PDA

View Full Version : The first school shooting in Finland


Pho3nix
11-07-2007, 10:14 AM
I was quite shocked today when I read the news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7082795.stm) after school.

This is pretty much the same thing as the Columbine/Virginia Tech massacre, only in a smaller scale.

It's really weird that this has happened here in Finland, which seemed so far away from school shootings in America. Thankfully I didn't know any of the students killed, 9 have been killed including the perpetrator.

Maybe this gives some insight into the possible future where school shootings will become more frequent outside the U.S.

mimartin
11-07-2007, 04:03 PM
Maybe this gives some insight into the possible future where school shootings will become more frequent outside the U.S.Let us hope and pray that school shootings will become a thing of the past both inside and outside the US.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and your country today.

lukeiamyourdad
11-07-2007, 05:34 PM
Damn, that is really a tragic event.

I offer my condolences to the family of the victims and to your country. We, in Montreal, know too well how a school shooting can affect your world.

kotor_freak
11-07-2007, 06:36 PM
Yeah, heard about it on the news after I got home. Terrible and upsetting news.

My condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

Jae Onasi
11-08-2007, 08:11 AM
It's really weird that this has happened here in Finland, which seemed so far away from school shootings in America.

The US doesn't have a monopoly on evil and violence--that's human nature, unfortunately. It's sad to realize that the kids who are obviously disturbed enough to do this a. aren't getting identified as having problems, b. have apparently easy access to assault weapons and c. are not being protected from whatever is triggering the decision to go and shoot other students (severe bullying seems to be a factor).

Thankfully I didn't know any of the students killed, reportedly 7-8 have been killed and the shooter shot himself.
That's just awful, and I feel bad the families of all those who died.

Sabretooth
11-08-2007, 08:38 AM
The gun - a simple and elegant solution to life's problems. Have a problem with someone? Bang. Think YOU are the problem? Bang. Want to look cool and get the **** out of life at the same time? Bang.

The key part about School Shootings is not School, but Shootings. The gun is responsible - it is a weapon where you don't need skill, strength or practice. In fact, it is hardly a weapon - it's a killing device. Point and pull and it's all over. And it is this that is the problem. Teenagers go through a lot of stress in life, in one degree or another. The gun is the tempting solution to it all, and as long as guns exist and in the availability that exists today, I wouldn't expect school shootings to stop.

My condolences to the families of both the victims and the culprit, and my sympathies to the culprit's mind.

Darth InSidious
11-08-2007, 09:20 AM
Actually, you do need a degree of strength and some knowledge of how to fire the thing (with the gun straight in front of your chest is not usually advisable, AFAIK). Otherwise you'd break your wrists...but that's beside the point.

It's odd to think of a school shooting so (comparatively) close to home. It shouldn't make much difference, but at the same time, your perspective skews with distance.

O_o

My prayers tonight are for the dead, the families, and the gunman...


How can anyone think that their life is worth more than their fellow man's, or that it is their choice who may live and who may die?

At times like this, it's hard to put faith in your fellow man.

Sabretooth
11-08-2007, 09:29 AM
Actually, you do need a degree of strength and some knowledge of how to fire the thing (with the gun straight in front of your chest is not usually advisable, AFAIK). Otherwise you'd break your wrists...but that's beside the point.
Well of course, but look at the alternatives: Weilding a sword or an axe would require literal physical strength, not to mention months of skill if the culprit hopes to get his victim quickly. A gun is the simplest weapon compared to older ones. At the most you'd require a bit of practice in a convenient secluded spot. It's creepy, the way I'm thinking about it.

How can anyone think that their life is worth more than their fellow man's, or that it is their choice who may live and who may die?
A suicidal school shooter is going to be hardly interested in philosophy like that. He doesn't think he's king of the world and it is his right to kill. He doesn't think in that system at all. Someone has done great injustice to him (in his perspective, at least) and he wants to deal the same on him. It's a brutally simple idea.

Pho3nix
11-08-2007, 10:59 AM
The US doesn't have a monopoly on evil and violence--that's human nature, unfortunately.
I'm aware of that, but for example the Columbine tragedy has been the most publicized school shooting. That's why I drew the parallel to America.

Rogue Nine
11-08-2007, 11:07 AM
According to various sources, the kid posted his intentions to carry out the shootings on the internet hours before actually doing it. He also wrote up a manifesto of his thoughts and posted it on the web as well. For the most part, he seemed 'angry at the human race' and saw himself as a 'natural selector', intent on weeding out those deemed 'unfit'.

I just think he was a complete whackjob. :dozey:

Too bad he isn't around anymore to face the music. He shot himself in the head just before being captured and he was alive up until a certain point, but he succumbed recently. I'd've liked it if he'd just paralyzed himself or something and kept all of his mental faculties, so he could live out the rest of his life incarcerated with the humans he hated so much.

Web Rider
11-08-2007, 11:09 AM
the problem is not guns. The problem is the desire to use violence to solve problems. If there were no guns, disturbed kids may use knives. If there were no knives, people would use stones and sharp sticks.

Getting rid of guns only makes the people with these kinds of issues and desires harder to find.

Sabretooth
11-08-2007, 11:24 AM
the problem is not guns. The problem is the desire to use violence to solve problems. If there were no guns, disturbed kids may use knives. If there were no knives, people would use stones and sharp sticks.
But like I said, the gun is hardly a worthy weapon. The chances of an untrained student killing another with a knife are very low, but a gun is a killing device - not a hurting one, like the knife. You just pull the trigger and a life is over.

The problem is the desire to use violence to solve problems.
And isn't that the most basic, more primitive way to solve problems? It is the only one hardcoded in our brains since birth - if you have a problem, fight your way out of it. The problem is that the kids of today are weak mentally and that fear of authorities, a ruined life or even humiliation leads them to suicide. Kill and suicide - simple, all your problems are solved.

Web Rider
11-08-2007, 12:25 PM
But like I said, the gun is hardly a worthy weapon. The chances of an untrained student killing another with a knife are very low, but a gun is a killing device - not a hurting one, like the knife. You just pull the trigger and a life is over.
and aim well. Shooting a gun is not a one-hit-wonder. And whatever delusions of honorable warfare exist in your mind haven't existed in reality for a long time.

I don't know how many guns you've shot, but unless you are a spectacular example of person, steady hands, accurate eyes, strong arms, ect... but guns are not these magical devices that work like you're keyboard and mouse where point+click=death. If you don't know what you're doing, you're as likly to hit a person as you are the floor or miss the broad side of a barn.


And isn't that the most basic, more primitive way to solve problems? It is the only one hardcoded in our brains since birth - if you have a problem, fight your way out of it. The problem is that the kids of today are weak mentally and that fear of authorities, a ruined life or even humiliation leads them to suicide. Kill and suicide - simple, all your problems are solved.
We are of course the most primitive, basic forms of humanity....oh, wait, we're not, we have this wonderful thing called "self control". And please don't stereotype. If you were correct, there'd be far more shootings than there are already, I was one of those "kids" a few years ago, and I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't appreciate it now.

You don't know them, don't judge them. It's that kind of judgement that is behind these shootings.

mimartin
11-08-2007, 02:14 PM
I agree with Web Rider in that guns are just a tool and are not at fault in any of these cases. I differ from Web Rider in that I believe guns are more lethal and provide a chance the perpetrator to kill or harm more individuals than a knife, stones are a sharp stick.

I also disagree in that if you are a point blank range any fool can hit their target with a gun even by accident. Dog shots Man (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_99710.asp)

However having never shot at a human Iím sure it would be more difficult. After all the difference between shooting a target and a living animal is huge, I'm sure a human would be 100 times worst. Maybe not for people who do things like school shootings or they would not be doing it in the first place.

To me the problem is more a problem of availability of fire arms to students in these cases. It should be harder for kids to lay their hands on them to use in such a fashion. Gun safes, trigger lock are important tools in preventing such tragedies. No, it will not stop them, but it could help in limiting them and limiting the number of deaths. I own guns and they are protected with trigger guards and the ammo is stored in a complete different hidden location. I was taught as a child gun safety comes first even before protection.

Sabretooth
11-08-2007, 02:23 PM
and aim well. Shooting a gun is not a one-hit-wonder. And whatever delusions of honorable warfare exist in your mind haven't existed in reality for a long time.

I don't know how many guns you've shot, but unless you are a spectacular example of person, steady hands, accurate eyes, strong arms, ect... but guns are not these magical devices that work like you're keyboard and mouse where point+click=death. If you don't know what you're doing, you're as likly to hit a person as you are the floor or miss the broad side of a barn.
I think the training time required to fire a gun is significantly lesser than teaching a man to accurately use a bow or master swordplay. And a bullet is more likely to kill you in a shot than an arrow or a blade. That is the difference.

We are of course the most primitive, basic forms of humanity....oh, wait, we're not, we have this wonderful thing called "self control".
But we do not have absolute self control, because if we did, this would have never taken place. We are all animals, just a little smarter than the rest. Can you permanently control your urge to reproduce, to eat and to drink?

And please don't stereotype. If you were correct, there'd be far more shootings than there are already, I was one of those "kids" a few years ago, and I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't appreciate it now.
Stereotype? I'm not lying or stereotyping when I say that teenagers are in stress - because they are. That's natural, considering human psychology and sociology, and is further aggravated by modern society. I am one right now, and I know the urge to pick up a gun and shoot someone, just to solve everything. Why don't I do it? There aren't any guns around me, I'm a chicken, and I don't want to die (which the obvious solution I'd pick after a school shooting because I'm obviously going to face 50+ years of jailtime).

You don't know them, don't judge them. It's that kind of judgement that is behind these shootings.
And that is something I agree with - whoever did that obviously was not in the same frame of mind as you and I - he had a completely different way of viewing the world and himself. He didn't understand things the way you and I did, that's agreed.

Totenkopf
11-08-2007, 03:18 PM
Guns are not the problem. If they were, there'd be a far greater number of deaths around the world then there are already (and I ain't talking in war zones, either). It may be a hoary old saying, but guns don't kill people, people kill people. And, when you look at the proliferation on the internet of info on homemade bomb making, it's almost a wonder that there aren't more of those problems. Hell, you don't even have to aim a pipebomb, just drop it off somewhere. Nevermind car bombs.

El Sitherino
11-08-2007, 05:10 PM
I think the training time required to fire a gun is significantly lesser than teaching a man to accurately use a bow or master swordplay. And a bullet is more likely to kill you in a shot than an arrow or a blade. That is the difference.
Swordplay and gunplay are very different confrontations.

If you were to be up against another person with great skill in marksmanship, no matter what your weapon he/she'd be likely to kill you before you even get to draw your weapon.
And it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is a gun.
Knife+throat=****ing dead.

Web Rider
11-08-2007, 06:12 PM
I agree with Web Rider in that guns are just a tool and are not at fault in any of these cases. I differ from Web Rider in that I believe guns are more lethal and provide a chance the perpetrator to kill or harm more individuals than a knife, stones are a sharp stick.

I also disagree in that if you are a point blank range any fool can hit their target with a gun even by accident.

I'm not saying they're not far more lethal, that's completely true. I'm just saying that they're not simply "point+click".

I think the training time required to fire a gun is significantly lesser than teaching a man to accurately use a bow or master swordplay. And a bullet is more likely to kill you in a shot than an arrow or a blade. That is the difference.
of course it is, but as Slithereo brings up, I can still kill real easily with a knife. It takes a little more finesse perhaps, but it still ranks pretty low on the "how hard is it to kill with this weapon" poll.

But we do not have absolute self control, because if we did, this would have never taken place. We are all animals, just a little smarter than the rest. Can you permanently control your urge to reproduce, to eat and to drink?
Of course not, but the desire to wantonly slaughter out of misguided beliefs of "superiority" and suppressible feelings.

Stereotype? I'm not lying or stereotyping when I say that teenagers are in stress - because they are. That's natural, considering human psychology and sociology, and is further aggravated by modern society. I am one right now, and I know the urge to pick up a gun and shoot someone, just to solve everything. Why don't I do it? There aren't any guns around me, I'm a chicken, and I don't want to die (which the obvious solution I'd pick after a school shooting because I'm obviously going to face 50+ years of jailtime).
I don't do it simply because I know it's not a valid solution to any(save if somebody else had a gun in my face) problem that may arise in my life. But I was speaking stereotype in the way of saying that teens are afraid of the administration. There's probly a far larger correlation between school shootings, the boys who do them(if there was a girl who did some, let me know), and society's current ideas about how boys should "bottle it up".

mimartin
11-08-2007, 08:07 PM
I'm just saying that they're not simply "point+click".I agree with that, but it isnít rocket science either. It is a really easy skill to learn at least from close range.

of course it is, but as Slithereo brings up, I can still kill real easily with a knife. It takes a little more finesse perhaps, but it still ranks pretty low on the "how hard is it to kill with this weapon" poll. Yes, these sick individuals can kill one or two person just as easily with a knife, but without being specially trained, I donít see how they could murder as many victims as you can with a firearm. Time and people fighting back would be against them. Again, I am not saying firearms are the problems I am saying allowing children unsupervised access to weapons is part of the problem.

HerbieZ
11-08-2007, 09:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre To me, it does'nt matter if it was in a "smaller scale" or not. Still a tragedy and one that will certainly be repeated in the future. They say the one thing that pushes the human race to learn is death. Hopefully someone will find the answer before more people die needlessly. Despite media and other sources placing the blame on mental health/games/films, i personally believe there is one common factor here and that is guns. A human made invention, we don't need them to live so we need almost iron laws over their restrictions.

Easier said than done granted, especially with UK laws and the American right to bear arms. But times change and it seems most countries are guilty of placing nostalgia before logic.

John Galt
11-08-2007, 11:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre To me, it does'nt matter if it was in a "smaller scale" or not. Still a tragedy and one that will certainly be repeated in the future. They say the one thing that pushes the human race to learn is death. Hopefully someone will find the answer before more people die needlessly. Despite media and other sources placing the blame on mental health/games/films, i personally believe there is one common factor here and that is guns. A human made invention, we don't need them to live so we need almost iron laws over their restrictions.

Easier said than done granted, especially with UK laws and the American right to bear arms. But times change and it seems most countries are guilty of placing nostalgia before logic.

I would disagree. I think the answer to the problem of gun violence is definitely more "gun control," but of a very different sort. A lot of people are afraid of the gun itself, and quite a few are fascinated by guns from an early age. I think that the answer to gun violence is education-- institutionalized gun safety training in public schools(at least in America) would certainly help curb the fear and hopefully go a long way towards removing the stigma, and it would also help the government "provide for the common defense."

OF course, most of the advocacy for contemporary gun control comes from large cities, where most people don't own guns, and as someone who lives in what could be described as a rural environment, I have to keep that in mind, given that I've always thought of guns as tools, and in some cases historical objects for collecting. There was a school shooting about 45 minutes from my hometown, at a small law school in Western Virginia(not WV) that involved a student coming in with a pistol. Given that police response time is not so good around here, the guy could've killed a lot of people. Luckily, however, another student had a shotgun in his truck(for turkey hunting, if I'm not mistaken) and was able to shoot the shooter before anyone else could be hurt. No, that incident didn't get much press coverage, but I digress.

I think that individuals are, in the end, responsible for their own actions, and although inanimate objects may be used to commit crimes(the same with drugs, etc.) the individual who pulls the trigger is ultimately at fault. Furthermore, I think that demystifying firearms themselves would go a long way toward creating a safer, freer society.

Sabretooth
11-08-2007, 11:45 PM
If you were to be up against another person with great skill in marksmanship, no matter what your weapon he/she'd be likely to kill you before you even get to draw your weapon.
And it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is a gun.
Knife+throat=****ing dead.
Perhaps, but then I don't see why there aren't more knife-based school massacres, as compared to shootings. Knives are much more available and accessible, too.

Of course not, but the desire to wantonly slaughter out of misguided beliefs of "superiority" and suppressible feelings.
IMO, all that is bull****. The people around him didn't appear to hate humanity or feel superior. It is obvious that the guy had been screwed up in his life and as a result, he wanted revenge or to just release his anger. He magnified all that by saying that he hated the human race and so on, so as to appear greater. Alternatively, he would have looked like the average teen who shot kids because he was bullied. Which is the better option in his eyes?

I don't do it simply because I know it's not a valid solution to any(save if somebody else had a gun in my face) problem that may arise in my life. But I was speaking stereotype in the way of saying that teens are afraid of the administration. There's probly a far larger correlation between school shootings, the boys who do them(if there was a girl who did some, let me know), and society's current ideas about how boys should "bottle it up".
There is a point in a human's tolerance when he breaks - when there is left no option for him other than to be reduced to primitive means. That has not been conquered by medicine and science, and that is humanity's greatest failing.

Well of course, teens are afraid of the authorities. Why did he kill himself? He didn't want to spend the rest of his "redeemed" life in a jail, or ****ed up by authorities and the media. That's just being rational.

Corinthian
11-09-2007, 01:08 AM
Killing someone with a knife is actually a lot harder than killing someone with a gun. It takes more to stab someone to death than it does to shoot them. With a knife, you're a lot less likely to kill more than one person before you're taken down - against a guy with a gun, you've got no chance without a gun of your own. Against a guy with a knife, you've got plenty of options. If a group gets together and mobs the guy with the knife, they'll probably all survive without serious injuries. If they mob a guy with the gun, several are probably going to be severely hurt or killed.

That's why there are no knife massacres.

Rev7
11-09-2007, 02:34 AM
That is just too bad....some people have some serious problems.

adamqd
11-09-2007, 05:06 AM
I know what it was like to be a teenager, and feel lost, and misunderstood, but 8 people have lost there lives, and countless family members lives will never be the same. There can be no apologies for any aspect of this crime, there shouldn't of been a gun and he should of received help for his problems.

For the record, guns should be banned imo, all this "guns don't kill people, people kill people" maybe true to a degree, but its just a nice slogan for gun owners.
I saw a tv show about cops in the US, (I Know this is a singular event and doesn't represent the whole country but) a police officer stops a man for a routine check, it happens that the man is wanted for other traffic offenses, so he drives off... and for this, the officer empties his clip in to the car?! I mean traffic offenses are a crime but do they really equal to possible death?

Also, I'm pretty sure no one here has, or would know how, to efficiently kill with a knife... Unless John Rambo is a member of LF

Ray Jones
11-09-2007, 09:31 AM
Actually, you do need a degree of strength and some knowledge of how to fire the thing (with the gun straight in front of your chest is not usually advisable, AFAIK). Otherwise you'd break your wrists...Oh no, you wouldn't. I mean, these are young people, not old grannies who cannot even hold their pee anymore. Plus, modern fire arms have reduced recoil and stuff and once you have fired a weapon you get used to it quickly, it's not that hard, really. And I doubt any of the school shooters has never used a weapon before their deeds.


and aim wellAt long distance, yes. But not when the person you're shooting at is only a couple of meters away. Then it's almost point and click. Especially with handguns.


Also, like Corinthian said, the difference between a kill with a knife/sword/hammer/by hand or a gun is at hand: to put a blade into someone else's body it takes more "of a man" compared to the "fire and forget" feel of projectile weapons. In other words: distance. To kill someone with a gun yo don't need to get close to your victim, whereas killing by knife would mean you have to get as close as 1 meter to perform a kill, and the chance to see yourself opposed to effective resistance, maybe even that your knife is being used against yourself increases a lot with that. In case you fail to aim properly with the first knife stab you most probably find yourself face to face with someone that might totally tick off and actively fight for his life. Being 4 meters away the other one has literally no chance when you pull the trigger. And in case you miss the first time, no problem, there is more in the magazine.

At the end of the day it's simply distance that makes guns so effective and popular for the Joe Normal type of killer.

Darth InSidious
11-09-2007, 10:12 AM
Oh no, you wouldn't. I mean, these are young people, not old grannies who cannot even hold their pee anymore. Plus, modern fire arms have reduced recoil and stuff and once you have fired a weapon you get used to it quickly, it's not that hard, really. And I doubt any of the school shooters has never used a weapon before their deeds.

I bow to your superior knowledge of firearms.

Ray Jones
11-09-2007, 10:38 AM
I am educated and trained in the use of different projectile weapons like handguns, rifles, automatic guns, and bazookas.

lukeiamyourdad
11-09-2007, 12:23 PM
I remember making a gun thread earlier this year after the Virginia Tech massacre where I explained quite a few things.


Knives vs. guns...

Although true that it is much harder to do mass killing with a knife, it is however incorrect to assume that someone cannot kill a lot of people with a bladed weapon instead of a projectile weapon. After all, Jack the Ripper didn't use a gun. My point is that this kid could have turned into a serial killer and plan murders had he not have a gun. We'll never truly know, but it is not possible to blame such a tragedy uniquely on the weapon used.

Banning guns...

Generally a very urban thing to say, considering we don't need guns in the city. People in rural regions though, it's almost a way of life. They hunt, protect their flocks from carnivorous animals, etc. Banning would be bad for them. What would they do? Try to knife that turkey?
Then again, Switzerland has the highest amount of assault rifles per capita in the western world. When was the last school shooting in Switzerland?


Ah found the old thread:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=177706

Web Rider
11-09-2007, 12:47 PM
Perhaps, but then I don't see why there aren't more knife-based school massacres, as compared to shootings. Knives are much more available and accessible, too.
I said that killing with a knife is low on the list of complicated ways to kill. A gun is easier.

IMO, all that is bull****. The people around him didn't appear to hate humanity or feel superior. It is obvious that the guy had been screwed up in his life and as a result, he wanted revenge or to just release his anger. He magnified all that by saying that he hated the human race and so on, so as to appear greater. Alternatively, he would have looked like the average teen who shot kids because he was bullied. Which is the better option in his eyes?
Um, I was talking about the shooter as having the better than you attitude.

There is a point in a human's tolerance when he breaks - when there is left no option for him other than to be reduced to primitive means. That has not been conquered by medicine and science, and that is humanity's greatest failing.
Of course, but getting picked on shouldn't be it. In fact, it rarely is. Given that what, one school shooting happens a year? maybe? Out of the hundreds of thousands of kids? Don't make excuses like "he was pushed into it". There are plenty of ways to deal with that kind of school stuff without killing people, being stressed is no excuse, buy a punching bag for that.

Well of course, teens are afraid of the authorities. Why did he kill himself? He didn't want to spend the rest of his "redeemed" life in a jail, or ****ed up by authorities and the media. That's just being rational.
Speculating on why he killed himself is really someplace I don't think I want to go. My assumption would be that he hated humanity, knew he was part of it, and didn't want to be.


Knives vs. guns...

Although true that it is much harder to do mass killing with a knife, it is however incorrect to assume that someone cannot kill a lot of people with a bladed weapon instead of a projectile weapon. After all, Jack the Ripper didn't use a gun. My point is that this kid could have turned into a serial killer and plan murders had he not have a gun. We'll never truly know, but it is not possible to blame such a tragedy uniquely on the weapon used.

Banning guns...

Generally a very urban thing to say, considering we don't need guns in the city. People in rural regions though, it's almost a way of life. They hunt, protect their flocks from carnivorous animals, etc. Banning would be bad for them. What would they do? Try to knife that turkey?
Then again, Switzerland has the highest amount of assault rifles per capita in the western world. When was the last school shooting in Switzerland?


But Jack also struck in the dark of night on women who were usually wandering around alone. Which makes killing with a knife/sword easier as there's less interferance.

On banning guns, it's ironic that you say we don't need guns in cities, this generally tends to be where most of the gun crime is. I mean Columbine and VT were big-city places, not little country towns. Cities could really learn a lesson from country towns when it comes to guns. The concepts about them are very different.

As John Galt mentioned, there's a sort of respect and "ooo+awe" over guns in the country, but they don't really have that in cities, which IMO is part of the reason there's more gun crime in cities.

Corinthian
11-09-2007, 01:54 PM
Personally, I think everyone should carry a gun. Nobody is going to commit a crime when every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to pull a Beretta on them

mimartin
11-09-2007, 02:13 PM
Personally, I think everyone should carry a gun. Nobody is going to commit a crime when every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to pull a Beretta on them Yea, that worked out real well in America in the 19th century and it is working out worst in Iraq of today.

It may workout well here now until a couple macho morons cross paths and have to prove who has the bigger gun. I have to admit I was apprehensive about Texas hand gun law before it was enacted, but it has worked out well although it has not stopped crime. Still you canít carry counseled weapons like it was envisioned as businesses have the right to say no fire arms within them add to that school grounds, government property and any place that sales alcohol and mine pretty much stays in my car or apartment.

Corinthian
11-09-2007, 02:17 PM
That's Iraq. They're all crazy over there. They kill each other over beards and whether you should listen to Muhammad's brothers.

Sabretooth
11-09-2007, 02:43 PM
That's Iraq. They're all crazy over there. They kill each other over beards and whether you should listen to Muhammad's brothers.
I still find Iraq a much saner place compared to what the world would be if everyone had a gun. We're talking the entire world here, which is what, 10 times Islam? I'd say there are a lot of places way crazier than Iraq.

lukeiamyourdad
11-09-2007, 04:00 PM
But Jack also struck in the dark of night on women who were usually wandering around alone. Which makes killing with a knife/sword easier as there's less interferance.

Yeah, there is less interference and my point about knives vs. guns is that someone can kill a lot of people with a knife too, in different circumstances, yes, but just as many.

On banning guns, it's ironic that you say we don't need guns in cities, this generally tends to be where most of the gun crime is. I mean Columbine and VT were big-city places, not little country towns. Cities could really learn a lesson from country towns when it comes to guns. The concepts about them are very different.

As John Galt mentioned, there's a sort of respect and "ooo+awe" over guns in the country, but they don't really have that in cities, which IMO is part of the reason there's more gun crime in cities.

Actually, there's more gun crime in the cities because there's more crime. Period. The concepts around them are indeed very different and the need also is very different. The country towns need them in their every day life, for something else then self-defense, while the city dwellers don't hunt a lot of pigeons or protect their pets from the wildlife.

By the way, I'm against banning guns or blaming them instead of the criminals who commit acts of violence using firearms.

However, I'm also against this idea of more guns meaning less crime. mimartin said it best, so I'll leave it at that.

I honestly will never understand this paranoia in some Americans. I live in St-Michel, a ghetto where there's quite a bit of stabbing and fighting going on every day for various reasons. I don't feel the need to carry a firearm. This isn't the most dangerous place in North America. I wonder why some Americans, who live in very safe neighborhoods, safer then mine, where there's nearly no drug trading in the parks, feel the need to protect themselves against...a "what if?" situation. I guess it's a cultural thing. Don't answer my questioning...

Ray Jones
11-09-2007, 04:36 PM
Then again, Switzerland has the highest amount of assault rifles per capita in the western world.Does it say where?

lukeiamyourdad
11-09-2007, 05:35 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

I should have said civilian owned. It's one link alone though.

The article also points out how Switzerland doesn't face some of the same social problems many larger countries have to deal with.

tk102
11-09-2007, 06:23 PM
I don't know how many guns you've shot, but unless you are a spectacular example of person, steady hands, accurate eyes, strong arms, ect... but guns are not these magical devices that work like you're keyboard and mouse where point+click=death.
I'm against banning guns or blaming them instead of the criminals who commit acts of violence using firearms.
If the guns were magical devices where point+click=death, would you still feel the same? If killing another person became so very simple that took absolutely no skill, would you ever point the finger at the laws that allowed such devices to be owned?

Gargoyle King
11-09-2007, 06:47 PM
Such a shame when such hatred in one's own species can lead to such a horrible
event. I think something has to trigger off a person to do something like this, i think the main cause is intent bullying which causes the perpatrator to snap, using a gun like a tool of intent revenge. It's scary how things can transgress into something as tragic as this. My condolences to all involved, including the gunman himself as he must have been quite trapped in his own hatred to perform such a horrible deed upon his own. This has surprised me, not because it is anywhere outside America, but because the events in Virginia are still so fresh in our minds and it's such a shame that something of the same has occurred yet again so soon after Virginia Tech.

Web Rider
11-09-2007, 06:54 PM
@tk, no, because I still don't think it's the government's job to do these kinds of things. People are going to find ways to kill, yes, laws can make it harder, but now we're just making Big Brother bigger. When a person owns a weapon it's their responsibility to be well, responsible with it. I can't count the number of swords/knives/daggers I own on both hands. But I'm responsible about them and don't screw around with them save when I know I can't hurt anyone and I don't let other people even handle them for more than a few moments.

How much effort did that take to restrain myself from doing anything bad? Not much. in fact, as far as efforts go, I've had business in the bathroom require more effort. It's NOT hard to control yourself. And that's ALL people need to do when it comes to weapons, ANY weapon.

tk102
11-09-2007, 07:34 PM
I still don't think it's the government's job to do these kinds of things... It's NOT hard to control yourself. And that's ALL people need to do when it comes to weapons, ANY weapon.
If we take it another step farther, does that mean that other violence prevention measures taken by the government such as background checks and concealed weapon permits are also examples of Big Government overstepping their bounds on personal liberty?

Corinthian
11-09-2007, 07:50 PM
Most loonies don't get their guns the legal way anyway, they either steal it or purchase from illegal sources.

Ctrl Alt Del
11-09-2007, 11:13 PM
the problem is not guns. The problem is the desire to use violence to solve problems. If there were no guns, disturbed kids may use knives. If there were no knives, people would use stones and sharp sticks.

Getting rid of guns only makes the people with these kinds of issues and desires harder to find.

That does remember me about a referendum that happened on Brazil almost a year ago. The discussion was all about the legalization of weapons. Since before that time, guns were legal for anyone with the authorization and license to carry/use them. But, unfortunately and as some of you might know, Brazil got some critical problems with violence that comes mostly from drug dealing above many other crimes. So, the choices of the "poll" were two, quite clear and straight choices: Should the weapons be forbidden to civilians? Yes or No?

The problem in question is, definitely different, but the discussion seems to fit. A gun is surely an easy way to kill people, but it's possible to kill with bare hands, too. Bear on mind that your kitchen knife may be stained with blood, so your tools and, dammit, even your small, butter-cutting scissor. And on the drug dealing case, that would be just another illegal material for the criminals to smuggle in and out. Considering how ineffective my government was on fighting those dealers, I can't hope but be sure that their arsenal would stay untouched, perhaps grow even more. That's why I believe that's not the solution.

The referendum ended with the legalization of weapons with a majority of over 70%.

Web Rider
11-10-2007, 01:09 AM
If we take it another step farther, does that mean that other violence prevention measures taken by the government such as background checks and concealed weapon permits are also examples of Big Government overstepping their bounds on personal liberty?

to be technically correct, yes. But at the same time, no. These people who are being checked on, all people anyone, are simply being checked on to see how responsible a person they are. If they watch their action and exercise self-control well, they're likly to have a clean record and get guns. But that's not a problem because these are responsible people who won't be stupid and or violent with them.

Permits are a tracking measure, yes, they impose on our freedoms, but I think it's a very small imposition and if you've got a good record, and hell I know a few people with bad records, you can still get guns. I think it's pretty fair of the government, with permits, to essentially be saying "you want a gun, we want to know who you are." It makes things simpler when somebody was killed with X kind of gun to be able to know who in that area owns one of those guns.

That does remember me about a referendum that happened on Brazil almost a year ago. The discussion was all about the legalization of weapons. Since before that time, guns were legal for anyone with the authorization and license to carry/use them. But, unfortunately and as some of you might know, Brazil got some critical problems with violence that comes mostly from drug dealing above many other crimes. So, the choices of the "poll" were two, quite clear and straight choices: Should the weapons be forbidden to civilians? Yes or No?

The problem in question is, definitely different, but the discussion seems to fit. A gun is surely an easy way to kill people, but it's possible to kill with bare hands, too. Bear on mind that your kitchen knife may be stained with blood, so your tools and, dammit, even your small, butter-cutting scissor. And on the drug dealing case, that would be just another illegal material for the criminals to smuggle in and out. Considering how ineffective my government was on fighting those dealers, I can't hope but be sure that their arsenal would stay untouched, perhaps grow even more. That's why I believe that's not the solution.

The referendum ended with the legalization of weapons with a majority of over 70%.

this is simply when it comes down to each weapon should be taken in it's own regard. Theres no need to own a rocket launcher or some high-powered military arsenal, fun as it may seem. In the case of drug dealing, well, most of those guns are illegial anyway, so for them, the law simply made what they were doing illegially, legal. It wasn't the owning guns that was illegial, but how they were getting them.

Which is the problem the permit and background check solves. Of course Brazil and many other South American countries have detrimental governmental problems, such as the ease at which political figures and agencies can be threatened into cooperation or bought into cooperation, which contribute to it's gun/drug/everything problems.

Rev7
11-10-2007, 01:31 AM
For the record, guns should be banned imo
Guns can save lives (/protect), and take lives. IMO, it just depends on how the weapon is used.

tk102
11-10-2007, 02:15 AM
Permits are a tracking measure, yes, they impose on our freedoms, but I think it's a very small imposition and if you've got a good record, and hell I know a few people with bad records, you can still get guns. I think it's pretty fair of the government, with permits, to essentially be saying "you want a gun, we want to know who you are." It makes things simpler when somebody was killed with X kind of gun to be able to know who in that area owns one of those guns.Beyond simply providing after-the-fact traceability, permits can also be denied on a per-applicant basis. Carrying a weapon without a permit is a violation.

It sounds like you are saying then, there is some point at which you agree that governmental regulations for the prevention of violence is reasonable. For example, in nearly every state, convicted felons are prohibited from obtaining a gun permit. Enough people agree with the reasonableness of this to enact this law which sacrifices some personal liberty for the sake of public safety.

Now, the degree to which one might consider such preventative measures reasonable is a subjective one. For those who value their liberty of owning firearms, the opinion will likely be different from those that have never owned one and are appalled by reports of gun violence in schools. In the case of the latter, blame does not always fall solely upon the perpetrator but also upon those that allow or encourage promiscuity of guns to begin with.

It is fine that you agree a bit more on the side of personal liberty than on than on the side of regulation. I simply raise the question because quite often in these threads I see a lot of categorical statements placing full blame and responsibility on the individual while ignoring pervading social factors. I would prefer to see that deliberate consideration was given before an opinon was reached, rather than taking a shortcut answer (not saying that you did Web Rider, just in general).

Ctrl Alt Del
11-10-2007, 05:04 PM
In the case of drug dealing, well, most of those guns are illegial anyway, so for them, the law simply made what they were doing illegially, legal. It wasn't the owning guns that was illegial, but how they were getting them.

If the referendum ended with the approval of the proposition for banishing the weapons, then it would be a stab on the government's heart that, unable to determine where the criminals were getting them, would simply make their very owning illegal. Sounds like prohibiting alcoholic beverages on the dry law.

Rev7
11-11-2007, 03:17 AM
If the referendum ended with the approval of the proposition for banishing the weapons, then it would be a stab on the government's heart that I agree. From a practical point of view, I think banishing weapons would be a fatal mistake, especially for the United States.

Web Rider
11-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Beyond simply providing after-the-fact traceability, permits can also be denied on a per-applicant basis. Carrying a weapon without a permit is a violation.
but as I said, people who are responsible, this isn't going to be a problem.

It sounds like you are saying then, there is some point at which you agree that governmental regulations for the prevention of violence is reasonable.
yes
For example, in nearly every state, convicted felons are prohibited from obtaining a gun permit. Enough people agree with the reasonableness of this to enact this law which sacrifices some personal liberty for the sake of public safety.
because, as I've said, these people have proved they are not responsible, for whatever reason, enough to own guns.

Now, the degree to which one might consider such preventative measures reasonable is a subjective one. For those who value their liberty of owning firearms, the opinion will likely be different from those that have never owned one and are appalled by reports of gun violence in schools.
of course.
In the case of the latter, blame does not always fall solely upon the perpetrator but also upon those that allow or encourage promiscuity of guns to begin with.
true, if we promote sex, we hold some responsibility for teen pregnancy. If we promote guns, we are to some degree responsible for gun violence. However, blaming the people who promote guns, and the people who use guns, and the ones who use them poorly, is acceptable. It's when you(not YOU you) blame the existence of guns for problems that is incorrect.

It is fine that you agree a bit more on the side of personal liberty than on than on the side of regulation.
It's just as fine if I agree with the side of absolute bannage. That's my opinion.
I simply raise the question because quite often in these threads I see a lot of categorical statements placing full blame and responsibility on the individual while ignoring pervading social factors.
yes, there ARE social factors, peer pressure, propaganda, lack of education on the subject, social standards, ect ect... But at the end of the day, it was Hypothetical-Joe's fault for following such-in-such idea that said killing is an adequet solution tp bullying or some other normal-life issue. Is his depression at fault? Sure, is his hostile work environement? sure, is the music that makes guns out to be cool, and talking about cappin' people's asses, of course. But the individual still needs to be held accountable for their actions, even if they did it out of "peer-pressure", they still made the decision to do it.

Should something be done about those things that promote gun violence and things that cause depression and hostile work environments and peer pressure be done? Of course, but they're usually ignored unfortunately.

I would prefer to see that deliberate consideration was given before an opinon was reached, rather than taking a shortcut answer (not saying that you did Web Rider, just in general).
In the end, it is their fault, we can't let them off because Eminem said guns were cool to shoot people with. But we can, and should(though we usually don't), do something about Eminem too.

lukeiamyourdad
11-11-2007, 07:53 PM
It sounds like you are saying then, there is some point at which you agree that governmental regulations for the prevention of violence is reasonable. For example, in nearly every state, convicted felons are prohibited from obtaining a gun permit. Enough people agree with the reasonableness of this to enact this law which sacrifices some personal liberty for the sake of public safety.

Which is pretty much how almost every law in modern democracies are made.


Now, the degree to which one might consider such preventative measures reasonable is a subjective one. For those who value their liberty of owning firearms, the opinion will likely be different from those that have never owned one and are appalled by reports of gun violence in schools. In the case of the latter, blame does not always fall solely upon the perpetrator but also upon those that allow or encourage promiscuity of guns to begin with.


It is fine that you agree a bit more on the side of personal liberty than on than on the side of regulation. I simply raise the question because quite often in these threads I see a lot of categorical statements placing full blame and responsibility on the individual while ignoring pervading social factors. I would prefer to see that deliberate consideration was given before an opinon was reached, rather than taking a shortcut answer (not saying that you did Web Rider, just in general).

I think you're making simplistic assumptions and archetypes. I get the feeling from your post, that those who are blaming the individual are taking shortcut answers. That is false. Blaming gun culture could also be a shortcut answer. Assuming that those who blame the individuals instead of the gun ignore social factors is also false.

The problem with these threads is that it essentially is a gun vs. individual debate. The problem is much more complex. There is no archetype for these school killers. Outside of not getting laid, I can hardly find something similar between all of them. Maybe bullying, but even then, in some cases, it isn't true at all. Gun culture or their availability isn't more important now then in the past, yet these unfortunate events happen in our day and age. Why? I don't know exactly.

What I do know is that it is not possible to blame a single factor.

I think there are bigger issues in play then the presence of firearms. I mean, why would Switzerland not have massive massacres considering the number of assault rifles they have?



Web Rider-

I don't think you can blame anything on Gangsta rap music. It is a representation of ghetto life errr...I'm sorry, was a representation of ghetto life in the past and in our days. These kids living in such neighborhoods will get acquainted to a violent lifestyle, with rap or without. In fact, as strange as it seems, these desperate teens seem to listen to metal more then rap. Think about Columbine and Marilyn Manson or Kimveer Gill (last-year's school shooting at Dawson College in Montreal) and Megadeth. Does it mean metal is to be blamed for the massacres? Of course not, but attributing these kids' irresponsibility with guns to rap culture is a false stereotype. I'm speaking of these attempts at mass killing of course.

Web Rider
11-11-2007, 07:56 PM
The music is not responsible for the crime, I'm not saying that. Only that much of the music, be it rap, metal, pop, classical or whatever, that has violent themes to it, is not entirely free of blame.

tk102
11-11-2007, 11:48 PM
Which is pretty much how almost every law in modern democracies are made.Yes I was deliberately stating the obvious there.I think you're making simplistic assumptions and archetypes.Perhaps, though I'm not referring to one individual post. I'm commenting on a general impression I've gotten from reading a number of posts from these tragedy threads. The most sharply-worded posts are those which raise the banner of personal liberty/personal responsibility over all else.
I get the feeling from your post, that those who are blaming the individual are taking shortcut answers. That is false. Judging from the rest of your post, I would say it is false in your case. I would not dare to assume though that you actually meant to speak for everyone else.Blaming gun culture could also be a shortcut answer. Assuming that those who blame the individuals instead of the gun ignore social factors is also false.Yes, of course, and I would have raised the same issue conversely if these threads kept leaving me with that alternative impression.
...The problem is much more complex... What I do know is that it is not possible to blame a single factor.We agree at least on this.

lukeiamyourdad
11-12-2007, 12:38 AM
I see...I understand what you meant to do.

I just find it interesting that someone is there to question ideologies rather then join into the ideological debate. I'm not saying it's not good, but that it's odd and something I don't see often.

tk102
11-12-2007, 12:44 AM
^^ It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. :p

Tommycat
11-12-2007, 02:16 AM
Switzerland is a poor example because, if I am not mistaken, they are erquired to be a part of the military. Perhaps though it is kind of telling that those areas where the least gun crime takes place are areas where there is more care taken to teach PROPER use of the gun. I think it is important to allow firearms in the world. I lived in Colorado at the time of Columbine. One of my friends was a teacher there. He helped several students escape. He wished that he had his own firearms available to him. This represents the law abiding versus the criminal. The law abiding person like my friend respects the law that he is not to carry his pistol on campus. The criminal doesn't care about the law.

I can(should I desire it) go out right now and purchase an M60("I know a guy" kind of thing). They are not legal in this area. As far as I know it is illegal to purchase them anywhere in the US. This is not to brag, nor claim that its extremely easy to do so, but IF I can do it, I know I am not the only one who can.

At any rate, BACK to the topic. This is another terrible tragedy. It is very sad to see that another country now has a school shooting tragedy. Any massacre is a horrible thing. Its too bad this person didn't start with eliminating himself first.

Rev7
11-12-2007, 02:27 AM
In many different situations, a gun would be VERY useful. I like your example that has to do with the Columbune shooting, but it is very illegal for a teacher to have any sort of weapon on a school campus. As I said in some situations a gun would be very useful, and in this situation I think that it would have been very useful if the teacher was willing to risk his/her life.
As you said, " The criminal doesn't care about the law", I think is 100% right on! The criminal made the decision to do whatever he/she wanted to do. People MAY have be able to try to help the person, but if that person has a very strong will to do something, then the person will most likely do it.

lukeiamyourdad
11-12-2007, 11:50 AM
Switzerland is a poor example because, if I am not mistaken, they are erquired to be a part of the military. Perhaps though it is kind of telling that those areas where the least gun crime takes place are areas where there is more care taken to teach PROPER use of the gun.



Actually, not at all. It's a good example of an area where there's a huge amount of guns, a lot of people who are trained marksmen, but gun violence is low. The argument against such an example is on the social side where there's indeed none of the major problems seen in other industrial country due to Switzerland's isolation. Won't stop a kid from being bullied in his teenage years and going berserk on people, but actual everyday gun crime is insanely low. We could go on and on about why the Swiss love their firearms, but that's the necessary information.

Web Rider
11-12-2007, 01:41 PM
I can(should I desire it) go out right now and purchase an M60("I know a guy" kind of thing).

the sad part is that you can go to just about any gun-show and buy all the parts you need to build any assortment of illegal firearms. It's not illegal to own all the parts, or eve have 99% of the parts put together, just illegal to have all the parts together and the weapon functioning.

Ray Jones
11-12-2007, 04:07 PM
Only that much of the music, be it rap, metal, pop, classical or whatever, that has violent themes to it, is not entirely free of blame.Would "not entirely free of blame" apply to video games, too?


Outside of not getting laid, I can hardly find something similar between all of them.FPS, anyone?

Web Rider
11-12-2007, 07:58 PM
Would "not entirely free of blame" apply to video games, too?
FPS, anyone?

And the parents who buy those games for their kids who aren't old enough to have them, or the kids they know aren't stable enough to make the difference between reality and game.

It applies to any person who even utters the word "gun". To a degree. But it's still, and I'll say it once again for emphasis, it's still the person who chose to go commit those act's fault.

Rev7
11-12-2007, 08:59 PM
But it's still, and I'll say it once again for emphasis, it's still the person who chose to go commit those act's fault.
Thats what it boils down to.

John Galt
11-12-2007, 10:32 PM
Actually, not at all. It's a good example of an area where there's a huge amount of guns, a lot of people who are trained marksmen, but gun violence is low. The argument against such an example is on the social side where there's indeed none of the major problems seen in other industrial country due to Switzerland's isolation. Won't stop a kid from being bullied in his teenage years and going berserk on people, but actual everyday gun crime is insanely low. We could go on and on about why the Swiss love their firearms, but that's the necessary information.

We have a lot of "trained"(I quote, because tons of people have orange cards here) marksmen, especially hunters, and a few military rifle collecters like myself here in East KY, and there is very little gun crime, which is odd considering the amount of drug crime around here. I think part of this is that guns have little "mystique" here; they're everyday tools for getting food and suchlike.

Ray Jones
11-13-2007, 03:11 PM
And the parents who buy those games for their kids who aren't old enough to have them, or the kids they know aren't stable enough to make the difference between reality and game.Or shopkeepers who sell the game to kids, or software developers of p2p software making the download of the game easy as nothing. Basically, as a parent, you are held responsible for dealing with the irresponsibility of many others. The main factor stays present on all scenarios: the existence of those games.

But it's still, and I'll say it once again for emphasis, it's still the person who chose to go commit those act's fault.From a certain age on, yes. But teenagers, clearly no.

Web Rider
11-13-2007, 03:23 PM
Or shopkeepers who sell the game to kids, or software developers of p2p software making the download of the game easy as nothing. Basically, as a parent, you are held responsible for dealing with the irresponsibility of many others. The main factor stays present on all scenarios: the existence of those games.

From a certain age on, yes. But teenagers, clearly no.

no, the important factor, the ONLY factor that truly matters is that a person CHOSE to commit violent acts.

First off: its illegial to sell the game to minors. Aside from a few small shops, big chains check ID when a small kid comes through with a mature game. It is also Illegal to bootleg the games in that manner. In that case, your "precious child" who can do no wrong, is breaking to law to get those games. While the store may have simply been irresponsible to sell the game to your kid, bootlegging is illegal,

So if your kid is trying to buy a violent game, he's trying to break the rules. If your kid is bootlegging a game, he IS breaking the rules. if your kid kills people because of a game that he broke the rules to get, it's your kid's fault.

And it applies to all ages, people from a certain age or maturity level up are entirely responsible for their actions. Teens are no exception because of raging hormones.

mimartin
11-13-2007, 03:43 PM
Most loonies don't get their guns the legal way anyway, they either steal it or purchase from illegal sources.According to the Victim Policy Center study In 62 percent of the handgun shootings (26 cases), the handguns were acquired legally.
In 71 percent of the long-gun shootings (12 cases), the guns were acquired legally.

So according to VPC most guns used in US school shooting since 1980 were gotten by legal means. An Analysis of the Firearms Used in High-Profile Shootings, 1963 to 2001 (http://vpc.org/studies/wgunint.htm)
In addition, an October 2000 study of school shootings by the United States Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center looked at 37 violent incidents in schools. The study found that the weapons of choice were firearms, and that in nearly two-thirds of the incidents the attackers obtained the guns from their own home or that of a relative. In some instances, the guns had been gifts from their parents. The study also determined that more than half of the attackers had a history of gun use.

Web Rider
11-13-2007, 03:45 PM
I'm not sure Corinthian was refering only to school shootings.

mimartin
11-13-2007, 03:47 PM
I'm not sure Corinthian was refering only to school shootings.
Sorry misunderstood.

Edit: but the report is not only dealing with School Shootings but with High-Profile Shootings from 1963-2001. Of those shooting most firearms were gotten legally. The numbers would be inflated anyway consider how easy it was to purchase a hand gun in the 60s and 70s. If they included Charles Whitman in this study that would also greatly increase that number considering how many weapons he took with him that infamous day.

Web Rider
11-13-2007, 03:49 PM
Sorry misunderstood.

well our two posts are a bust now.

Corinthian
11-13-2007, 04:36 PM
I'm sure most of those guns were acquired legally. Of course, the kid stole them from his parents before he went on the spree more than likely.

mimartin
11-13-2007, 05:48 PM
I'm sure most of those guns were acquired legally. Of course, the kid stole them from his parents before he went on the spree more than likely.I also read about how in a couple of the school shootings that the guns were stolen from neighbors and friends of the family.

This begs the question in school shootings were you have underage perpetrators killing with guns taking from the parentís night stand or the neighborís garage how much is the gun owner responsible for not locking up the gun or using trigger locks to prevent unauthorized use of their weapon?

While I agree with Web Rider that the person committing these violent acts is ultimately responsible, I do not believe that is the only factor that matters. I believe by being a gun owner you have taken a responsibility onto yourself to ensure that you do everything possible to make sure that gun is not misused in anyway. So to me that means trigger guards, gun safes and general gun safety (that also means not giving the key or the combinations to minors) . So in my opinion the person that allowed their gun to be used in these shootings either voluntary or involuntary can also share in the guilt for these crimes to a certain degree if they did not do everything possible to keep the firearms out of the hands of a minor or someone that has mental or criminal problems.

Corinthian
11-13-2007, 06:05 PM
Of course the parent bears some responsibility for the kid's action. Heck, they should bear a LOT of the responsibility. The problem is that they're unwilling to accept any responsibility and would rather blame it on TV and video games.

If somebody is determined to go on a killing spree, they'll find their way around a trigger lock or a gun safe. Might take him a while, but he'll do it eventually. The REAL problem is that parents aren't doing their jobs properly.

Web Rider
11-13-2007, 06:19 PM
While I agree with Web Rider that the person committing these violent acts is ultimately responsible, I do not believe that is the only factor that matters. I believe by being a gun owner you have taken a responsibility onto yourself to ensure that you do everything possible to make sure that gun is not misused in anyway. So to me that means trigger guards, gun safes and general gun safety (that also means not giving the key or the combinations to minors) . So in my opinion the person that allowed their gun to be used in these shootings either voluntary or involuntary can also share in the guilt for these crimes to a certain degree if they did not do everything possible to keep the firearms out of the hands of a minor or someone that has mental or criminal problems.

as I've said already, there is much blame to pass around. I had to emphasize my focus on the criminal being responsible when Ray tried to twist the "primary factor" in kids killing people from being the kid being at fault to the game being at fault.

The REAL problem is that parents aren't doing their jobs properly.

not true, most parents ARE doing their jobs properly. Hence why there are more responsible people with guns than without, and school shootings are still largely anomalous things, they are 1 or two people in only a handful of schools out of hundreds of thousands of kids.

Corinthian
11-13-2007, 06:25 PM
Thank you, Webrider, for completely missing the point. I'm not talking about the average, non-loony schoolkid. Geez.

Web Rider
11-13-2007, 06:44 PM
oh so now you're talking about the crazy kids. before you were talking about more than just those. if we're all going to assume here we're gonna make alot more mistakes than that. and yeesh, no need to get pissy at me.

Corinthian
11-13-2007, 06:48 PM
Uh...what? I've been talking about those the entire time.

Ray Jones
11-13-2007, 07:01 PM
So to me that means trigger guards, gun safes and general gun safety (that also means not giving the key or the combinations to minors)I think the whole point of a weapon is that you have it ready at hand, for immediate use. What would I need a weapon for (the so often stated reason of "self defence") when I first have to go downstairs enter a code to get to the basement where I have three locks and five fingerprint scanners before I can get the gun to hassle around with a trigger lock so I can blow that guy's ass off?


So if your kid is trying to buy a violent game, he's trying to break the rules. If your kid is bootlegging a game, he IS breaking the rules. if your kid kills people because of a game that he broke the rules to get, it's your kid's fault.It's hardly a kids fault that people create influences that hypothetical makes my kid go and kill people. It may to a certain degree be my fault, because I might have done something wrong with how I raise my child, or missed out to teach my child no to kill or whatever. The point is, *I* as a parent and my child have to deal with the fact that so many fail to show a minimum of responsibility.

And it applies to all ages, people from a certain age or maturity level up are entirely responsible for their actions. Teens are no exception because of raging hormones.Not to "your" laws. Kids can't vote, drive a car, buy cigarettes or booze. Why would that be?

Web Rider
11-13-2007, 07:17 PM
It's hardly a kids fault that people create influences that hypothetical makes my kid go and kill people. It may to a certain degree be my fault, because I might have done something wrong with how I raise my child, or missed out to teach my child no to kill or whatever. The point is, *I* as a parent and my child have to deal with the fact that so many fail to show a minimum of responsibility.

if your kid isn't at fault for their actions when they kill somebody, then it's hardly your fault for raising him badly. And you can't really blame those guys who make games, they were just influenced by society, and I mean, society is controlled by the government and media, so it must be George Bush and Ted Turner's fault.

I always knew Time Warner, Disney and the IRS were the cause of all school shootings.[/sarcasm]

get a grip. If you buy your kid a violent game, and they go and kill people, you can't blame the game because they abided by the law and only sold it to adult. it you an adult, YOU who gave it to your kid. So if your kid does something bad and you're looking for blame, look no farther than a mirror.

Not to "your" laws. Kids can't vote, drive a car, buy cigarettes or booze. Why would that be?

maybe, because if you actually read what I wrote, I said "above a certain age or maturity level", since those people aren't above a certain age or maturity level, they aren't responsible for certain things. Killing people is still something that people of most ages are responsible for.

mimartin
11-13-2007, 07:35 PM
I think the whole point of a weapon is that you have it ready at hand, for immediate use. What would I need a weapon for (the so often stated reason of "self defence") when I first have to go downstairs enter a code to get to the basement where I have three locks and five fingerprint scanners before I can get the gun to hassle around with a trigger lock so I can blow that guy's ass off? To me the entire point of having a gun for self-defense is making sure it is not used by the criminal first and foremost. Kind of pointless to be robed and murdered in my home with my own gun isnít it? I have trigger guards and a gun safe and Carl Lewis couldnít make it from the front door to my bedroom door before I have a shell in the chamber of my shotgun and the trigger guard off. Yes, I use a shotgun for home protection because there is no real need to aim it.

With a little practice, a trigger guard is not that time consuming to remove. Anyway Iíd rather be killed in the unlikely event I am robed by someone with a gun then take the chances of being killed with my own gun or have someone use my firearms to murder an innocent victim.

Also I only need one firearm outside the safe to protect myself so there is not need to fumble with the gun safe.

Corinthian
11-13-2007, 08:11 PM
Actually, the whole point of having a gun for self defense is so you can defend yourself. If the entire point of having a gun for self defense is making sure you're not killed with it, aren't you better off having no gun at all?

mimartin
11-13-2007, 09:01 PM
Actually, the whole point of having a gun for self defense is so you can defend yourself. If the entire point of having a gun for self defense is making sure you're not killed with it, aren't you better off having no gun at all?
I guess if you are so lame with a firearm that you can't unlock, insert a shell and arm it in the time it takes someone to break your door down or climb through a window then no you shouldn't have a firearm. If they get in faster than I can do all that, I have a personalized Louisville Slugger waiting for them. It is armed and unlocked and child safe.

More likely someone is going to break in when your not home. They find your unlocked gun and go to steal it. You surprise them; you are then killed by your own gun.

It is not difficult you can protect yourself and be responsible too.

Ray Jones
11-14-2007, 12:37 PM
To me the entire point of having a gun for self-defense is making sure it is not used by the criminal first and foremost. Kind of pointless to be robed and murdered in my home with my own gun isnít it?Kind of pointless to be murdered with *any* random gun at *any* random place, isn't it?

I have trigger guards and a gun safe and Carl Lewis couldnít make it from the front door to my bedroom door before I have a shell in the chamber of my shotgun and the trigger guard off.That is, assuming you are actually at home, and already in your bedroom, and taking notice of someone breaking into your house, and instead of ransacking your fridge he's thinking "oh let's get them guns in the bedroom". Also, you do kind of recognise that most housebreakers or robbers do bring their own guns, don't you? I personally am not sure if I would really want to incite a shooting in my house where my kids are sleeping, either. Would be kind of too pointless if my kids die because of a bullet coming from my own gun.

With a little practice, a trigger guard is not that time consuming to remove.Anyway, the punk breaking into your house with a gun ready *will* be faster with pulling the trigger, as he most likely will not have to get it out of the closet, load it and remove a trigger lock first.

Also I only need one firearm outside the safe to protect myself so there is not need to fumble with the gun safe.Yes, maybe, but one gun *outside* the safe is one easy taken gun.


if your kid isn't at fault for their actions when they kill somebody, then it's hardly your fault for raising him badly. And you can't really blame those guys who make games, they were just influenced by society, and I mean, society is controlled by the government and media, so it must be George Bush and Ted Turner's fault.Well not Bush directly, but as you see the list of causalities is a long one before it ends up in some "misunderstood" individual taking the wrong path.

I always knew Time Warner, Disney and the IRS were the cause of all school shootings.[/sarcasm]It is, in fact, the fact that Barbie left Ken. :p

If you buy your kid a violent game, and they go and kill people, you can't blame the game because they abided by the law and only sold it to adult. it you an adult, YOU who gave it to your kid.That is of course, correct. But why would I "blame" others when I personally am responsible? I mean, let's assume for just one second that it is given that I, "the parent", do not hand out inappropriate material to my kids, m'kay.

So if your kid does something bad and you're looking for blame, look no farther than a mirror.Sorry, I cannot agree. I think I pretty sure can say that everything seriously illegal I have done in my life is not my mum's or dad's fault. Really. Neither do they did something similar, nor did they know any "bad" persons, nor did they in any way give me a reason to do the things I did.

maybe, because if you actually read what I wrote, I said "above a certain age or maturity level", since those people aren't above a certain age or maturity level, they aren't responsible for certain things.Oh, I read what you said, so, at what age do you become a fully legal adult in your country, with all rights and duties? And at what age do you personally consider a person fully mature, regarding all points of law and life?

I think that really varies from person to person, and I personally thought I was fully mature already when I was sixteen, but in fact, I wasn't really near any matureness before I became father ten years later. In the end, it's really hard to say, and depends a lot on how you grow up and such.

Web Rider
11-14-2007, 05:02 PM
Jeeze you're good at taking things out of context


Well not Bush directly, but as you see the list of causalities is a long one before it ends up in some "misunderstood" individual taking the wrong path.

It is, in fact, the fact that Barbie left Ken. :p
the whole thing was sarcasm, not just the remark about AOL+Ted Turner.

That is of course, correct. But why would I "blame" others when I personally am responsible? I mean, let's assume for just one second that it is given that I, "the parent", do not hand out inappropriate material to my kids, m'kay.
dunno, you've been a proponent of not blaming anyone under the age of 18 for their actions.

Sorry, I cannot agree. I think I pretty sure can say that everything seriously illegal I have done in my life is not my mum's or dad's fault. Really. Neither do they did something similar, nor did they know any "bad" persons, nor did they in any way give me a reason to do the things I did.
since that's not even what I was saying, that's not even relevant.

If you had paid attention, I was still talking about if you, the hypothetical parent, bought a game, and gave it to your kid, and your kid killed people. It's your fault, not the gun's or the game's.

Oh, I read what you said, so, at what age do you become a fully legal adult in your country, with all rights and duties? And at what age do you personally consider a person fully mature, regarding all points of law and life?
that's why we have trials, to determine to what degree a person is responsible for the action(s) they took.

I think that really varies from person to person, and I personally thought I was fully mature already when I was sixteen, but in fact, I wasn't really near any matureness before I became father ten years later. In the end, it's really hard to say, and depends a lot on how you grow up and such.
that's why we have trials, to determine to what degree a person is responsible for the action(s) they took.

whenever a person does anything, they are responsible for their actions, it was with their hands that whatever was done, was done. But trials and existing laws help outline the extenuating circumstances that would reduce the level of blame. I don't think I need to go into how our legal system works beyond that.

Ray Jones
11-15-2007, 09:25 AM
Jeeze you're good at taking things out of context


the whole thing was sarcasm, not just the remark about AOL+Ted Turner.Who said I did not see that? :dozey:


dunno, you've been a proponent of not blaming anyone under the age of 18 for their actions.Be so kind and show me where I did say such things. You're taking things out of context here. I merely asked you if we could get off the point that parents are responsible when they buy/give their kids inappropriate material, because that stands out of question.

mimartin
11-15-2007, 12:09 PM
Kind of pointless to be murdered with *any* random gun at *any* random place, isn't it?I find any life needless taken to be pointless, if I had to die from gun violence I just donít want to be the one that purchased the bullet. That is, assuming you are actually at home, and already in your bedroom, and taking notice of someone breaking into your house, and instead of ransacking your fridge he's thinking "oh let's get them guns in the bedroom".Iím a little more observant than that. A gun is my last line of defense not the end all defense. Windows and door are not that inviting for burglars. Iíve by the way been burglarized before having a television stolen. Didnít really care that much about the TV, but it does make you feel violated to have someone uninvited come into your home. Also, you do kind of recognise that most housebreakers or robbers do bring their own guns, don't you?I really donít know if this is true, but for argument sake Iíll agree. My personal belief is it is more important how I lived then whether I die or not (too many John Wayne movies I guess). I would rather end up dead from a random robber than have my gun used to kill an innocent victim or accidently kill someone I love. Iím not going to pull the trigger on a burglar until I see what Iím shooting at. Not going to kill someone by mistake even if it does mean my life. If I did kill an innocent victim I could not live with it so why should I take that chance. I Personally am not sure if I would really want to incite a shooting in my house where my kids are sleeping, either. Would be kind of too pointless if my kids die because of a bullet coming from my own gun.Agreed and the same goes for a neighbor or any other innocent victim. Personally they can take my material things. I plan to only defend my family and myself. If they stay out of the bedroom closet they will only have to deal with the police the alarm has summoned. Anyway, the punk breaking into your house with a gun ready *will* be faster with pulling the trigger, as he most likely will not have to get it out of the closet, load it and remove a trigger lock first. First off Iím staying in the closet with the gun the punk will have to come to me. 2nd Iíve timed myself and it took a little less than ten seconds to remove the trigger lock and insert two shells.I'm sure it would take longer in the dark and under pressure, but to me the benefit outweighs the risk. Yes, maybe, but one gun *outside* the safe is one easy taken gun. Sure, but that will depend on the floor plan of the home. I live in a 1000 sq ft apartment 5 steps and Iím at the closet from any of the three rooms. Plus from the closet I can cover all entry points and Iím shooting away from the public and into a solid wall.