Why so many gun killings in USA???

[DenDen]

Question:

Why so many gun killings in USA???

 

Answer:

Because we can, and the Republican-right figures, "Let all the poor people kill themselves out of exsistance".

 

Yes, I'm a gun owner.

[DenDen]

People don't kill people, people with guns, and various other weapons, kill people.

 

Um, so I guess stranglers, marines, and black-belts don't count?

[chauncey]

Well, I suppose they do count, but I still say that there would be less deaths if that's all people had to use!

[Louise]

I dont think gun violence has anything to do with the availability of guns. When we have deer hunting in Wisc. and hundreds pf thousands of people hit the woods, all with guns and we dont have murders/robbery's/carjackings etc.

 

I see your point. But on the other hand, as someone else stated, there is a big difference between someone having a gun which they use to hunt and will use as self-defense if they have to, and someone buying a gun with the intention of killing somebody. Also, someone who uses a gun to hunt is more aware of the damage a gun can do and the responsibility that comes with having one. That's very different to some kid in a gang carrying a handgun.

 

IMO, if it was more difficult to obtain a gun (either legallly or illegally), and I'm talking in general terms, not referring to the USA specifically, then there would be less murders. I remember reading somewhere about the "easiest" way to kill someone, I'll try and post a link. Killing someone using a gun is relatively easy compared to with a knife or with your bare hands, in so much as you pull a trigger, it takes only an instant, and it's over. And there's a strong chance of the person shot being killed. Compare that to beating somebody to death, which would take MUCH longer than pulling the trigger of a gun, and would probably be more difficult to see yourself doing. There's plenty of time to stop what you are doing before the person is seriously injured, whereas with a gun... The damage is already done.

This is why I believe people such as the hunters mentioned above will be less likely to commit a crime using their weapons, having hunted, they know the damage that can be done, and better understand the consequences of their actions. The problem with guns being easily obtainable to people is that it isn't only people educated in their use (and the ramifications of their use) that can get hold of them, it's also people who won't think twice before pulling the trigger.

 

Hope that made sense, I was trying not to sound flippant. Just my $0.02.

 

Lou

[CoasterFanatic]

I think that bullets should cost $5000.

[Louise]

^ Is that a Chris Rock quote?!

[crispy]

YEs it is a Chris Rock quote

 

 

As for availablity fo guns being responsible for gun violence

 

 

Yes and no

 

 

Almost all the guns used for Gun Violence are illegal, so, if the consitution gaurantees the right to bear arms, then the question is, how do you control firearms?

 

is the current system working, yes to a point, and mostly for law abiding citizens, but I can gaurantee, if a criminal knows your a bit nuts and have 400 guns in the house, he probably won't go breaking in

 

 

The availability of guns makes them more accesable to criminals, but to do away with them mean criminal KNOW you don't have one, so thefts would probably go up in the cities, while gun violence would go down

 

Its kinda a catch 22, each side has thier point, but doing away with the constitutional right is not the answer, what they should have is a requiment to own a gun locker, and have a madatory training course in gun safety, you can't steal a gun locked in a huge gun locker

[FlyingScooter]

I think deep down America loves violence. We love to watch it on the news, read about it in the paper and look for the chalk outlines on the street. Something went totally wrong here that didn't go wrong in Canada, Europe and a host of other places. i think South Africa has a higher murder rate, but i'm not totally sure on that.

I liked Bowling for Columbine. The footage in the school still freaks me out.

[chauncey]

Something went totally wrong here that didn't go wrong in Canada, Europe and a host of other places.

 

They're called "Republicans"*.

 

* I put "Republicans" in quotes because the modern Republican party has absolutely nothing to do with the ideals the party was founded on, represented by such great men as Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, and who, in the times of those great men, my family voted for near-religiously. Of course, that's an entirely different debate.

