Support NeoGAF

[Yoritomo]

You haven't demonstrated a direct effect. Putting aside the fact that homicide, not suicide, is the issue here, all the suicide study demonstrates is that decreased media coverage was correlated with decreased use of one particular method of suicide. There is nothing to suggest it actually reduced suicides.

There is not direct effect, but a series of influences in these people's lives. That's getting into the whole area of mental health and healthcare in the US and again yeah there's plenty that could change there.

We're talking about spree killing and how to reduce the incidence of spree killing. Even though it seems these happen "all the time" that even though the incidence rate seems to be increasing we're still decreasing our murder rate year after year in the US.

Murders are going down but spree killing is going up. Mental healthcare, culture that glorifies violence, and a media that pushes tragedy into our faces to appease our rubbernecking have helped perpetuate the increased incidence of spree killings.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not on hand, but I can surely provide you with one if you wish. I was watching a CNN piece on Breivik (been a while) and they had some criminal psychologists on explaining it. It was pretty interesting. And it's not necessarily unconstitutional. Speech that infringes on other rights is not protected. One could easily make the argument that having ones name dragged through the media and associated with a crime one may not have committed violates your constitutional rights. Additionally, gag orders are often placed on the media relating to trials to prevent sensitive information from being disseminated. There's precedent for it. There would just be massive pushback because ratings.

It may help prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. But comparing it with gun regulation is absurd.

Please do provide it.

It certainly would be unconstitutional to censor news organizations in the way you are suggesting.

One actually could not make the argument that being libeled by a private media organization violates your constitutional rights, since the Constitution does not apply to private organizations. Gag orders apply to things that happen in a courtroom, not events in the outside world, so that analogy is inapt as well.

There is not direct effect, but a series of influences in these people's lives. That's getting into the whole area of mental health and healthcare in the US and again yeah there's plenty that could change there.

We're talking about spree killing and how to reduce the incidence of spree killing. Even though it seems these happen "all the time" that even though the incidence rate seems to be increasing we're still decreasing our murder rate year after year in the US.

Murders are going down but spree killing is going up. Mental healthcare, culture that glorifies violence, and a media that pushes tragedy into our faces to appease our rubbernecking have helped perpetuate the increased incidence of spree killings.

I understand that this is your belief. I just haven't seen you provide any persuasive justification for it. It strikes me as a rather flimsy attempt to avoid serious consideration as to whether stricter controls on firearm might also reduce the frequency of these incidents.

 

[Yoritomo]

I think that it's funny how most people think gun control has to mean taking away all guns.
I get you all want your guns. Do you need an automatic weapon? How many times do you have to shoot that scary robber that's gonna come for your stuff? 32?

Jesus Christ Automatic guns have been banned for 28 years now.

Do you guys actually know anything about US gun laws?

 

[Timedog]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

At least 2, and possibly 3 of those places have higher population density than the USA.

 

[flyover]

Yea. Defending your home and life is so silly....let's mock it with a caricature...

That's not a caricature. That silly picture is from an actual review from the most widely-read firearms magazine about what was called "a better choice for home defense than a pistol or shotgun, at least in most circumstances."

 

[Yoritomo]

Please do provide it.

It certainly would be unconstitutional to censor news organizations in the way you are suggesting.

One actually could not make the argument that being libeled by a private media organization violates your constitutional rights, since the Constitution does not apply to private organizations. Gag orders apply to things that happen in a courtroom, not events in the outside world, so that analogy is inapt as well.

And apparently it is unconstitutional to curtail our right to bear arms in a way that would meaningfully reduce the number of guns in the hands of private citizens.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Yeah, but the type of person who can shoot and kill little kids won't be deterred by laws. If he's that determined, he'll procure what he needs at all costs.

Yeah, why make anything illegal? People would just do it, anyway.

 

[Hawkian]

Yea. Defending your home and life is so silly....let's mock it with a caricature...

Didn't the woman in that piece use a 12-gauge shotgun?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

No you're not.

You make it sound like it's super easy and that accessibility's just as good.

