33 dead people in university

[Adorya]

I disagree about that WMD seen only as an attack weapon, there are some country who had to be in the research competition because the neibourhood in conflict was also looking at it, and the only way to prevent invasion was to oppose with a dissuasive weapon (because WMD is only considered as a dissuasive weapon). I think about India, but also Israel/Iran/Afghanistan.

It's like the technology run, compagnies have to research at the top high end products or they will be left behind in the competition, even if the final product is not going to be fully profitable on the market.

[mokenju1]

I disagree about that WMD seen only as an attack weapon, there are some country who had to be in the research competition because the neibourhood in conflict was also looking at it, and the only way to prevent invasion was to oppose with a dissuasive weapon (because WMD is only considered as a dissuasive weapon). I think about India, but also Israel/Iran/Afghanistan.

It's like the technology run, compagnies have to research at the top high end products or they will be left behind in the competition, even if the final product is not going to be fully profitable on the market.

The thing is Iran has stated that they want only to investigate nuclear energy. And that makes me think that why a Petroleum giant like Iran would need other kinds of alternative energy . Other interesting question would be why they use the money from the Petroleum to make nuclear research instead of improving the quality of life of their citizens. And they shouldn't fear an invasion, I'm sure that the U.N. would make a wonderful resolution in that case .

[Jake]

(Also, it might be unfair to only count shootings. Wikipedia lists two other UK school attacks, one using a flamethrower, the other a machete. To be fair, it also lists a number of other US attacks.)

Well, the thread discussion was around gun control, so it didn't seem fair to bring machetes into it - I wasn't trying to suggest that the UK was safer than the US to live in or go to school in, or that gun control somehow results in a more-peaceful population, just that there's at least a circumstantial link between gun control and less people being shot to death. And the firearm is so significantly more powerful in a killing-people sense than a machete ever will be; you can't hack someone open with a machete from across the room.
(Coincidentally, the flamethrower one was before Dunblane; the machete attack was committed by a schizophrenic, and I'll far more certainly conceed that Britain's "care in the community" approach to the mentally disturbed is dangerous lunacy than our gun control laws... bizarrely, while Dunblane resulted in stricter handgun laws, attacks by the mentally ill don't result in asylums being re-opened. :/ )

"Guns don't kill people. Idiots do."

Unfortunately, while the sentiment of the statement is entirely correct - smart and morally-upstanding people with guns are no more likely to kill people than smart and morally-upstanding people without guns, it takes malicious intent to commit cold-blooded murder - this kind of statement is so glib and facile that it puts my back up and often turns me against the no-gun-control crowd. The fact remains that a significant proportion of people are idiots, and/or evil, and a nasty guy with a gun is going to find it a lot easier to kill a lot more people than a nasty guy with a knife or a sharp stick. :/

not entirely.

OK - when I typed 'directly' I meant in the sense that "the UN does not order NATO around, the UN asks NATO nicely to do things", and NATO is perfectly capable of doing things without the UN's say-so or even approval. There may be links, but they are most certainly not 'the military wing of the UN'. If nothing else, as I understand it the entire armed forces of NATO signatory countries are [arguably] NATO troops, that doesn't make the UK or US Army the military wing of the UN.

[PyTom]

Well, the thread discussion was around gun control, so it didn't seem fair to bring machetes into it - I wasn't trying to suggest that the UK was safer than the US to live in or go to school in, or that gun control somehow results in a more-peaceful population, just that there's at least a circumstantial link between gun control and less people being shot to death.

Sure. And to be fair, I don't think anyone died in the machete and flamethrower attacks, so it's not totally a fair comparison. Still, it doesn't look like the UK gun ban had much of an affect on the rates of murder and violent crime in the UK... if anything, the trends show violent crime increasing.

I'll point out that, by and large, a decrease in gun related crimes doesn't mean much. You have to care about the bottom-line crime rates... if less people are shot, but more are killed with knives, have you won anything?

(I'm actually surprised that in England and Wales, the violent crime per capita is so much greater then in the US, while in the US, the murder rate is much higher then in E&W. You'd think there'd be a correlation between the two.)

[Jarkota]

From what I heard, in Virginia you can get a gun within 10 minutes - no background check or anything. I think that's a prime example of irresponsible gun laws if true.

Actually, I have to call you on that one. I live in West Virginia, and as such have familiarized myself with the gun laws of surrounding states (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio), and Virginia has the same laws that West Virginia does. You *do* have to go through background checks for handguns there, and he was sold those two because his background was clean (despite being ruled mentally ill by a judge some time back). Either it was an error in the system, somebody mixed up some paperwork, or, due to him being Korean and part of a minority group, it wasn't reported for fear of lawsuits based on racial profiling and discrimination (at least, those are the only plausible reasons I can come up with). To back this up, I present this new article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_ ... ng_weapons

Also, as a college student myself, I *would* feel safer if I knew people on my campus were carrying weapons (well, actually, I think most of them are anyway despite the laws; I know a few professors do). Even if I didn't carry any myself, I like knowing that there are plenty of others around me that are that could come to my rescue if I was in trouble. I like living in this "backwards NRA Redneck state" (as a few I've encountered have called it); I feel safe here. We only need cops to fill out reports after we've fileld the guy that just broke into our house with some lead slugs. About nine-tenths of the over-21 people here have concealed weapons permits, and the rest just put a holster on their hip and go; you don't even need* a permit to carry one if you're 21 here, and I must say that makes me happier than a fox that can squeeze into the henhouse. And *gasp* what do you know? West Virginia has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. Most of what we get are burglaries that occur when a house is empty, pickpocketing, etc. When even a 90-year-old woman walking down the street could have a .44 magnum prepped to go, and even the little kids are trained early on how to use guns, knives, etc (I was taught to shoot a .38 revolver and a .22 rifle when I was three), criminals tend to not take the chance. We get some morons from around New York that think they can get away with the same kinds of crimes down here, and BOY are they ever in for a rude awakening.

And as for another argument presented, it's been my experience that only idiots draw guns during an argument. I myself carry a Llama .45 semi-automatic pistol (sometimes on my hip, sometimes in a shoulder rig) and keep a Rossi .22 magnum derringer in my pocket as a backup, and though I've argued with many people in this fashion, never once have I drawn a gun in anger. Only once in a case where I needed to defend myself, and then the guy just ran away, dropping the knife he drew on me as he went. Almost anyone who's intelligent enough to pass the required safety courses and competency tests to get a concealed weapons permit is too smart to just arbitrarily draw one. In fact, if I remember my statistics correctly, people like me who grew up around guns, knew full well what they are capable of, how to safely handle them, and when to and when not to use them DON'T do things of this nature. But the people who grow up being taught that guns are to be avoided and never really told anything about them have only things like Grand Theft Auto, Rambo, etc. as their exposure to firearms (and I'm not saying movies are video games cause violent behavior, so don't jump on me about that; I don't really believe there's a connection between them) are MUCH more likely to commit gun crimes (usually with guns and ammo bought illegally).

Take a look at Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. They have SUPER strict gun control, and, again, if my statistical memory is right, most of the crimes being committed are done with guns, brought in by smugglers and sold to criminals on the black market. All strict gun control does is make it harder for the honest, law-abiding citizen to have a weapon to defend himself. Look at the stats; most guns used in crimes were either stolen or bought illegally. There are exceptions, like with this Korean guy (though, since he SHOULDN'T have been allowed to buy them, the legality is in debate, but I'm not going there), but for the most part, guns purchased and carried legally do not tend to be used in crimes.

Done ranting; I know I'm gonna get blasted for this as I have on other forums, but it doesn't really matter in the long run who agrees with me and who doesn't. I stand behind my beliefs.

EDIT: Oh, and Tom? I figure you're pretty much spot-on with most of what you've said here.

[magi]

I have to admit this whole thing gets me very upset, and it's a good reminder of where hate and all that starts. A South Korean friend of mine was saying how the president of the Korean association on campus sent out an email about being careful for retaliatory violence and not saying anything provocative. Even though we can't do much against the shooter now, I think it's human nature to want to do *something* and not be helpless. Some people will turn their anger and frustration on a substitute for the shooter since nothing can be done about the shooter now. It's very sad.

Have heart.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9658225

and follow up on the beginning

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9692314

[Jake]

Still, it doesn't look like the UK gun ban had much of an affect on the rates of murder and violent crime in the UK... if anything, the trends show violent crime increasing.

Just out of interest, what are you taking as 'the UK gun ban' here? 'Cause we've had various increasing degrees of restriction for over a century, and the law already seriously restricted gun ownership before Hungerford in '87. I was under the impression that violent crime really started to increase out of step with population in the last thirty years or so, which I don't think really neatly coincides with any particular gun laws.

We only need cops to fill out reports after we've fileld the guy that just broke into our house with some lead slugs.

I can understand the feeling of personal safety, but this is really my main problem with giving the general population access to firearms with the excuse that it allows them to defend themselves; last time I checked, breaking into somebody's house didn't carry the death penalty.
Whether or not I agree with the use of the death penalty by the courts (again; no real firm opinion, although I tend to err towards 'against') I'm pretty sure that I don't agree with the use of the death penalty by the general population, and allowing them to defend themselves with guns means that someone's life is decided by whether or not a particular citizen feels threatened enough to open fire, not by a state judge and a jury of their peers, and I'm a big believer in due process.

Which isn't to say I'd want to see a guy who killed a man in legitimate self-defence put away for murder, just that I don't believe for a minute that all of the deaths caused in self-defence are necessary - and unlike property theft, it's pretty hard to reverse a bad call even if you know who did it.

Take a look at Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. They have SUPER strict gun control, and, again, if my statistical memory is right, most of the crimes being committed are done with guns, brought in by smugglers and sold to criminals on the black market.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case for the UK; according to Home Office statistics, the most common cause of death in homicides - for instance - was by sharp instrument (page 8); I'm pretty sure this doesn't include 'the pointy bit on the end of a bullet'; shooting comes in at ~6.6% (page 9). Most of the shootings in the UK are done with guns, sure, but I'm fairly certain this isn't the case for 'most of the crimes being committed'.

[PyTom]

Just out of interest, what are you taking as 'the UK gun ban' here?

I was talking about the 1997 gun ban.

I can understand the feeling of personal safety, but this is really my main problem with giving the general population access to firearms with the excuse that it allows them to defend themselves; last time I checked, breaking into somebody's house didn't carry the death penalty.

That's true, and in most states, a person is not allowed to fire in self defense unless it is "the only way to prevent himself or another from being killed or receiving serious bodily harm". This is from the Ohio CCW pamphlet, which goes on to clarify: "Deadly force can never be used to protect property only. Deadly force can never be used solely to protect property no matter where the threat to the property occurs."

That being said, realize that the vast majority of defensive uses of firearms occur without the trigger being pulled. People who have a gun pointed at them tend to think twice.

What's more, there is a secondary effect, as criminals tend to choose less-confrontational crimes.