Guns Don't Kill Kids, Kids Kill Kids

[Andromeda321]

America seems to have a pretty scary culture when its accepted that u need to pass through a metal detector everyday just to go to classes, and armed security guards are needed at schools

America's a huge place. I for one never ever had to do such a thing, and our "security guard" basically had the job of directing traffic when kids were dropped off/ picked up. Same at the local public school. It's one of those "don't paint us all with the same brush" things.

[Sam5]

3) This case is pretty twisted -- the kid was apparently bullied, apparently very eloquent in his online writings, and apparently no one caught the signs that he had problems.

There's nothing that can be done to keep a determined person anywhere in the world from getting a weapon and using it to hurt someone.

Apparently the kid was into Goth and gloom and doom stuff on the internet.

[Russ]

In both the countries I have lived, England and New Zealand, the police generally don't carry guns. I think the lack of legally owned guns in our society makes it far less likely that criminals will carry guns illegally. Some do of course, but I think far more would if our police were generally armed.

You are missing a very important detail here. In the USA, the right to own and carry arms is based on the understanding that that arms owners are the militia. I use militia in the constitutional context, the armed citizen. The "minutemen" if you will. A contengent the Brittish Empire overlooked 2 times in the last century.

During WW-I & II England went begging world wide to get arms for their citizens because the German Empire was knocking. I can't remember the exact numbers but during WW-II the US sent on the order of 3 million personal wepons to England, NZ and Australia. Now you are disarmed again at a time when the Muslim world has decided that their version of holiness is worth murdering people about.

One must realize that not everyone thinks as you do. I'm sure that there were at least a few militiamen aboard the jets that were crashed into the World Trade Center & Pentagon. If they had been carrying their wepons 9/11/01 would the WTC & Pentagon attacks have been successful? We have some indication in the plane that was crashed in the PA field.

I don't know if the Muslims will ever attempt warfare in the streets of America. But if they do, I know about 500 Americans who will be very a formidable opposing force. There are no doubt millions more whom I don't know.

Now you may ask "Wouldn't that be a duty for the military?" Ultimately yes. But the militia can respond much more quickly and with much better knowledge of the community and terrain.

I ask you; If the Muslims attack NZ and shoot your friends and family in the street, what will you do? Let them?

[Argos]

In both the countries I have lived, England and New Zealand, the police generally don't carry guns. I think the lack of legally owned guns in our society makes it far less likely that criminals will carry guns illegally. Some do of course, but I think far more would if our police were generally armed.

You are missing a very important detail here. In the USA, the right to own and carry arms is based on the understanding that that arms owners are the militia. I use militia in the constitutional context, the armed citizen. The "minutemen" if you will.

As an incurable liberal, I like this theory. You didnīt mention the hypothesis of a tyranny coming into power. How could the people fight for freedom case the State had the monopoly of violence? Disarming the population as soon as they get to power is a recurring trait of dictatorships. Thatīs why I say this subject is more complex than it seems. But it does not mean that I support indiscriminate possession of guns.

[Sam5]

Apparently he was a suspect in a threat to blow up the school last year. He was apparently banned from the school as a result of this.

[Cougar]

I don't have the figures to back this (and don't have time to look them up), but in every state that has passed the Carry Concealed Weapon law, allowing law abiding citizens to carry a gun, violent crime has dropped. How can that be a bad thing?

Well, it would be pretty hard to argue with if it was true. But I'm afraid this is a myth.

[Russ]

In both the countries I have lived, England and New Zealand, the police generally don't carry guns. I think the lack of legally owned guns in our society makes it far less likely that criminals will carry guns illegally. Some do of course, but I think far more would if our police were generally armed.

You are missing a very important detail here. In the USA, the right to own and carry arms is based on the understanding that that arms owners are the militia. I use militia in the constitutional context, the armed citizen. The "minutemen" if you will.

As an incurable liberal, I like this theory. You didnīt mention the hypothesis of a tyranny coming into power. How could the people fight for freedom case the State had the monopoly of violence? Disarming the population as soon as they get to power is a recurring trait of dictatorships. Thatīs why I say this subject is more complex than it seems. But it does not mean that I support indiscriminate possession of guns.