If say a gun ban was enacted, what do you think would happen to the gun supply?

Guns confiscated, then destroyed.

Supply dwindles.

It therefore becomes even harder for a crazy to obtain a gun. This would happen in the US as surely as it has in any other country.

It is super easy and accessible. I mean I could understand believing it isn't if you're unfamiliar with the criminal elements of society but it's out there man. Plenty of people willing to give you a gun for the right price. No questions asked. It's damn near easy to get a pistol as it is to score heroine or any other hard "restricted" drug.

With illegal guns flooding into the country for the last century you're really arguing this?

Ugh. I mean, it's just the reality of the streets.

Also, I thought we weren't debating a gun ban. And that we just wanted tougher screening, eh?

 

[Socreges]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

G20 members by population density. Also not sure why it matters that America is "fucking huge".

 

[SRTtoZ]

Jesus Christ Automatic guns have been banned for 28 years now.

Do you guys actually know anything about US gun laws?

This is the exact problem with this type of debate. People just have ZERO clue what they are talking about factually aside from their opinions. Automatic weapons are NOT legal and not the problem and never have been.

 

[DasDamen]

I don't think this word means what you think it means. Of those countries, the only ones less densely populated than the U.S. are Canada and Sweden.

And even then, I'm pretty sure Canadian and Swedish cities/towns are more densely populated than those in the US.

 

[akira28]

If you took an Continental United States and shrunk it down to Japan's size, and compared the population centers, and how they're spaced, we'd all be sleeping inside each other. Of course Japan has a lot of people in a relatively small area, and I didn't say the population densities were 1:1 matches.

I did say America is both huge and densely populated. Which is how it differs from those other countries. So I could visualize 10,000+ gun deaths going on, east and west of the Rockies and Plains (which are still pretty empty).

You are being either dishonest or oblivious. Pick one.

a lot of dense people that must have done really well in school...

At least 2, and possibly 3 of those places have higher population density than the USA.

not you too, Mr. Frodo.

 

[Warm Machine]

As a Canadian, if someone asked me to go buy an illegal handgun or assault rifle I wouldn't know where to go. I think most people wouldn't know where to go in the US either if there was no other option available. The most likely place is a shit cracked out neighborhood which would be far scarier proposition than just down to your local gun store.

Semi-Auto and Automatic weapons will kill far more people in a short amount of time. That is what they were primarily designed for. A bolt action rifle, like what you can get in a Canadian Tire would generate far less of a body count in the same amount of time. In situations where you have to fire, reload fire, most of your targets would probably have run for it.

The knife discussion is fucking pointless. A guy threatening a crowd with a knife is not going to take down more than one person. A car ramming into a crowd might kill a couple. An automatic rifle sprayed into a crowd is going to take down a dozen. The ability to kill grows with the efficiency of the tool being used.

Weapons like these should not be available to the general public. Also, the mindset that you need weapons to protect yourself from the Government is so fantastical as to be hilarious. The turn of events across the entire planet that would allow such a thing is barely comprehensible.

Living in a city I have no use for a firearm at all. Living in the Praries earlier in my life, guns were a minor part of life and I honestly enjoyed firing them. I enjoyed using a semi-auto M-16 clone that shot .22s But life moved on and the necessity of firearm ownership became nil. Before that is was a small pleasure that would have faded over time as well. The best thing that having access to a gun gave me was a fear and respect for firearms and that should be established anyway.

 

[R2D4]

Doesn't Conn have some of the strictest gun laws in the country? Sounds like they didn't do any good.

 

[Socreges]

this comment does not make very much sense.

Go on....

 

[diffusionx]

Yeah, but the type of person who can shoot and kill little kids won't be deterred by laws. If he's that determined, he'll procure what he needs at all costs.

I'm not convinced by this.

It's worth noting that Anders Breivik flew to the Czech Republic, known, I guess, as a sort of gun-smuggling haven, to get more powerful guns for his rampage. In the end, he couldn't get them so he needed to settle on what he was able to (legally) acquire in his home country. If he got what he wanted, a lot more people could have died.