[imbordisux]

Ok, before I make this post, I have to clarify that I am a liberal democrat, and I do not own - or plan to ever own - a gun. Hell, I've never actually TOUCHED a gun.

 

Now, with that out of the way, I am firmly AGAINST gun-control, and I'll explain why:

 

I used to fully support gun-control, simply because I, like many others, think of guns as dangerous weapons (which they are), and simply thought that, if they were outlawed, they wouldn't be available to do such large damage.

 

How wrong I was. After seeing "Bowling for Columbine", I began researching the subject of guns and gun-control. After looking at source after source, study after study, I came away with three basic "conclusions":

 

1) The saying "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" is true.

2) More citizens are saved by guns than hurt by them.

3) Every time gun-control has been instituted, gun crime went UP.

 

Now, this was about three years ago that I researched this stuff, so I apologize that I don't remember many specifics; I can't recall the exact facts and figures, so I hope you understand that I'll be speaking in generalizations.

 

Anyway, the first conclusion is self-explanatory: simply making something illegal does not make it disappear. Cocaine is illegal in the U.S., but it's easily available. Drinking alcohol while under the legal age is quite common. There is plenty of child-porn on the web. Oh, and murder, rape, and robbery are all illegal, too, but we still have prisons full of people who commit those very acts. Making something against the law doesn't work on people who plan on breaking the law, anyway. Same thing with guns. The majority of gun-crime is actually done with illegally-obtained guns - the people using these guns aren't going to a store, waiting for their background-check to clear; no, they buy them from the black-market, or steal them from some other place. If I have a shady background, I'm not gonna authorize a background-search, ya know? Stricter gun-laws won't help with the black-market, nor will outlawing guns completely.

 

The second thing I found was that, despite the high numbers you hear about the amount of people killed by guns in the US each year (and they ARE disgustingly high), what you don't hear nearly as much about is the amount of people who used a gun to protect themselves. Now, I don't remember the exact number, but it was something like FOUR TIMES as many citizens use their legally-owned gun to keep from being raped, murdered, assaulted, robbed, etc. Many times, the innocent party didn't even kill the person, and in some cases, didn't even shoot the person; merely flashing the gun was enough.

 

Tying the two previous "entries" together was the almost mind-blowing finding that every time gun-control has been instituted, gun-crime went UP. I couldn't believe it when I realized it... I mean, surely, if you outlaw guns, gun-crime MUST go down, right? Nope. What basically happens is that criminals get ahold of a gun through some illegal means, and then, realizing that the average law-abiding citizens no longer have access to a weapon of equal power, know that they now have an advantage. Let's say I'm a burglar - am I gonna go to the neighborhood where there's a good chance that many of the home-owners own powerful weaponry, or to the neighborhood where there's a good chance that most of them don't? I can't think of my old "list of places where gun-control failed", but I'll give a quick example: Washington D.C. introduced gun-control a few years ago, and within one year, gun-crime increased almost 400%. Think about that.

 

Now, I know that there are many countries that have much fewer gun-related deaths that also have gun-control laws, but that doesn't actually disprove this phenomenon: yes, they have gun-control, and, yes, they have fewer gun-deaths, but unless they had MORE gun-deaths before the gun-control was instituted, OR if they could prove that eliminating gun-control would cause a decrease, rather than an increase, in gun-deaths, then the effect of their gun-control laws cannot be adequately measured. To them I say "Look at Switzerland" - in Switzerland, when a man reaches a certain age (19?), they are given a gun by the government, and they have one of the lowest gun-crime rates in the world.

 

Anyway, the whole topic is very interesting - gun-control leads to higher gun-crime rates, and I am against gun-control specifically because I don't like guns. How odd.

[chauncey]

Nobody here has disagree with what you're saying. Noboday has said, as far as I can tell, the we need to increase regulation on guns. What we have said is that you need to decrease the availability of guns. This means making sure that outlaws don't have guns, which, of course, has less to do with gun control laws, and more to do with the proper enforcement of gun control laws.

