Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 171 of 171

Thread: Very Sad News - More Gun Violence

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Frantic Freddie View Post
    I'd like to point out that the worst mass murderers in American history,going on body count,didn't use guns to commit their crimes.

    John Wayne Gacy,Ted Bundy,Timothy McVeigh,The Green River Killer,The Zodiac Killer,The Hillside Stranglers,Juan Corona,Charles Cullen,the list goes on.
    I don't recall hearing mention of guns with Dahmer, either.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    9,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Frantic Freddie View Post
    I'd like to point out that the worst mass murderers in American history,going on body count,didn't use guns to commit their crimes.

    John Wayne Gacy,Ted Bundy,Timothy McVeigh,The Green River Killer,The Zodiac Killer,The Hillside Stranglers,Juan Corona,Charles Cullen,the list goes on.
    With the exception of Tim McVeigh, those were all serial killers, not mass murderers (serial killer = one victim at a time; mass murderer = multiple victims at once).

    Doesn't take away from your main point, I know, I just wanted to make the clarification.
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    487
    Oops,forgot Dahmer & you're right SeanF.

    The greatest mass murder in US history didn't involve guns either,just boxcutters.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    So, I'm afraid, what you're suggesting would be "unlike with motor vehicles."
    Ok. Fine. But that still doesn't necessarily negate the idea that demanding more stringent gun licensing isn't a bad idea.

    I'm not sure how a law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun could really complain if he needs to take a gun safety course, get a license, have a waiting period, or whatever would be associated with reasonable gun control.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    It also depends on what we choose to ignore. In the U.S., this many people die per day due to drunk driving, and just as here, many innocent lives are brutally cut short, but that subject is largely ignored. If you want to kill a few people, and just get a bit of time in jail (maybe), get drunk and run somebody over. There won't be big debates on why nobody caught you sooner, even when you've been arrested before.

    Horrific things like this shouldn't be ignored, obviously, but there are other horrific things that aren't getting anywhere near the amount of attention they should. And in each case, culture plays a big part. It isn't simply an issue of law, but behavior.
    Well, MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) is pretty active, and they are the ones resposible for tougher laws and tightening up the legal intoxication levels. But it is far from this kind of circus.

    Part of the reason is it doesn't happen all in one place. About 40K per year die in auto accidents, which is about 110 per day. If 110 people died in one place, it would be big news, no matter what the cause.

    And, if I could gain control of the media, I'd make you a substantial bet that I could gin up a majority in favor of banning automobiles or at least reducing the speed limit to 10MPH, and enforcing that with governors. I'd do it by harping on the "carnage on our highways" day in and day out.

    The reason that is not done is everyone is makes the rational decision that the benefits of automobiles are worth that 110 dead per day. However, no one is going to say it. They know it deep down and act accordingly.

    But I'd still bet you I could gin up enough emotion to do it.

    -Richard

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Robot View Post
    Ok. Fine. But that still doesn't necessarily negate the idea that demanding more stringent gun licensing isn't a bad idea.

    I'm not sure how a law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun could really complain if he needs to take a gun safety course, get a license, have a waiting period, or whatever would be associated with reasonable gun control.
    I can't really respond to this without going against board rules,but I will point out that in almost all of the 40 states that allow concealed carry of a handgun the applicant is required to submit to a background check & take a course that combines gun safety & the applicable laws on the use of deadly force.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    Well, well, it seems our lone gunman sent a little "media package" to NBC news sometime during that spree, they think between the time he killed the first two and the later rampage.

    That package contained pictures of himself posing with his weapons (shades of Columbine) and looking menacing, along with more of his creative writing.

    Yeah, he wanted to be a media star bad guy. While, the contents will certainly be interesting as to just what was up with the lunatic, I hope none of them actually air it. Let none of his media wishes be carried out, which will at least be helpful for any copycats who get similiar ideas in their deranged heads.

    -Richard

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    13,217
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    One representative from Texas pulled a Bowie knife out of his boot and charged toward the front.
    I think that's a near-weekly occurence. Oh, wait, you said US lege, not Texas lege.

    Last year, then, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinemarten View Post
    Isn't there a county in Texas where it is mandatory for every household to have a gun? And the crime rate is zero?
    Not Texas, surprise, surprise! Towns in Utah and Georgia have passed such ordinances, but they can't really enforce them. And they still have crime (although the Georgia town reported a reduction just after... I'm not sure where it stands now).