I could not agree more my friend. I'm not sure you are using the term LIBERAL in the same context that it is used here in the USA. Here a liberal would want to disarm the law abiding citizen. The person whom you don't care if they are armed because they would not commit crimes. They also seem to ignore the fact that criminals don't obey the law by deffinition, so outlawing firearms would not stop the criminals from getting them. For example, crack cocain is about as illegal a thing as exists. How hard is that to acquire?

[Sock puppet]

This is a real "Apples" & "Oranges" comparison. In Japan the Police can and do walk up to your house and demand to search it without probable cause. You have no legal right to deny them. If you refuse their "request" they forcably search your house, any damage they do is at your cost and they arrest you for refusing the request and you do prisson time. If you have any contraban, at all, you do additional prisson time for that.

I don't care that I have nothing to hide. That will never happen here in the USA while I'm still alive.

Can you provide a source for this? Because if you check, you will find that a legal right of refusal is unnecessary: there is, in fact a Constitutional one

Article 35:
1)The right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures shall not be impaired except upon warrant issued for adequate cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized, or except as provided by Article 33.

2) Each search or seizure shall be made upon separate warrant issued by a competent judicial officer.

If you're wondering

Article 33:
No person shall be apprehended except upon warrant issued by a competent judicial officer which specifies the offense with which the person is charged, unless he is apprehended, the offense being committed.

sources here, here, here, and here. Or you could google it here.

I'm sure that there were at least a few militiamen aboard the jets that were crashed into the World Trade Center & Pentagon. If they had been carrying their wepons 9/11/01 would the WTC & Pentagon attacks have been successful?

Are you now suggesting that guns should be allowed on planes?

I don't know if the Muslims will ever attempt warfare in the streets of America. But if they do, I know about 500 Americans who will be very a formidable opposing force. There are no doubt millions more whom I don't know.

And do you seriously believe there is a threat to your nation or Britain from "the muslims" to the extent that they could invade? What muslim nation or force could do this? If you can name such an entity, have you any reason to believe they would?

[fossilnut2]

I'm not an American so if 30,000 die of gunshot wounds every year and more tens of thousands are shot, but don't die, that's their business.

I just got my weekly 'Time Magazine' in the mail. The feature article is on media decency. Americans are more outraged by Janet Jackson's nipple on TV than portrayal's of violence....more outraqed by a cartoon baby's exposed butt than violence (Stewie's bum on 'Family Guy' was censored). Violence is a part of American life and more importantly, an 'acceptable' part of the society. Thousands are murdered, tens of thousands shot, . over a million in prison but society is focused on Janet's nipple.

Canada must just be a different culture. We don't mind people 'going at it naked' on prime time but strangely are more outraged by someone getting their brains shot out. Odd though, despite all the exposed nipples on Canadian TV, we (and all western cultures) have lower levels of teen pregnancy, rape and sexual assault than the USA. Even stranger, despite our much lower level of hand gun ownership, we have fewer citizens murdered despite their inability to pull out a 9mm to defend themselves.

[Gramma loreto]

Regarding the prevalence of gun violence in the U.S. and/or in specific U.S. locales. The availability of handguns does not explain it. The concealability of handguns does not explain it. In locales where more liberal concealed carry laws have ben instituted, anti-gun pundits often predicted mayhem...shootouts in the streets...road rage taken to the extreme...bloodbaths. It never happened. In fact John Lott has established a statistical correllation: more guns, less crime. On the other hand, municipalities with draconian anti-gun laws or outright bans often have much higher gun violence rates which did not improve with the tighter controls.

To our overseas friends, I say, don't judge our culture by the media bites that you're fed. I believe the media maxim, "If it bleeds, it leads", is ardently practiced world-wide. You hear more about the exceptions and abberations because they are the exceptions and abberations. If they weren't, they wouldn't be news.

To the poster who doesn't understand why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is so prized by it adherents...there are times in life when people of good character must defend themselves and those they care about from those who would do them harm. We don't go through life afraid of this possibility. We just try to prepare for the possibility...just as we buy fire extinguishers and smoke detectors in order to prepare for the house fire we hope never to suffer. We realize the police, like the fire department, cannot be everywhere just in the nick of time. Here in the U.S., courts have even ruled that the police have no legal obligation (and therefore no liability) to protect individual citizens. So, if they don't, who does? We do.