The point is, even the worst psychopaths with the most evil intentions are limited by the systems they can access. Just by declaring yourself a criminal does not make an entire black market of anything you want easily available to you.

 

[flyover]

Murders are going down but spree killing is going up. Mental healthcare, culture that glorifies violence, and a media that pushes tragedy into our faces to appease our rubbernecking have helped perpetuate the increased incidence of spree killings.

So, I actually agree with your point about the media, to a degree. Why does this then mean that stricter gun control wouldn't also have had any effect? Why just one or the other, and not both?

 

[Dude Abides]

And apparently it is unconstitutional to curtail our right to bear arms in a way that would meaningfully reduce the number of guns in the hands of private citizens.

While you are correct that the Supreme Court very recently saw fit to read the Second Amendment in a tortured manner and create a new right, even that partisan and ideological decision left some room for reasonable regulation.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Didn't the woman in that piece use a 12-gauge shotgun?

She used a long gun. (shotty)

The guy in the picture used a long gun. (rifle)

The humor in the picture isn't that he's not using a shotgun. It's that he's "paranoid" since he has a gun. Hence the couch and funny positioning behind it. It's a caricature of gun owners in an attempt to delegitimize home defense.

 

[Oppo]

Full-Automatics are already banned, and have been for 28 years now.

I said handguns and automatics. Nobody shoots up a school with a hunting rifle.

 

[LyleLanley]

I thought this tweet I saw was interesting.

One guy tries to use a shoe bomb = Everyone at the airport takes their shoes off. 31 school shootings since Columbine = no changes.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

It is super easy and accessible. I mean I could understand believing it isn't if you're unfamiliar with the criminal elements of society but it's out there man. Plenty of people willing to give you a gun for the right price. No questions asked. It's damn near easy to get a pistol as it is to score heroine or any other hard "restricted" drug.

With illegal guns flooding into the country for the last century you're really arguing this?

Ugh. I mean, it's just the reality of the streets.

Also, I thought we weren't debating a gun ban. And that we just wanted tougher screening, eh?

Listen to this guy, he's a real gang banger knows what its like out there. All these illegal guns just sprout up from somewhere, no way to stop em.


We ban guns, we might as well ban apple pie or baseball.

fuck me runnin.

 

[dschalter]

If you took an Continental United States and shrunk it down to Japan's size, and compared the population centers, and how they're spaced, we'd all be sleeping inside each other. Of course Japan has a lot of people in a relatively small area, and I didn't say the population densities were 1:1 matches.

I did say America is both huge and densely populated. Which is how it differs from those other countries. So I could visualize 10,000+ gun deaths going on, east and west of the Rockies and Plains (which are still pretty empty).

america is not densely populated. it's true that much of the land is empty, but much of that land is perfectly habitable, just not settled. if you compare livable land in america and japan, the formerly is more dense by an enormous amount (as a large % of japan is taken up by mountains).

 

[railGUN]

It couldn't hurt... could it?

 

[Vilix]

I think that it's funny how most people think gun control has to mean taking away all guns.
I get you all want your guns. Do you need an automatic weapon? How many times do you have to shoot that scary robber that's gonna come for your stuff? 32?

As an owner of automatic weapons I can say I love going to a range and firing them. It's a hobby I enjoy. They're of WWII vintage with one acception. I enjoy the freedom of owning a piece of history. I've been trained in their use and maintence. I would not use them for home defense, nor do I keep them in my home.

 

[Hawkian]

And apparently it is unconstitutional to curtail our right to bear arms in a way that would meaningfully reduce the number of guns in the hands of private citizens.

See, this is what I was afraid of. You don't appear to be interested in broaching the issue, you appear to be interested in attempting to find other sources of blame than the availability of guns, and merely stumbling onto compelling points, such as the role of the media, in the crossfire.

It isn't all-or-nothing. There are a lot of reasons that any given shooting might take place. We don't even know anything about the motive behind this one.

 

[Yoritomo]

Please do provide it.

It certainly would be unconstitutional to censor news organizations in the way you are suggesting.

