Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Maybe, but if they did, they would be mighty short of lecturers...

Thanks for another appeal to emotion fallacy, Legend. So you are now advocating that students in college should be able to carry\have guns? Is high school next?Conversely, I'll bet that the survivors, and the relatives of those killed, had, and continue to have, more concern about how Seung-Hui Cho was able to get guns to carry:Virginia Tech shooting - Wikipedia

quote:

---

... The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many others[1] before committing suicide. ...

​

Cho, a senior English major at Virginia Tech, had been diagnosed with and was treated for a severe anxiety disorder in middle school and continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[3] At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling.

​

The attacks received international media coverage and drew criticism of U.S. laws and culture from commentators around the world.[4] It sparked intense debate about gun violence, gun laws, gaps in the U.S. system for treating mental health issues, the perpetrator's state of mind, the responsibility of college administrations,[5] privacy laws, journalism ethics, and other issues. Television news organizations that aired portions of the killer's multimedia manifesto were criticized by victims' families, Virginia law enforcement officials, and the American Psychiatric Association.[6][7]

​

The massacre prompted rapid changes in Virginia law that had allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years, a law that strengthened the NICS, which was signed by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2008.[8]

---

Looks like you picked another good reason for more gun control, not a reason for me, personally, to carry a gun - even though I went to school (briefly) at VTI.We also have the reports from various organizations following Columbine on similar situations:Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In May 2002, the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 U.S. school shootings. They had the following findings:

• Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden, impulsive acts.
• Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.
• Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
• There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.
• Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
• Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide.
• Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.
• Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.
• In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.
• Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.[45]

[45] ^ Vossekuil, B; Fein R, Reddy M, Borum R, Modzeleski W (PDF). The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service. Front page | U.S. Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2008-08-24.

---

You can look through other school killings (and injuries) here:
List of school-related attacks - WikipediaYou will note that this list includes all similar killings around the world, and yet the US figures as a predominant recurring theme.Additionally, in the broad scheme of things, the number of people killed by Cho - and other similar killers - is still less than the numbers of people killed accidentally by guns every year, a number that would logically increase in proportion with any increase in the number of people that have\carry guns, while relaxing gun laws would not prevent more Cho style killings.Accidental Gun Deaths Last Five Years of Record

quote:

---

The number of fatal firearms accidents for the last five years of record are:
2002 - 762;
2003 - 730;
2004 - 649;
2005 - 630;
2006 - 680.

---

国产欧美性爱视频_日本精品高清一区二区_97亚洲国产一区二区_日本护士做xxxxxhd

quote:

---

According to U.S. government figures, the majority of gun deaths that occur in this country are caused by homicide and suicide. For example: In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348. During that same time period, 802 individuals died due to accidental gun related deaths. Half the victims involved were children (individuals under 18 years of age).

---

Darn, there's those "maimed children" again eh? Is it an emotional appeal when the numbers tell you that half the victims of accidental deaths were children?Meanwhile we continue to see statistics that show more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns:Credit gun controls for lowest firearm death rate | starbulletin.com | Editorial | /2008/04/26/

quote:

---

FIGURES showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a decision that, if upheld, could dismantle strong gun controls that have contributed to Hawaii's low number of deaths by firearms.

​

An analysis by the Violence Policy Center of 2005 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Hawaii is lowest in both household gun ownership -- 9.7 percent -- and gun deaths per 100,000 -- 2.2. The national per capita gun death rate was 10.3 per 100,000.

​

The organization, which supports gun controls, points out that Southern and Western states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates. The top five states had household gun ownership rates ranging from 46.4 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.2 percent to 19 percent.

---

It still looks to me like the statistics support gun controls, rather than any personal benefit to having\carrying a gun.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added other school link

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Your statistics are not as useful as you imply for several reasons. Most notably it's just a collage of sources that are not juxtaposed by anything other than the side of the argument you wish to defend against. That does not make them worthwhile or worth debating. That's tantamount to saying, "Look, see, lots of people. There, I've proven my point."Showing that 700 people died as the result of homicide by firearm is useless unless you also show the inverse and other methods of homicide or deaths.According to statistics per 100,000 people, the State of Maine's rate of homicide by firearm attributes to 6.5% of total homicides. Homicide by knives in Maine is 28.6%, which account for almost three times as many murders.Massachussets is similar, in that homicide as the result of a firearm attributes only 3.1% as opposed to its death by knife, which is at a stunning 26.9%.What could be some contributing factors in why more homicides using knives in New England, as the trend seems to imply? Gun control is much stricter in New England than in other parts of the United States, comparatively. So in a sense, people are getting less guns and using them less. The problem is that they're using other weapons more in their stead.What about the UK versus the US in manners in which homicides are conducted?

quote:

---

The teen's death and the stabbing murder of a young policewoman earlier this month have compelled authorities to get tough on what Prime Minister Tony Blair last week called Britain's knife culture.

