is exactly because criminals may carry guns. Otherwise cops wouldn't need guns either.

Quote[/b] ]You sir are paranoid. I for one don't look over my shoulder in fear that some one is going to shoot me.

I am not paranoid because thankfully where I live normally nobody besides law enforcement and military carry guns. I MIGHT be paranoid if EVERYBODY would carry guns.

[billybob2002 0]

//Edit

I know you cannot be seen as the average American, but you bring yourself into a discussion of the general aspect of this issue.

Also, Yes - America is different than Western countries - but that doesn't mean that it cannot change (unless you want it to be this criminal of course).

Is the first part directed at me? If it the part is directed at me, I wasn't talking about myself. And, if you wanted to know, I don't carry an concealed firearm.

Change in what way? Again, simply having strict gun laws doesn't fix the problem. You are seeing an correlation with those countries but is it causation? Russia has shown us that it isn't causation. Russia has very strict gun laws and, yet, they nearly had 23,500 murders in 2006. The United States had 16,692 murders in 2005 (2006 numbers are not in yet). Year after year, Russia has more murders than the United States. More people live in the United States too by at least hundred million. Clearly, this shows that simply having strict gun laws is not the answer. So, what is it then?

If you found the answer, you would probably get an award.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

//Edit

I know you cannot be seen as the average American, but you bring yourself into a discussion of the general aspect of this issue.

Also, Yes - America is different than Western countries - but that doesn't mean that it cannot change (unless you want it to be this criminal of course).

Is the first part directed at me? If it the part is directed at me, I wasn't talking about myself. And, if you wanted to know, I don't carry an concealed firearm.

Change in what way? Again, simply having strict gun laws doesn't fix the problem. You are seeing an correlation with those countries but is it causation? Russia has shown us that it isn't causation. Russia has very strict gun laws and, yet, they nearly had 23,500 murders in 2006. The United States had 16,692 murders in 2005 (2006 numbers are not in yet). Year after year, Russia has more murders than the United States. More people live in the United States too by at least hundred million. Clearly, this shows that simply having strict gun laws is not the answer. So, what is it then?

If you found the answer, you would probably get an award.

No, it was directed at sputnik - which is why I quoted him, and not you. Secondly - I never said stricker gun-control would solve the problem solely. Infact, I said quite the opposit on p. 2:

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, as more people have stated the problem isn't solely because of the gun laws. If people where 100% satisfied with their lives, and thought they were threated fair in their community. They would never have done the things that we sadly see sometimes over the entire world - no matter how many guns that were available for them.

This doesn't, however, mean that the very liberal weapon culture seen in places such as the US and many non-western countries, aren't responsible for the shootings.

The thread is pretty long, and alot of people is discussing this - so I can understand it's hard to figure out who said what

Edit: To answer your question:

Where do you get those numbers from - are they from all over Russia? Including many non-civilised areas in Russia? Another thing - even though they DO have gun-control in Russia, I doubt it is very effective, and believe that many areas outside the larger cities people have guns in Russia. Russia is also in alot of conflicts etc. which I would suspect also take some casualties.

And a final note. Russia have had a pretty rough times the last many years, and I would be so rude as to say that their infrastructure is definately not the same standard as I expect from my Danish Government, and I would never compare my country with russia - especially in matters like these.

That makes us different, I suppose.

[+Sokar 0]

"The reason why police carry guns is exactly because criminals may carry guns. Otherwise cops wouldn't need guns either."

Don't be so one-sided all about "Guns being the problem". If cops don't carry guns, people are going to have MANY options no matter what, to get a hold of anything and use it as a weapon. Remember the knife? That thing with a blade and handle? That can be fairly deadly, in some cases worse then a gun. Remember the car? Remember the ball bat? Ban all things that can be used as weapons if you ppl wanna be so hard on guns. Guns aren't the only thing that kill people. If somebody wants to take another human life, it doesn't matter what they use, they will do it no matter what they have.

[Dallas 9]

A liberal gun control does not care about trust, only a criminal record. Nothing could prevent Cho Seung-Hui from getting those weapons.

A note regarding his mental state should have. The ability to breathe should never be considered as being sufficient right to own deadly weapons. From the reports coming out the signs were fairly obvious. How obvious does it need to be?

It's harder to commit a person against his will, than for him to acuire a semi-automatic. Some would prefere it were easier to commit people, others would prefere it were more difficult to access these easy to conseal, very lethal, high capacity, fast reloadable 9mm handguns. Retrospect is not of much use in a tradegy like this one and we all know it will happen again.

The media will superficially create a monster or a martyr of this deranged person to milk this story for all it's worth. People will still be ostracized from the cool people and hot girls. People will still suffer from depression and break their necks trying to get an education and people will still be able to plan and execute these massacres. Because the guys who commit these tradegies, always fly under the radar. No criminal records, no close relations, no friends, no family, they don't have anything, nothing to lose. They got their growing paranoia, they got their daydreams of regaining power and getting more and more hatefull of the world they can't adapt to. People don't want to deal with other peoples' mental illenesses and mentally ill people keep to themselves.

There's no simple fix to this problem. More or less guns isn't the answer. But easy access to weapons specificly designed to kill people is a factor.