The first school shooting in Finland

[Ray Jones]

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...[/Quote]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 well

At 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]

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]

I am educated and trained in the use of different projectile weapons like handguns, rifles, automatic guns, and bazookas.

[lukeiamyourdad]

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]

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]

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]

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 can’t 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]

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]

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]

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]

Then again, Switzerland has the highest amount of assault rifles per capita in the western world.

Does it say where?

[lukeiamyourdad]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

Most loonies don't get their guns the legal way anyway, they either steal it or purchase from illegal sources.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.