    Quote Originally Posted by Frantic Freddie View Post
    I'd like to point out that the worst mass murderers in American history,going on body count,didn't use guns to commit their crimes.
    As pointed out, most of these were serial killers, one or two victims at a time, which doesn't require any rapid or mass killing methods. Also, serial killers usually enjoy the deaths of their victims and will drag them out to prolong the pleasure. Mass killers just want people dead... lots of people and fast.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Robot View Post
    Ok. Fine. But that still doesn't necessarily negate the idea that demanding more stringent gun licensing isn't a bad idea.

    I'm not sure how a law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun could really complain if he needs to take a gun safety course, get a license, have a waiting period, or whatever would be associated with reasonable gun control.
    Perhaps because said law-abiding citizen has owned and used guns (legally) for 40+ years, as did said citizen's dad (for 70+ years), said citizen's grandfather for 85+ years (now deceased), all without licensing, state-mandated training, etc.

    The only incidents I've ever had are misfires, and my grandpop showed me how to properly deal with those when I was nine.

    It's like the answer a lot of people had mid-last century when told they had to get a driver's license. "What for? So that I can be allowed to do something I've been doing, safely, for the last thirty years?"

    As for guns being the weapon, forget it. A pen is a more effective weapon than a gun, if one knows how to use it. Look how many people Saddam killed with nothing more than a few well-aimed strokes of a pen.

    Or did we forget that the pen is mightier than the sword? (or gun?)

    Alexander the Great didn't have guns, either, and look how many people expired as a result of his aspirations.

    Let's keep this in perspective, people. It's a societal issue, not a gun-control issue.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,096
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralSpirit View Post
    I was struck in my history research to realize that the number of soldiers killed in battle during the Civil War was greater than the sum total of soldiers killed in all the other wars America has been involved in from the Revolution up to and including Desert Storm.
    There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that, well, both sides of the war involved US casualties.

    However, the other side of things, which I think does relate somewhat to our discussion here, is that the generals were fighting a war with old-military tactics and using new-military weapons. Sending a few thousand guys charging in a straight line is great if they're going against a bunch of guys with swords and muzzle loaders, but if they've got repeating rifles, it's a different story. The tactics most of the generals were using were unchanged from the days of . . . well, a lot of them had studied Napoleon, but the tactics go back beyond that.

    I don't think bringing Ted Bundy into the discussion really is worth anything. Ted Bundy was desperate to kill people--women with long, brown hair parted in the middle, to be specific. (Actually, I fit his victim profile to a certain extent, and he took at least one victim from my alma mater, too.) In Florida, he used a log and killed two and wounded at least two others. But as mentioned, it was more about getting up close to his victims, and a gun didn't suit his purposes.

    The Manson family primarily (though not exclusively) used knives, but that was because they thought it scared people more. Also, you don't need to buy bullets, and they were notoriously short of cash.

    However, for mass murder and not serial murder, you're generally looking at either guns or explosives.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralSpirit View Post
    I was struck in my history research to realize that the number of soldiers killed in battle during the Civil War was greater than the sum total of soldiers killed in all the other wars America has been involved in from the Revolution up to and including Desert Storm.
    American Civil war:
    203,000 killed in action, 618,000 total dead, 412,000+ wounded

    World War I:
    Military dead: 9,906,000 Military wounded: 21,219,000

    World War II:
    Military dead: 31,000,000 Civilian dead: 40,000,000

    Where did you get your numbers from?
    Or do you think only American lives count?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    AstralSpirt meant American dead. That does not mean that he or she thinks that only American lives count. Relax.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    Here are the figures:

    http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

    Note what is striking about the Civil War is the casualty *rates* compared to others (save for the Mexican War). There were huge non-combat death rates due to disease, privation, etc. That is what is so striking about the Civil War.

    -Richard

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    mugaliens wrote:
    Let's keep this in perspective, people. It's a societal issue, not a gun-control issue.
    I don't understand. How is the control of gun avaliablity in a society not a societal issue?

    OK, I'm kidding. Dividing things up that way allows one to pretend that gun control is not a societal issue, but exists on its own astral plane somewhere.