 

For instance, the Columbine killers bought their guns illegally, but from a "legal" source! They didn't get these things off the black market, they got them from gun shows, gun shops, etc, and yet, if those shows, and shops, had been following the law, they never should have given them those guns!

 

The blame for that lies clearly not in the laws, but in the enforcement of those laws! That's the point.

[CoasterFanatic]

For instance, the Columbine killers bought their guns illegally, but from a "legal" source! They didn't get these things off the black market, they got them from gun shows, gun shops, etc, and yet, if those shows, and shops, had been following the law, they never should have given them those guns!

 

But, did the "Shooters" buy the guns?

 

Although the horrible murders at Columbine High School have energized anti-gun activists, no proposed federal law would have made any difference. The adults who supplied the Columbine murder weapons (Robin Anderson and Mark Manes -- the latter a son of a longtime HCI activist) were legal purchasers.

taken from: http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-10-00.html

 

Bowling for Columbine Lies Revealed:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[imbordisux]

I didn't want to get into a discussion about Michael Moore himself (I was arguably his biggest critic on the BFC IMDB-board a few years ago), but I guess I'll just mention that, yes, Moore takes a LOT of liberties with the truth, as well as interpolation and extrapolation.

 

This was something I discovered after seeing BFC - prior to that, I had no idea who he was, nor did I have any built-in bias towards him. After seeing that film, though, and not agreeing with some of his conclusions (Dick Clark is responsible for Kayla's death?), I started to discover more and more about him.

 

I mean, the KKK and the NRA were in cahoots??? The NRA was founded by Union officers - the very people that fought to free slaves! Hell, they GAVE guns TO black people back then!

 

I actually wrote the majority of this:

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko.htm

 

I'm not credited (I posted it on the IMDB boards, and then sent it to him), but if you e-mail him, he'll inform you.

[chauncey]

For instance, the Columbine killers bought their guns illegally, but from a "legal" source! They didn't get these things off the black market, they got them from gun shows, gun shops, etc, and yet, if those shows, and shops, had been following the law, they never should have given them those guns!

 

But, did the "Shooters" buy the guns?

 

Although the horrible murders at Columbine High School have energized anti-gun activists, no proposed federal law would have made any difference. The adults who supplied the Columbine murder weapons (Robin Anderson and Mark Manes -- the latter a son of a longtime HCI activist) were legal purchasers.

taken from: http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-10-00.html

 

Bowling for Columbine Lies Revealed:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

I didn't want to get into a discussion about Michael Moore himself (I was arguably his biggest critic on the BFC IMDB-board a few years ago), but I guess I'll just mention that, yes, Moore takes a LOT of liberties with the truth, as well as interpolation and extrapolation.

 

This was something I discovered after seeing BFC - prior to that, I had no idea who he was, nor did I have any built-in bias towards him. After seeing that film, though, and not agreeing with some of his conclusions (Dick Clark is responsible for Kayla's death?), I started to discover more and more about him.

 

I mean, the KKK and the NRA were in cahoots??? The NRA was founded by Union officers - the very people that fought to free slaves! Hell, they GAVE guns TO black people back then!

 

I actually wrote the majority of this:

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko.htm

 

I'm not credited (I posted it on the IMDB boards, and then sent it to him), but if you e-mail him, he'll inform you.

 

I wasn't basing my assumptions on Bowling for Columbine. I've only seen the movie once, and I remember very little about it, and what I do remember, I disagree with.

 

I was just using that as an example because I remember that was an issue being brought up a lot when Columbine was happening.

 

Okay, so that was a bad example, but I still say that my point (that we need to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, somehow) stands.

[imbordisux]

Okay, so that was a bad example, but I still say that my point (that we need to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, somehow) stands.

 

Oh, I agree, if we could find some magical way to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals (or, in an even more radical idea, keep people from becoming criminals in the first place), it'd be a wonderful thing - however, it's unrealistic, so you have to go with the "next best" option.