One actually could not make the argument that being libeled by a private media organization violates your constitutional rights, since the Constitution does not apply to private organizations. Gag orders apply to things that happen in a courtroom, not events in the outside world, so that analogy is inapt as well.



I understand that this is your belief. I just haven't seen you provide any persuasive justification for it. It strikes me as a rather flimsy attempt to avoid serious consideration as to whether stricter controls on firearm might also reduce the frequency of these incidents.

Because the increased rate of firearm ownership over the last 20 years has not increased the rate of murder in the US. There is no direct correlation currently, and when the assault weapons ban lapsed crime continued to fall.

Also please don't misunderstand I think there should be stricter controls on firearms. Licensing and renewal should be necessary for handgun ownership at the least. IE the same requirements that people currently have to conceal carry a weapon in a shall issue state should be the bare minimum requirement for handgun ownership.

 

[dschalter]

Listen to this guy, he's a real gang banger knows what its like out there. All these illegal guns just sprout up from somewhere, no way to stop em.


We ban guns, we might as well ban apple pie or baseball.

fuck me runnin.

well, people use the same arguments about drugs and they tend to be accepted by a lot of people who support gun control.

 

[flyover]

Listen to this guy, he's a real gang banger knows what its like out there. All these illegal guns just sprout up from somewhere, no way to stop em.


We ban guns, we might as well ban apple pie or baseball.

fuck me runnin.

Are you mocking the reality of the streets?

 

[Yoritomo]

I said handguns and automatics. Nobody shoots up a school with a hunting rifle.

And no one has shot up a school with an automatic.

 

[Hawkian]

It's damn near easy to get a pistol as it is to score heroine or any other hard "restricted" drug.

Okay, don't use this argument anymore. I'm trying to help you out here.

I honestly have no fucking clue where I'd go to get heroin. I know of three locations within 10 miles of my apartment where I could go to legally purchase a gun.

Licensing and renewal should be necessary for handgun ownership at the least. IE the same requirements that people currently have to conceal carry a weapon in a shall issue state should be the bare minimum requirement for handgun ownership.

Man, okay! This is like the first thing you've said that's even relevant to the thread.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Listen to this guy, he's a real gang banger knows what its like out there. All these illegal guns just sprout up from somewhere, no way to stop em.


We ban guns, we might as well ban apple pie or baseball.

fuck me runnin.

lol

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Please do provide it.

It certainly would be unconstitutional to censor news organizations in the way you are suggesting.

One actually could not make the argument that being libeled by a private media organization violates your constitutional rights, since the Constitution does not apply to private organizations. Gag orders apply to things that happen in a courtroom, not events in the outside world, so that analogy is inapt as well.

Someone provided a link to a book earlier, sparing me the effort. Scroll up a bit, as I am at work and don't have time to find more links.

Anyway, being libeled by a private media organization does violate your constitutional rights, which is why it is illegal to practice libel. The problem becomes when, via releasing a name, individuals come to undue harm. The George Zimmerman case is actually a fairly good test of this. His family received threats, and the address of some innocent people was associated with him and they were threatened as I recall. This has more akin to limitations on speech such as yelling "fire" in a theater than anything. Still, I understand that it sits on the border of breaching the constitution. Another way around this would be to make it the policy of policing authorities to never release the names of suspects, not allowing the media to associate people as suspects of a crime, which bi-passes the entire deal. It really wouldn't prevent it entirely, but it might help the problem.

 

[twobear]

The USA is the 178th most densely populated country in the world.

 

[Oppo]

And no one has shot up a school with an automatic.

WTF, Yoritomo. Columbine, hello? TEC-9s, ring a bell?

The point about population density or kills-per-minute miss the point by a good green country mile.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

well, people use the same arguments about drugs and they tend to be accepted by a lot of people who support gun control.

Because it's just as easy to home manufacture guns/ammo as it is drugs, right? That's a dumb comparison.

 

[Hawkian]

Someone provided a link to a book earlier, sparing me the effort. Scroll up a bit, as I am at work and don't have time to find more links.