​

In its latest and broadest attempt to get knives off the streets and especially out of the hands of young people, the government Thursday announced a nationwide knife amnesty program. Police hope to collect 30,000 knives that will be turned in at police stations, churches, supermarkets and schools around the country. Home Secretary Charles Clark told the BBC a coinciding public-awareness campaign's message is simple: Carrying knives on the streets will not be tolerated.

​

Stabbings are the most common form of murder in Britain, where firearms except certain shotguns and sporting rifles are outlawed. Most police officers in Britain do not carry firearms.

​

Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in the 12 months ending Nov. 28 the most recent period for which Home Office figures are available 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain. The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people.

​

The U.S. murder rate is 55 per million, according to the FBI. Of those, 70% of murders were committed with firearms; just 14% involved knives or cutting instruments. Source

---

This is precisely my point.Listen how the authorities in Britain were speaking about knives, which to you and I are just cutting instruments. They're talking about "cracking down on knives?!?!?"So what then is truly symptomatic of the problem? Is it guns or knives? How about neither? How about those are simply tools and it is people who are responsible for wielding tools in order to hurt other people.This goes back to what I was saying. In case you hadn't noticed, murder has always been around and so has warfare. You take away guns, people will go to whatever will maim or kill. The root of the problem is people, not guns.Furthermore, Washington D.C. is a prime example of how "gun control" in the form of robbing people of their 2nd Amendment rights has done nothing to curb violence, but in particular, violence with guns. D.C. for years has been likely and statistically the most violent city in America, with homicide by gun pushing beyond 30%. Gun violence actually DECLINED after the SCOTUS shot down the ban, calling it what it was, which is unconstitutional.Yet, how is it that places like Switzerland, Israel, Denmark, etc, who enjoy even more gun rights than the United States has far less crime? Your equivocation of saturating a society full of guns should correspond to massive deaths by firearms, if what you allege is true. Why then are there not rampant murders that rival the violence in the US?Just because you see no purpose in having a gun doesn't give you the right to speak on my behalf. I am robustly afforded the right to keep and bear arms. So do me a personal favor and don't tread on me. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typo

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle

You have to be taught how to drive. Shouldn't you have to be taught how to use firearms? It's not enough to say you CAN get training. You should have to get training. Hey! Nice pic. Yes you are a devilishly handsome dude.I see both of you are pointing each other's foot.... Hyro - think for a second. How many braindead morons go down and buy a gun for self defense? I'm just saying, there ought to be some kind of Quality Control. Show a validated Education receipt or something. Frankly, the mix between the average common gun-toting criminal and the braindead gun-defending moron gives me Major Willies.Infact, I have a story to tell...Where I used to work we had an older gentleman from eastern europe come to the team. One of our workers in the back was a proud card-carrying NRA member and invited this man to join them in their Gun Club get-together one weekend. Janusz agreed and went. As you may know, they have target shooting. And in the target shooting there is a time to change the targets when EVERYONE must stop shooting. Obviously. But there's Janusz blazing away after the guy is walking down the range! Steve is yelling at him, but says "maybe there ought to be a gun control law" to us later.You cannot overestimate stupidity. Even Einstein allowed that it was possibly bigger than the Universe.Gun control laws and Wait Times are all about allowing our civilization to detect & stop people who shouldnt be walking around armed & loaded.The back ground check takes so long because our antiquated system takes so long to find out - but we have to do a better job at this. The wrong people go to gun shows and stock up. Then there's the dad who failed to instruct his son on how to properly handle an automatic weapon because there was no law that said he did lost everything in one sudden mishap. Talk about Darwinian Awards....More Gun Control just means more SANITY. It does not mean that you wont be able to have a gun.- nate

So you don't think that there is any correlation between the acceptance and prevalence of guns in society and the number of murders? 15 per million Vs 55 per million. From the figures quoted by you to support your own argument.Are societies that impose tighter controls on guns safer than those that don't? Surely that is the only real question here. The stats on this seem pretty conclusive however you present them. People will always find ways to hurt each other. They will stab each other with blunt spoons if all other avenues are unavailable.The question here remains whether guns make society safer or more dangerous.

It is mandatory in most states. Before going to any gun range, you have typically have to go through a safety course before being allowed to shoot. Actually in some states it is mandatory to first go through a safety course prior to ever setting foot on a range. So what is the solution? Punish those who aren't retarded? No, it really doesn't. It's just something that Congress wanted. I get a wants and warrants check in literally 3 minutes from around the world. But what does MORE gun control even mean? Thus far, everyone that has responded to desiring to have more gun control have given instances of things that are already laws. Without specifics it really just sounds like someone wanting to take away guns permanently.

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle

In the hands of an ordinary citizen concerned with their and their family's safety it has the same purpose as an insurance policy, as Hieroglyphx stated elsewhere. It's something you wish you'll never use but if you do need to use it, you're grateful you have it. Who said I'm not worried about the ability to kill people? I was just pointing out to you that design doesn't always necessitate intent nor usage. Cars aren't designed to kill people yet more people die hit by cars than hit by bullets. Guns are designed to kill people yet in peacetime situations very few people die from gun usage, proportionately.I really fail to see where you're coming from. Britain has the worst violent crime rate in Western Europe. I've experienced violence first-hand on a number of occasions and so have many others in my family and social environment. If you're really not worried about it fair enough, it's your prerogative, but why would you want to minimize other people's chances of defending themselves should the worst happen?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

It isn't the amount of murders I was pointing out, especially since there are far more Americans than Brits. I was pointing out the delivery method.But since you ask, yes, society is the answer to the question. The glorification of violence is what, in part, causes violence on an epic scale. Absolutely not. The stats conclusively show that violence is attributed to societies acceptance or abhorrence to violence. Pretty much everyone carries a gun in Switzerland, yet they enjoy some of the lowest levels of crime in the world. Precisely my point. So why hold on to the false belief that disallowing citizens to defend themselves will somehow be better for society? If guns or any weapons would have never been invented, society would be safer. The problem is that the reality of the situation is that some things cannot be undone, or if it is, it has to be done by re-training societal behaviors. And that of course requires reciprocation of all cultures, as wars are not fought in vacuums.

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle

Well when you buy a car I assume that it's ability to kill people is something you avoid rather than look for? Thus making your comparisons of cars with guns somewhet irrelevant. And how does it compare to the US whose attitude and laws regarding guns you seem to want emulated here? I live in Brixton in London. I have also lived in Merthyr in Wales. If you seriously think arming the population of socially deprived areas like these is a way to make these places safer then you are living in a fantasy land.Does legalising guns make society safer or more dangerous. That is the question here.

I actually agree with you. However, those measures that you mention aren't (and some of them shouldn't be, as you rightly point out) applied. So as it stands ordinary citizens are disarmed and at the mercy of the occasional psychopath. I think it's only fair and just that the playing field is levelled a bit and people are allowed to defend themsleves in a more effective manner other than hide and wait for the police to arrive. Apart from your ever so slight exagerration, SHOW ME where I advocated allowing untrained students to conceal & bring in weapons. I didn't. RAZD asked for a reason why he should have a gun and I gave him a few including the possibility of attack by an armed psychopath, as in Virginia Tech.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The figures (your figures I might add) are per million thus the population difference has already been factored in.Nearly 4 times higher in the US than in Britain. And that is just murders with no stats on other violent crime. Because the laws that "allow them to defend themselves" with guns are exactly the same laws that give the most people the best chance of effectively killing each other. As we both agree that they will inevitably attempt to do.Have you ever tried to stab someone to death with a blunt spoon? It works up a hell of a sweat I can tell you! Which doesn't answer the question at all. Are those societies where guns are more tightly controlled more or less dangerous statistically than those where guns are less tightly controlled?It's a simple question. What does the evidence say? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly. It's like preventing people from taking driving lessons if they don't know how to drive a car! Absolutely! I wonder if the people here who think that if you want a gun you're some kind of Rambo-like sociopath also believe that people who buy insurance are some kind of pessimistic doom-mongers or maybe fraudsters or have some other sinister purpose for wanting insurance?For the record, I'm against access to guns for ordinary citizens without appropriate checks and controls, just like I'm against access to cars for people without driving licenses or a history of dangerous driving.I fully support controlled ownership of guns, including handguns, that ordinary citizens (with no history of agressive violence or mental health problems) can keep in a safe place at home to use for their family's and property's protection should the need arise.Some people here seem to think that this would take us back to the Wild West or would bring the end of the world or something. I'm puzzled and worried about this attitude. I think it would make for a much safer and fairer society, both in the short and long term.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Now, hold it right there, buster.You were the one who advocated that the other students should have been allowed to carry guns. This is just an INSANE notion that indicates that you needed some of Steps 1-3.

---

- xongsmith

How does square with this: Surely anyone that thinks that students on campus carrying weaponry is a good idea isn't of sufficiently sound mind to possess a weapons license?

Message 183: You carefully hide that you advocate that they should have been able to carry guns.... This will never make sense. It is a stupid line of thought, crude, uncivilized and brutish.Sorry. No hard feelings.

---

- xongsmith