 

Oh, and found my old "compilation" on the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040628154737/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/board/thread/2988799?d=2988799

 

And if anyone's wondering, I hate Ann Coulter, too. And Rush. And Franken. And O'Reilly. Pretty much any political pundit not named "Bill Maher".

[chauncey]

I don't think it's unrealistic. As I said, in the United Kingdom, they have more violent crime than we do, but it's mostly minor, and mostly goes unreported, because it mostly doesn't involve guns. Why? Because they don't have the same access to them! If you were to take all the guns from US criminals, and give them to UK criminals, the gun crime rates in the UK will soar, while the gun crime rates in the US will stay about the same, because the criminals will just get more! That's the problem. Clearly other countries have it solved, so why don't we?

 

I guess that's the question the thread is meant to pose, and I don't have the answer, but I know there must be an answer! You, on the other hand, don't think there's an answer, which is not only clearly wrong, but probably helps make the problem worse. Maybe that's the answer! The United States has simply given up trying to find the answer.

[imbordisux]

What's the difference whether violent crime is committed with a gun or not?

 

The crime is the problem, not the means of committing said crimes.

[chauncey]

The difference is that a gun can do a lot more damage, quicker, and easier. This means that violent crime committed with a gun causes greater injury, and death, than violent crime committed with other weapons. You can look to the UK as proof of that, too.

[imbordisux]

I dunno, I can think of a few things that do more damage: bombs, toxic gas, two planes being flown into a building...

[chauncey]

Yes, and we should do everything we can to keep those out of the hands of criminals, too.

[Teddymonster]

So what do you think causes USA to have all this gun homocide

 

 

No Offense Xenox, but I think you opened a can of worms here. There clearly is no one particular answer to this question and I don't think there ever will be. The only thing that this kind of discussion leads to are flames and people's preconceived notions of how the world works being proved false. This is not to say that this isn't a good discussion topic...for a well-developed and researched essay. Just my two cents on the matter.

[Louise]

^ You're right about there not being one particular answer, but he wasn't asking for answers, he was asking for opinions, which people have given, and I for one have found it interesting to read other peoples' points of view! No flaming or personal attacks yet, let's keep it that way!

 

The thing that saddens me is, if nobody can agree on why it is that there are so many shootings, what are the chances of everybody one day agreeing on a way to definitively stop the kilings? Sorry to be a bit morbid, I just find it sad that I can only see this issue getting worse as time goes by.

 

Louise "why can't everybody just get along like here at TPR?!" R.

[Teddymonster]

The thing that saddens me is, if nobody can agree on why it is that there are so many shootings, what are the chances of everybody one day agreeing on a way to definitively stop the kilings? Sorry to be a bit morbid, I just find it sad that I can only see this issue getting worse as time goes by.

 

Louise "why can't everybody just get along like here at TPR?!" R.

 

I totally agree. I think it'll only get worse as time progresses and the issue will never be resolved. And..FYI, not everyone gets along here at TPR. Some people are just more "vocal" than others about their opinions. 8)

[Louise]

^ True, I know not everybody gets along but... In comparison to other boards where you can barely even HAVE an opinion, let alone express it without being shot down and pounced upon... This place is pretty cool. Try suggesting a discussion on gun control in most places and there'll be flame wars and name-calling on the first page for God's sake!

 

Sometimes I look around and think, wow, what a great world we live in. Other days, like today, I just feel sad. So much violence, so many disasters... Ugh.

[Teddymonster]

Sometimes I look around and think, wow, what a great world we live in. Other days, like today, I just feel sad. So much violence, so many disasters... Ugh.

 

I just want to say, that out of my experience, dwelling on issues like this leads to nothing but depression and un-needed anxiety (and all that that entails), as you probably know. Don't take life TOO seriously, cause it'll end up biting you in the arse. 8)