    However you view personal posession of firearms, it seems to me to be sutnningly relevant in any debate about how a society balances safety, freedom, individualism and common good.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    "Imminent danger to himself and others". Apparently, a Virginia court made that determination, officially, one year ago. That would legally prevent him from buying a gun. The question is why this was not "put in the system", why it didn't show up.

    Don't get me wrong, and go too far in the blame game. Crap happens. But the above needs to be looked at closely. What happened and why did that determination by a court not "propagate".

    About the "disturbing writings". Well, it's clear now that was just one part of a stark pattern of total behavior. Apparently, one of his instructors had a code word worked out with an assistant to signal the assistant to call the cops.........

    Again, don't get in the mode of demanding heads on a platter (unless it is really warranted in some cases, which only investigation can tell), but, a review of various laws about what can and can't be done and which part of the system knows about other parts needs to be reviewed.

    -Richard

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Gun laws don't protect people. They put them at a disadvantage. Laws only apply to law abiding citizens.

    Gun safety works. Defensive Tactics work. But the best thing anyone can do is be aware of their surroundings.

    In the case of this story, there was nothing anyone could have done. And it shouldn't be suggested that there was after the fact. Not even a soldier knows how he will react during his first REAL firefight, even though he was trained.

    It is insulting to anyone on that campus for people to suggest ways they could have should have or would have.

    The real answer is that they could not.

    You don't know you're going to break a tooth until you bite into your food and something is in there to break it, and it snaps.

    You can know that there is a bone in it, and you are careful not to chomp on the bone, but unless you are paranoid, you have no reason to look for a piece of steel from the proccessing plant.

    You can buy a box of Cheerios, and you may come across a burnt one.

    But you will never get around to eating the Cheerios if you spend all your time looking for one that may be in the box or not before you take the first bite.

    We have to chalk this tragedy up to ONE in a few hundred million that lost it.

    Maybe we should be thankful that this doesn't happen EVERY day.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    689
    Having just watched this guys deranged and incoherent video manifesto air, I fear we have just given a narcissistic sociopath all the lasting infamy he could have ever hoped for. Yuk.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    Having just watched this guys deranged and incoherent video manifesto air, I fear we have just given a narcissistic sociopath all the lasting infamy he could have ever hoped for. Yuk.
    Part of the feeding frenzy sensationalism. I would not have aired it, not now. Something like that is useful in a forensic sense, and in the future, airing it might be fine, but not this early.

    It gives him what he wants, and there's a chance, in the heat of the passion about this, that it will set off copycats. Note he idolized the Columbine murderers.

    -Richard

  19. #169
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    Part of the feeding frenzy sensationalism. I would not have aired it, not now. Something like that is useful in a forensic sense, and in the future, airing it might be fine, but not this early.

    It gives him what he wants, and there's a chance, in the heat of the passion about this, that it will set off copycats. Note he idolized the Columbine murderers.

    -Richard
    Well...I do realize that he has achieved a certain sick immortality by just what he did on Monday alone. But the digital taunting (or whatever it is) from beyond the grave just makes it all that creepier and more depressing. Like you I hope that material can be put to some good use at a future date.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    American Civil war:
    203,000 killed in action, 618,000 total dead, 412,000+ wounded

    World War I:
    Military dead: 9,906,000 Military wounded: 21,219,000

    World War II:
    Military dead: 31,000,000 Civilian dead: 40,000,000

    Where did you get your numbers from?
    Or do you think only American lives count?

    I was specifically refered to American military dead. My numbers correct. How foolish to think that a fact comes with some sort of taint.

    I resent your implication that I think only in terms of Americans simply because of I post a fact. I was told that this board had more than its share of arrogant posters and I concur.

    That is not an insult, it is an observation. If my facts are in error you have not shown them so. I am a woman and I have a pretty touch hide, but I prefer to be judged on the correctness of the facts I present. Not on someone elses attemot to read my mind.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    Despite even the BA's warnings to avoid gun-control and related issues, there may be no way to. And, as predicted, it's starting to get heated.

    I'm locking this for now. It may or may not be opened in the future. The one warning I will give is to not open a duplicate thread for any other reason than to offer condolences at this point.

Similar Threads

  1. Good Sci-Fi with Minimal to No Violence.
    By DeeNeely in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 2011-Dec-21, 10:14 PM
  2. Nursery Rhyme Violence
    By sarongsong in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-06, 11:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •