Three Dead In Kansas City Mall Shooting

[nycsc4 5,250]

Amendment Two of the United States Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. As an American I have to say that for someone to scream gun control is stupid. IT IS NOT THE GUNS, IT IS THE IDOITS THAT OBTAIN THEM ILLIGALY. We can't ban illigeal guns because we have no idea who has them. So for all of you screaming gun control, then find a solution to tracking down the ILLGEAL guns that we cannot trace and put a stop to it, because we don't have the resources to track down what we can't even see. Think about it.

[Une_ame 8]

I'll let the ones that have lost a parents or a kids in the last mass shooting answer the 2nd sentence of your previous post, especially the last word.

For the last part, I agree with you one the fact that, if everybody can imaging the way the authorities can stop the sale of guns it harder to find an easy way to find all the illegal ones. But, how do you know that the guns that have been used recently in Kansas City Mall are illegal ?

[SpecialEddie 3]

I agree with some people that the media over broadcasts violence and murder. America is a safe country, but in some parts, it's not quite so. Some of you in your quiet suburban neighborhoods may not realize it, but crime happens all the time. When I was living in Los Angeles there would be cops, sirens, and helicopters every night--so often that the rotors of the helicopters often made me fall asleep. America is just like any country in the world. It has crime. Some parts are safe, some are relatively quiet. But even then, peaceful neighborhoods are unpredictable as well (Blacksburg, Virginia). So I stand by what I said earlier. This is a regular day in America. It's a sad truth, but let's not dwell on it.

[jvlm.123 0]

Originally posted by: Micah Just curious, why were guns banned in Europe?quote>

 

I only know of reasons for two countries about why they restricted their gun laws.

Well, the Republic of Ireland, since it's foundation in 1937 (when the constitution came into power) has never allowed the easy availability of guns - not even the Garda Síochána (police force) have guns. However, guns are available for hunting in some counties, but then only at specific times - although hunting and all blood sports may be banned after the next government is formed on 14 June.

In all of the UK, gun laws were tightened after the school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996; in which 16 young children and their teacher were killed, before the gunman turned the gun on himself.

As for other European countries, I honestly don't know.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Une_ame

For the last part, I agree with you one the fact that, if everybody can imaging the way the authorities can stop the sale of guns it harder to find an easy way to find all the illegal ones. But, how do you know that the guns that have been used recently in Kansas City Mall are illegal ?quote>

Not being in on the investigation, I can't say whether it was illegally obtained or not.  I can say something though with a reasonable level of certainty:  When a serial killer or other "violently disposed" individual wants to kill someone with a gun, they tend to prefer guns they acquired illegally because they are significantly harder to trace (heck, professional hitmen have said the same thing).  Also, while it is still possible that the individual being interviewed was promoting an biased view on the situation, I did read something said by a Houston police officer during an interview that the majority of violent crimes in Houston (excluding those due to domestic issues like one spouse shooting the other one), are carried out with unregistered weapons.

[coolotter88 2]

I know the perfect solution! why don't we ban illegal guns! *sarcasm*

[Une_ame 8]

It is easy to understand why the drug dealers, mafia members and others professional hitmen prefer unregistered weapons.

Fact is that if we don't know yet where the weapons used in the last shooting come from, we know that the ones used by the shooter in Virginia Tech were legals, as the ones used in Lancaster County, etc.... those guys don't care about been find because they are suicidal. As a result, fighting illegal guns is, of course, a necessity but it won't stop that kind of mass shooting. BTW, Where those illegal guns come from ?

[coolotter88 2]

I guess they're mostly stolen from military warehouses.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Or you can have the Texas gov'ner

who seems to have totaly lost his mind.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/02/2guns.html

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Or you can have the Texas gov'ner

who seems to have totaly lost his mind.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/02/2guns.html

quote>

 

Interesting... I wonder why no one on the local Houston news channels talked about this...

[spa 970]

Well you can say that the individuals that committ these crimes are the problem and not the guns and that gun control doesn't work or you can say that gun control is really needed, but in either case the fact of the matter is that the US has a gun problem. Below is the results from the CDC's 1998 study of gun violence. Gun deaths per 100,000 people in fairly developed countries (obviously including countries like Somalia would skew things).

U.S.A. 14.24 Brazil 12.95 Mexico 12.69 Estonia 12.26 Argentina 8.93 Northern Ireland 6.63 Finland 6.46 Switzerland 5.31 France 5.15 Canada 4.31 Norway 3.82 Austria 3.70 Portugal 3.20 Israel 2.91 Belgium 2.90 Australia 2.65 Slovenia 2.60 Italy 2.44 New Zealand 2.38 Denmark 2.09 Sweden 1.92 Kuwait 1.84 Greece 1.29 Germany 1.24 Hungary 1.11 Ireland 0.97 Spain 0.78 Netherlands 0.70 Scotland 0.54 England and Wales 0.41 Taiwan 0.37 Singapore 0.21 Mauritius 0.19 Hong Kong 0.14 South Korea 0.12 Japan 0.05 

Amazingly, Japan, a nation of 128,000,000 averages just 124 gun deaths in total per year. That's freaking insanely low! Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that very few Japanese own guns...

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: spa

Amazingly, Japan, a nation of 128,000,000 averages just 124 gun deaths in total per year. That's freaking insanely low! Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that very few Japanese own guns...quote>

Actually, that list proves very little.  And the fact that it works for Japan doesn't mean that it works everywhere else.  It works where the culture permits it to work, not just because government bigwigs sitting in their plush offices choose to think that it does.  One of the things that people fail to mention is that just because a shooter purchased one or more of his guns through a legal means doesn't mean that closing all the gun shops would work, and for a reason.  If someone wants to do something illegal, they aren't going to care if they have to acquire the means to do it by another illegal venue, such as the black market.  Guns are easy to get, regardless of whether you try to get them legally or not.  You just have to know where to look.  And finding the underground network is pretty easy.

About that list though, the only thing that it does prove is that about 42K Americans die every year from guns.  However, according the list below, only about 12K Americans die each year from premeditated murder.  That means that about 30K of those gun deaths are accidents - something that no amount of gun control could fix.  Now, not all of those 12K victims of premeditated murder died from gunshots, so the number goes even lower. 

Rank	Countries	Amount  (top to bottom)
#1	Colombia:	0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2	South Africa:	0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3	Jamaica:	0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4	Venezuela:	0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5	Russia:	0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6	Mexico:	0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7	Estonia:	0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8	Latvia:	0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9	Lithuania:	0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10	Belarus:	0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11	Ukraine:	0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12	Papua New Guinea:	0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13	Kyrgyzstan:	0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14	Thailand:	0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15	Moldova:	0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16	Zimbabwe:	0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17	Seychelles:	0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18	Zambia:	0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19	Costa Rica:	0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20	Poland:	0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21	Georgia:	0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22	Uruguay:	0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23	Bulgaria:	0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24	United States:	0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25	Armenia:	0.0425746 per 1,000 people

As for Japan, everyone take a look at this.  According to the list you posted, Spa, approximately 120 Japanese died each year from guns.  However, according to that link a moment ago, a little over 630 Japanese die every year from premeditated murder.  So, assuming that every one of those gun deaths was homicide (which I'm sure they weren't all homicide) that would mean that for every one person shot to death, four are stabbed to death.  What next - knife control?  (And yes, I realize that it doesn't actually say how they died so it could have been a different instrument of choice).

Trying to control the ability to get a hold of weapons by which to kill someone is a lost cause.  The only way to stop it is by a change in the cultural thinking of the citizens of a nation.

[coolotter88 2]

I thought the japanese were afraid of the yakuza.

[spa 970]

Obviously culture is a huge variable in these things and yes if someone is utterly determined they'll likely find a way. Still, most gun violence isn't carried out by criminal masterminds who are members of some underworld organization. The deranged insane individual could have a very difficult time getting a gun if he or she didn't have gun shows and gun shops to march into and buy one with no real restrictions. Ditto for the domestic violence. The availablility of guns can have can have an significant impact and the fact that America is at the top of the list says something.

Your interpertation of the list you've posted is flawed. 12k Americans die from premeditated murder, but that doesn't mean that the other 30k are Dick Cheney style accidents. Murder that isn't planned is still murder. If there is a gun in the house and tempers are running high the results can be deadly. If there is no gun in the house the odds of survival or cooler heads prevailing improve. 

Furthermore, the list you've presented, in one way, only strengthes the case. Look at the countries on it. The fact the US is only developed country mixed in with a bunch of developing and troubled countries should be a wake up call to policy makers. Should "well we're better off than Columbia and we're just slightly worse than Armenia" really be the rallying call? A list of the US with Western European, Asian and the other suspects (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) is a lot more useful because those are the nations that are comparable in terms of development and wealth.

As for your comparision to knives, well that's ridiculous. Knives have a basic use whereas weapons such as handguns (besides within a shooting range) have absolutely no purpose but to kill other human beings. There is no reason for them to be allowed out in society (you don't cut your celery with a gun!). Furthermore, knives are less deadly and offer a better chance of survival or sanity returning. There are often incidences where someone is stabbed but not repeatedly and they survive. Knives require the perpetrator to get right in there which is more difficult both physically and psychologically. Guns, on the other hand, point and shoot and it's over. A mass knifing on the scale of a the mass shootings that have become too common is virtually impossible. 

For example, recently here in Halifax we had a looney steal a sword from a House of Knives shop and run through the Halifax Shopping Centre brandishing it. No one was hurt, not even the perpetrator when the police arrived (they tasered him). If he had a gun there could have been a very different outcome. He could have hurt or killed other shoppers and the police would have probably had to shoot and kill him.

Since guns are more deadly than knives, they deserve to be more regulated. Comparing two weapons that differ in use and how lethal they are is logically flawed.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: spa Obviously culture is a huge variable in these things and yes if someone is utterly determined they'll likely find a way. Still, most gun violence isn't carried out by criminal masterminds who are members of some underworld organization. The deranged insane individual could have a very difficult time getting a gun if he or she didn't have gun shows and gun shops to march into and buy one with no real restrictions. Ditto for the domestic violence. The availablility of guns can have can have an significant impact and the fact that America is at the top of the list says something.quote>

This is most certainly untrue.  All someone needs to do is go wherever the "bad part of town" is.  The opportunity will be there.  All one has to do is look around them.

Your interpertation of the list you've posted is flawed. 12k Americans die from premeditated murder, but that doesn't mean that the other 30k are Dick Cheney style accidents. Murder that isn't planned is still murder. If there is a gun in the house and tempers are running high the results can be deadly. If there is no gun in the house the odds of survival or cooler heads prevailing improve. quote>

Flying knives and skillets can be just as deadly as a gun.  What's more, if someone has any sense at all in their head, they'll keep their gun(s) locked up, which means that they'll have way more time to think about what they are doing than if they are standing in the kitchen and, in a fit of rage like what would compel someone to get a gun out, break the other person's skull with a skillet.

And no, it doesn't mean that the other 30K are accidents, but there are some are accidents, and others are fits of rage.  In either of those scenarios, the fact that a gun is what killed the person is almost irrelevant.  People die in car accidents all the time because someone was being careless just like when people die from gun accidents.  I hate to say it, but if the answer to the problem is to regulate it, perhaps we should start regulating cars too.  Sounds stupid, but so is gun control.  And in a fit of rage, people usually use the first thing that they can beat the crap out of someone with.

Furthermore, the list you've presented, in one way, only strengthes the case. Look at the countries on it. The fact the US is only developed country mixed in with a bunch of developing and troubled countries should be a wake up call to policy makers. Should "well we're better off than Columbia and we're just slightly worse than Armenia" really be the rallying call? A list of the US with Western European, Asian and the other suspects (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) is a lot more useful because those are the nations that are comparable in terms of development and wealth.quote>

Russia isn't a developed country?  I realize that they still have remnant problems with the KGB, but they aren't anywhere close to being able to classified as a troubled country like Columbia and the like.

As for your comparision to knives, well that's ridiculous. Knives have a basic use whereas weapons such as handguns (besides within a shooting range) have absolutely no purpose but to kill other human beings. There is no reason for them to be allowed out in society (you don't cut your celery with a gun!). Furthermore, knives are less deadly and offer a better chance of survival or sanity returning. There are often incidences where someone is stabbed but not repeatedly and they survive. Knives require the perpetrator to get right in there which is more difficult both physically and psychologically. Guns, on the other hand, point and shoot and it's over. A mass knifing on the scale of a the mass shootings that have become too common is virtually impossible.quote>

I have an uncle that hunts turkeys.  He prefers his eight-pellet shotgun, but has heard of people going turkey hunting with handguns.  And guns do have a useful purpose in society - self-defense.  Think about this.  One of my relatives lived in a moderately rural part of Texas.  Out there, most everyone owns a gun, and break-ins are very rare out there.  Why?  The number one fear of people breaking into someone else's home is that the person who they are going to rob is armed.  If a crook was faced with the option of robbing two houses, one of which he suspected the owners had a gun, and the other which he knew they didn't, if he had any interest in his safety (which is why the crooks that are carrying guns carry them to begin with) he'll go with the house that he knows the people aren't armed unless there is some really good reason why he should try to rob the house of the people that are armed.

For example, recently here in Halifax we had a looney steal a sword from a House of Knives shop and run through the Halifax Shopping Centre brandishing it. No one was hurt, not even the perpetrator when the police arrived (they tasered him). If he had a gun there could have been a very different outcome. He could have hurt or killed other shoppers and the police would have probably had to shoot and kill him.quote>

He could have done that with that sword too.  The fact that no one was hurt is a good indication that he didn't have intent to hurt anyone.

Since guns are more deadly than knives, they deserve to be more regulated. Comparing two weapons that differ in use and how lethal they are is logically flawed.quote>

The military commandos would disagree with you.  Knives are just as deadly as a gun when used properly (which isn't that hard).  On top of that, they're reusable.  Bullets are not reuseable.  In years past, when I was at my grandparents for the summer, I used to talk with the police on patrol in their little township.  There were two ways that they armed themselves.  One route was a gun with 52 bullets at their disposal (a bullet in the gun's chamber, a full clip in the gun, and two spare clips on their belt).  The other route, which was considerably more popular with these guys from what I could see on their belt was to drop one of the spare clips of ammo from their belt and replace it with... a knife.  The reason one of the guys gave me for that was that "a gun is a pretty lousy weapon to have once you run out of bullets."

I'll give one more comparison analysis.  In Texas, it was illegal at the time to carry a gun into a public place.  In Killeen, Texas, in October of 91, 23 people were shot to death in a Luby's restaurant.  No one was armed, and the assailant knew that.  If only two or three people had been armed, odds are incredibly good that the death toll would have been significantly lower.  I could cite the case of a Shoney's in Anniston, Alabama where something like this happened and only the assailants where the ones killed, but in the interest of trying to be balanced, I'm trying to find a less disputable source before I go and say that it's solid proof.

For further reading though about why gun control is a bad thing, read this.

[spa 970]

Well clearly we have very, very different view points. I cannot accept the view that arming everybody is a way to secure society and I think the international statistics bare that out. If people are arming themselves for self-defence and are routinely carrying guns around than to me society has already failed, but hey I'm not an American so I haven't grown up with the whole right to bear arms dogma.

I also really don't see how you can compare a knife with a gun. Yes a knife can be just as deadly, but it usually isn't. Guns are the most deadly weapon the average unskilled person can get. Military commandos might be adept at a knife making it just as bad as a gun in their hands, but most people aren't military commandos! If knives were as bad we would have mass knifings. The fact we don't is proof enough. Knives are more difficult to use physically, psycholoically and take time to reuse giving people a chance to escape or for help to arrive. I can see how one can argue against gun control, although I don't accept the argument, but I really don't see how you can even claim that guns are no different than knives.

In any case I think you're 100% wrong and you clearly feel the same about my views. We're obviously in fundamentally different philosophical camps on the issue and aren't going to agree. At least we both like Sim City

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: spa Well clearly we have very, very different view points. I cannot accept the view that arming everybody is a way to secure society and I think the international statistics bare that out. If people are arming themselves for self-defence and are routinely carrying guns around than to me society has already failed, but hey I'm not an American so I haven't grown up with the whole right to bear arms dogma.

I also really don't see how you can compare a knife with a gun. Yes a knife can be just as deadly, but it usually isn't. Guns are the most deadly weapon the average unskilled person can get. Military commandos might be adept at a knife making it just as bad as a gun in their hands, but most people aren't military commandos! If knives were as bad we would have mass knifings. The fact we don't is proof enough. Knives are more difficult to use physically, psycholoically and take time to reuse giving people a chance to escape or for help to arrive. I can see how one can argue against gun control, although I don't accept the argument, but I really don't see how you can even claim that guns are no different than knives.

In any case I think you're 100% wrong and you clearly feel the same about my views. We're obviously in fundamentally different philosophical camps on the issue and aren't going to agree. At least we both like Sim City quote>

 



Hmmm.

 So some guy walks into a class room/reasturant/shop/mall/office complex  full of people with a knife and starts stabbing people?
I realy do think more people would be inclined to  over power one guy with a knife then  a guy with a gun.
Psycologicly i think were more inclined to be more afaid of the gun.

[Voar Tok 4]

spa: Yep, it's all in the point of view. As I'm sure that you know, your not required to accept or agree with my POV, so our best bet here is just to agree to disagree. See you on the forums.

[Barbarossa 51]

And guns do have a useful purpose in society - self-defense.quote>

I think this comment needs to be fleshed out. Self defense if great, that is why I have no general issue with the 2nd Amendment (one of the reasons, anyway). But I don't think the 2nd Amendment is a blanket right to own any weapon you choose. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns = okay. I can see the need, somewhat. No one needs anything more. But Uzies, AK-47s, various submachine guns... what is the reason for these? Why would anyone want (or more appropriately, NEED) one of these weapons? No one needs them, except the military and law enforcement. And they only need them under certain circumstances...

Just an opinion.

Barbarossa

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa But Uzies, AK-47s, various submachine guns... what is the reason for these? Why would anyone want (or more appropriately, NEED) one of these weapons?quote>

I could see a machinegun being a sort of adult toy... I'm sure a lot of guys would think it fun to destroy an old piece of furniture or appliance with one. (Count me in that group).

...but that's all just fun. No real need. At least not in the US. In some other parts of the world, though...

The key question is whether or not the risks of idiots hurting themselves with them and the potential of them being used in massacres outweigh that. I'd be inclined to say yes. Not because of the idiots hurting themselves issue (if you die because of your own stupidity, you're better off dying before you manage to reproduce and pass on the stupid genes, and I have no pity for you), but because of the massacre issue. A machinegun in a crowded public place can cause a lot of hurt real fast. We can't be giving that kind of power to anyone in the general public.