Anyway, being libeled by a private media organization does violate your constitutional rights, which is why it is illegal to practice libel. The problem becomes when, via releasing a name, individuals come to undue harm. The George Zimmerman case is actually a fairly good test of this. His family received threats, and the address of some innocent people was associated with him and they were threatened as I recall. This has more akin to limitations on speech such as yelling "fire" in a theater than anything. Still, I understand that it sits on the border of breaching the constitution. Another way around this would be to make it the policy of policing authorities to never release the names of suspects, not allowing the media to associate people as suspects of a crime, which bi-passes the entire deal. It really wouldn't prevent it entirely, but it might help the problem.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding something crucial, could you acknowledge that what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with this event? The killer is dead.

WTF, Yoritomo. Columbine, hello? TEC-9s, ring a bell?

They are semi-automatic and he is absolutely right in the technical sense.

However, it's a pretty important point to make that people who really don't know that much about guns mean something other than the technical definition of automatic when they use the word. :-/

 

[Yoritomo]

See, this is what I was afraid of. You don't appear to be interested in broaching the issue, you appear to be interested in attempting to find other sources of blame than the availability of guns, and merely stumbling onto compelling points, such as the role of the media, in the crossfire.

It isn't all-or-nothing. There are a lot of reasons that any given shooting might take place. We don't even know anything about the motive behind this one.

Honestly I don't know who is arguing what but I need to be clear that I think current gun regulations are too lax, with that being said I don't think we need weapon type bans, or complete bans on private ownership of firearms.

Therein lies the rub though. This person was the child of someone else. Did he have access to the guns in the home of someone else? How do you reduce the number of guns in circulation by a measurable degree? If I remember correctly there's currently more than 1 gun for every 2 people in the US. How could you possibly insure that someone like him could NOT lay his hands on a firearm, while maintaining our current constitutional outlook.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Jesus Christ Automatic guns have been banned for 28 years now.

Do you guys actually know anything about US gun laws?

B-B-But they LOOK scary!

A semi-auto .22 can *look* like a walking death machine to some.

 

[VALIS]

Doesn't Conn have some of the strictest gun laws in the country? Sounds like they didn't do any good.

You're right, I'm not sure how these people snuck into the country of Connecticut with firearms. Swam across the moat with a reed in their mouths maybe? Aboard a cargo ship? Tunneled under the wall? Someone should get to the bottom of this.

 

[Yoritomo]

WTF, Yoritomo. Columbine, hello? TEC-9s, ring a bell?

The point about population density or kills-per-minute miss the point by a good green country mile.

Nope. Those Tec-9s were not full auto. You have to squeeze the trigger for every bullet that you shot.

 

[GungHo]

it was handguns? still, Assualt weapons ban needs to come back.

It will do (and did) nothing. We've discussed this in other threads before, but the AWB was primarily cosmetic. There was only one functional limitation made by the AWB, and that was limiting detachable magazine capacity to no more than 10 rounds for newly manufactured magazines. All that did was make old magazines cost more, and there was no limit on how many magazines or how much ammunition you purchased. Everything else was around folding/telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders.

If you really want to make a goal that is reachable within the next couple of years, overhaul the NICS process and consider adding in more inputs for mental health professionals and courts to immediately interfere with a person's ability to purchase firearms. Admittedly, it doesn't address what you do if the fucker already has guns, if he stole some guns, or if he gets something off a "non-traditional" market, but it does add some hurdles around people who go to Gander Mountain right after nutting up. The whole NICS system really needs to become a non-manual process. As I've said before, I can code the database and front end in my stupid head, so this isn't beyond the ability of a contracted software company.

I would also submit that we consider ending non-registered/non-titled firearms sales. Pay money for the transfer and track the things starting with every sale after 1/1/2013 (sample date). I don't care about the "Hitler registered firearms, too" bullshit. If you had a gun and suddenly it's no longer trackable, there better be a goddamn police report or you're gonna be liable for all the nasty shit that boomstick goes on to do.

Quite the opposite, if more people were carrying a gun it would mean more people capable of killing the shooter before this could take place.

In an elementary school?