With regard to school shootings in particular, I'd like to bring up one of the first widely publicized school shooting from years ago...my old high school in Pearl, Mississippi. While the shooting itself got a lot of press, one particular detail was mostly left out. It was stopped by a school official (an assistant principal, IIRC) who ran to his car off-campus, retrieved his personal handgun, and stopped the shooter from taking yet more lives.

[dvb]

In fact John Lott has established a statistical correllation: more guns, less crime.

I guess you missed the link that Cougar posted here.

Well, it would be pretty hard to argue with if it was true. But I'm afraid this is a myth.

[Argos]

I'm not sure you are using the term LIBERAL in the same context that it is used here in the USA.

I think Iīm an old fashion liberal; someone who cherishes his liberties. My motto could be "Laissez faire, laissez passer".

[Gramma loreto]

I guess you missed the link that Cougar posted here.

Yep, my fault for being in a hurry. While I don't readily agree that Lambert's objections disqualifies Lott's work as a "myth", there is a lot of material to read. For now, I would amend my statement to "more guns ≠ more crime" which was largely my point.

[Brady Yoon]

[If you shoot an unarmed burglar in your house at night you will be charged with murder. The burglars know this and usually do not carry firearms.

This is very unfortunate.

As you may know, in the States, you're allowed to use deadly force to protect both life and property. One does not have to stand idly by while an unarmed burgler makes off with the family's treasured possessions. Plus, it is usually enough that you feelyour life is threatened to justify use of deadly force, regardless of whether the bad guy is armed.

Yup, I agree. If you want to steal something from someone, it always comes at a price of a painful death.

Imho, gun ownership should be a guaranteed right to citizens, but only people with no felonies or misdemeanors (5 year penalty). Any person who is not authorized to have a gun (criminals) face a 20 year minimum jail sentence.

It's time we crack down on criminals and allow law-abiding citizens their rights to protect their loved ones and property.

[um3k]

I think Iīm an old fashion liberal; someone who cherishes his liberties. My motto could be "Laissez faire, laissez passer".

Aha, so you're French! That explains everything!

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Guns don't kill kids, kids kill kids??

Yes.

With guns.

[fossilnut2]

Guns don't kill kids, kids kill kids??

Yes.

With guns.

Actually in the States, until a couple weeks ago the state itself killed kids. Quite legally.

[Grendl]

Russ:I could not agree more my friend. I'm not sure you are using the term LIBERAL in the same context that it is used here in the USA. Here a liberal would want to disarm the law abiding citizen.

Russ, I just wanted to nip this hasty generalization in the bud, just so you know. I am liberal and I, along with many other liberals I know, believe in gun ownership for the reason Argos stated. An unarmed citizenry can't fight very well against a militaristic state or tyranny, can they? I try to learn from history and never assume things can't happen over and over again...uh, because they do. :-?

(BTW, liberal does not = Democrat, just so you know)

I had two customers who were followed home from restaurants in their nice cars and held at gunpoint in their affluent houses. Their kids were there, too. Both said they were glad they didn't try to make a move for their licensed guns. Burglars aren't interested in killing--they want the stuff and to get out of there. The men felt that if they tried anything it would agitate the burglar into shooting them; they just let them take anything they wanted. If you are going to use a gun against someone who has less to lose, you better be sure you're a darn good shot. With kids around, do you want to risk that? Houston is full of guns, but the thing is, most people who legally own them never get to use them in these kinds of situations.

I've never owned more than a BB gun and I would never have guns around kids unless they were securely locked up. I do have a black powder pistol on my wall, but I'd be long dead before I could get that thing loaded.

[Evan]

I have a .50 cal Hawken mountain rifle (black powder caplock) hanging on the mantle. The gov'mt here wants me to register it. I refuse. If I walked into a bank here with it and tried to hold it up I would be simultaneously laughed at and tackled by about half the customers. Nearly everyone here owns some sort of firearm although very few handguns. This is cattle ranching rodeo cowboy logging beer drinking mining prospector country.

If we hear shots fired in the neighbourhood we don't call 911 (don't have 911) or the police. We try to figure out what caliber of weapon it was so we can guess who was shooting at what. High power rifle, bear or cougar. Shotgun, feral cats or maybe dogs after livestock. .22, varmits like squirrels.

My wife and I were trying to remember the last time someone in this town was shot to death by another person. The best I can remember was maybe 20 years ago. There have been a couple in the last 20 years that commited "death by cop suicide" but that is a different matter.

[mid]

Now you are disarmed again at a time when the Muslim world has decided that their version of holiness is worth murdering people about.

If the number of UK citizens killed by Al Qaida gets to within even an order of magnitude of the number killed by sectarian violence in Northern Ireland over the last 30 years, I'm sure we'll take that under advisement. Meanwhile, you're vastly, vastly overestimating the scale of the problem. Heck, if the number of US citizens killed or seriously injured (outside of Iraq duties, which is clearly a special case) outweighs the number from legally owned firearms, I'll be surprised.

[farmerjumperdon]

The thread seems to have largely evolved to one of discussing gun control, which, believe it or not, is not something I feel terribly strongly about either way. Strict gun control does seem to work where it is enforced, but our culture is many generations removed from such a scenario, if it would ever come to be at all. The prevelance, and therefore availability of guns, is just one of the manifestations of our culture. It is the broader underlying cultural norms that I see as the real problem.

fossilnut hit the nail on the head with the comment about us being so worked up about Janet Jackson's nipple. It seems to have gotten as much attention as a classroom full of dead kids. Very twisted.

There was an interesting discussion on the radio yesterday where the host compared the unarmed guard at the school, first to die on that scene, as about as useful as a legless center fielder. It's a very good point - what's the purpose of an unarmed guard? The school has an armada of surveillance cameras, locked doors during class, is surrounded by barbed wire, metal detectors at the door - and a guard who's only defense is to make a phone call.

The surviving guard said the last thing he said was "Oh XXXX" as he saw the kid coming to the door with a gun. She (the other guard) ran down the hallway getting as many kids back into rooms as possible, while the guy gave up his life to buy them a few seconds of running time. He sees an imminent threat, knows it's real trouble, and all he can do is give up his life to stall for a few seconds. How ridiculous. If he had been armed we'd have one dead psycho and one not-so-destroyed community.

[Amadeus]

During WW-I & II England went begging world wide to get arms for their citizens because the German Empire was knocking. I can't remember the exact numbers but during WW-II the US sent on the order of 3 million personal wepons to England, NZ and Australia. Now you are disarmed again at a time when the Muslim world has decided that their version of holiness is worth murdering people about.

First off we were not begging. People got very rich selling those guns to us.
Secondly it's not the muslim world that has decided to murder it's small religous groups that have formed armed groups. Plus the causes that they kill for are generaly political dressed up as religion.

One must realize that not everyone thinks as you do. I'm sure that there were at least a few militiamen aboard the jets that were crashed into the World Trade Center & Pentagon. If they had been carrying their wepons 9/11/01 would the WTC & Pentagon attacks have been successful? We have some indication in the plane that was crashed in the PA field.

They were "successful" and I use the quotes because everyone died, because the hijackers we're armed with box cutters. So if it is legal to carry fire arms on board a plane the Hijackers would be able to as well.
I understand that onboard some planes they are air marshells. They get trained to take down hijackers. Have you been trained? It's not just the ability to shoot straight.

I ask you; If the Muslims attack NZ and shoot your friends and family in the street, what will you do? Let them?

What we do (and I asume you ment this to apply the UK as well as NZ) is live a normal live and pay taxes. Those Taxes pay for our security services, they in turn make sure that we are protected.

If a bomb goes off, what do you think the average citizen can do? Go and round up anyone in muslim dress? It's up to the informed agents of the state to investigate and crack cells. They have the information,power and more importantly the authority to detain suspects. And if they fail there will be investigations to find out why not.

I have lived in London for 15 years now and have had my life disrupted by bombing. I also witnessed one at a close range. The most important lesson I learned is not to let it get me down or change the way I live my life.

[If you shoot an unarmed burglar in your house at night you will be charged with murder. The burglars know this and usually do not carry firearms.

This is very unfortunate.

As you may know, in the States, you're allowed to use deadly force to protect both life and property. One does not have to stand idly by while an unarmed burgler makes off with the family's treasured possessions. Plus, it is usually enough that you feelyour life is threatened to justify use of deadly force, regardless of whether the bad guy is armed.

Wouldn't shooting said burgler in a kneecap prevent him from stealing anything, assuming he was unarmed? 8-[ [/i]

Being from the other side of the pond, I cannot see why individuals would so prize a right to bear arms. #-o That said: the very fact that I've no interest in guns, knives, hunting - or anything like that - may be more to the point?

As has been said many times, an unloaded rifle never killed anyone by itself. 8-[ 8-[

I've been robbed at gunpoint and held against my will for what seemed an eternity while working at Domino's in college. Talk about a scary situation.

I do think gun education should be taught in our schools.

I didn't realize how small guns could be, until I made the man show me his bullets before he got any of my money. I got lucky. He could of shot me point blank. Instead, he thought the situation was as silly as me, and he showed me them long skinny bullets!

Note to self: Just give up the money next time - no questions asked. :-"

Being one of Nature's cowards, I think I'd have thrown the money at him.

One life is worth more than all the money in the World can buy!!

Guns don't kill kids, kids kill kids??

Yes.

With guns.

Yes, but a lot of people don't see it like that. Unfortunately IMO!

[Amadeus]

[If you shoot an unarmed burglar in your house at night you will be charged with murder. The burglars know this and usually do not carry firearms.

This is very unfortunate.

As you may know, in the States, you're allowed to use deadly force to protect both life and property. One does not have to stand idly by while an unarmed burgler makes off with the family's treasured possessions. Plus, it is usually enough that you feelyour life is threatened to justify use of deadly force, regardless of whether the bad guy is armed.

Wouldn't shooting said burgler in a kneecap prevent him from stealing anything, assuming he was unarmed? 8-[ [/i]

I would asume that most un armed burglers would stop nicking your stuff when you point the gun at them anyway. The question would be would you shoot them as they were trying to escape? i.e in the back.

It would have to be a very special stereo for me to shoot someone that was not a threat to me or my family...

[captain swoop]

In the dark and confusion a kneecap is a lot harder to hit, esp when you are scared/ hyped up etc.

Center of mass.

In the dark and confusion a kneecap is a lot harder to hit, esp when you are scared/ hyped up etc.

Center of mass.

Yes, that's true. I hadn't thought of that... ops: ops: ops:

[Nicolas]

We've had a burglar in our house while some of us were at home. The burglar broke into my room (which wasn't locked, but he screwed the lock out anyway :roll: , must be a Pavlov thing), without possibly knowing whether I was in my room or not.

I happened to be somewhere else that night. Had I been at home and had I woken up, I'm quite sure he would have gotten a blow from my n°1 bat: the reinforced foot of my old joystick. 99% chance this wouldn't have killed him (which wouldn't have been my aim at all), but it would have kept him "calm" until the police arrived.

the only thing possibly stopping me from hitting him would be the fear that it wasn't a burglar, but a roommate (who lives in another room of the same house) doing some joke (which he usually doesn't do and shouldn't do for the obvious chance of getting seriously hurt when people interpret things wrong).

Say I would have been here, and had given the man a good hit on the head. I turn the light on, and see it is my roommate. We would be having a good laugh at the doctor with a bag of ice on his forehead. Now assume I had a gun in my room.

I've got no problems with people attacking burglars (as long as the reaction is in line with the crime), but I have a problem with privately owned guns.

I know that other weapons/objects can kill people as well, but a gun makes it a little bit too easy to me.

I've got no problems with certain policemen having guns, and I'm not against shooting clubs. But they should be regulated very stringent. No weapon should ever leave the shooting club, and be kept in safes. And the fact that commiting a crime with a gun gives a worse penalty than without is a good thing as well, as it stops many "small criminals" from having a gun.

That said, the kid in that school shooting obviously had major mental problems. My previous remarks on weapons don't really apply in that case. More stringent weapon laws would have made it a bit harder for him to get weapons, but eventually he would have gotten them anyway.

[Evan]

The most basic rule of firearms is that if you intend to shoot someone at all then expect to kill them. Also, never point a firearm at someone unless you are willing to kill them. Police always shoot to kill except in very rare circumstances.