How come? Genuine question.

Htown (if he'll excuse me for answering for him) is saying it's a Constitutional Amendment that is part of the Bill of Rights. The amount of agreement required to actually overturn a part of the Constitution (even if it's been done before) requires an enormous amount of agreement between law makers and/or the voting public. It's not something that some guy just writes up and people say "hey, sounds good to me" and just gets signed into law. It's a bit beyond Obamacare or the Fiscal Cliff in divisiveness.

Furthermore (and isn't part of Htown's position, but is my addition), there are more guns than there are people. How would you even find them all? If you found them, how would you slag them all? Nation-wide gun buy-back programs? Even if you "ok, we're going to completely stop making or selling guns, gun parts, and ammunition as of tomorrow", I've got a rifle that's 100 years old and it runs like a Singer sewing machine... and I've only done some minor maintenance on it. Modern ammunition has a potential shelf life of centuries. Furthermore, if things like dies and gunpowder remain available, people will be able to make their own ammunition for a very long time. So, just waiting them out isn't going to work either.

Also, to head off the thought-experiment folks: They've tried integrating electronics into firearms for both fire control and for safety, but those things have been a bust. There was significant push-back from the gun-owning community toward putting anything in a gun that could compromise reliability or that would allow someone to turn them off remotely. Moreover, the eBullets and electronic triggers were pieces of shit. The only successful application of electronics has been in optics.

As an owner of automatic weapons I can say I love going to a range and firing them.

Pretty sure he means semiauto and has no idea of the difference between an actual automatic and a "news story" automatic. That's not meant as an insult to ronito.

 

[akira28]

The USA is the 178th most densely populated country in the world.

oh. lord. mothe...no.

look guys. I never compared pop densities. *sigh* go read what I wrote.

 

[Oppo]

Nope. Those Tec-9s were not full auto. You have to squeeze the trigger for every bullet that you shot.

Oh, ok, your point stands then. Because they had 3-4 non-semi-auto weapons each, it's all ok.

Let me try a different angle here:

The phrase, "the tree of liberty has to be occasionally refreshed with the blood of patriots". Do you believe this applies to schoolchildren and the right to bear arms? Do you think these kids need to die to protect the right to own a gun?

 

[Vilix]

Because it's just as easy to home manufacture guns/ammo as it is drugs, right? That's a dumb comparison.

No. But it's just as easy to buy guns through illegal means as it is to buy illegal drugs in this country.

 

[Fonz72]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35759877/ns/world_news-africa/t/machete-wielding-rioters-kill-nigeria/

People will always find a way to terroize fellow humans.

200 Dead

 

[Yoritomo]

Oh, ok, your point stands then. Because they had 3-4 non-semi-auto weapons each, it's all ok.

They had no automatics. There are very few ways to legally own an automatic in the US, and they are all extremely expensive.

 

[Hawkian]

Honestly I don't know who is arguing what but I need to be clear that I think current gun regulations are too lax, with that being said I don't think we need weapon type bans, or complete bans on private ownership of firearms.

Well, so you know my stance personally: I don't advocate a ban on gun ownership (mostly for pragmatic reasons). I find some issue with the constitutional protection of the constitution when it comes to the availability of guns, but that's largely irrelevant to a pragmatic approach to this issue.

This thread uses the phrase "increased gun regulation." I favor this, from multiple angles.

Therein lies the rub though. This person was the child of someone else. Did he have access to the guns in the home of someone else? How do you reduce the number of guns in circulation by a measurable degree? If I remember correctly there's currently more than 1 gun for every 2 people in the US.

All of those are valid points. Reducing guns "in the wild" isn't realistic nor is it the goal or intention of the government to do so anyway.

Again, increased regulation doesn't have anything to do with that.

 

[Socreges]

dschalter, can you please reply to my previous post (ie, explain yours)?

Yea. Defending your home and life is so silly....let's mock it with a caricature...

Did you watch the entire video in that link? Where a man with a shotgun saw his neighbour's house being robbed and went over to kill the two criminals, despite being told not to? Double-edged sword.