What we have here in Finland is the result of the quick fix mentality. The basic idea there is to do something that hits the headlines big time, makes people think something's being done to stop the killing, lull them into a false sense of security, and after that, bury their heads in the sand. And when the killing sprees keep happening despite stringent gun control, what do they do? They make gun control even more stringent while demonizing gun owners. Yeah, like that fixed the problem before. But hey, at least it looks like they're doing something, so that's good, right? Well, it is at least if you're of the head-burying orientation, but the rest of us can see clear as day that nothing has changed and nothing will change until we accept that this problem has no easy solutions, no quick fixes, and that it won't go away until we accept that the root of the problem is us, people. It's not a very comforting notion, accepting that the nice man living next door could actually be a violent maniac. That's why so many people reject the idea and fixate on getting rid of the tools the killers use instead of getting rid of the killers. However, if we truly want to stop the killing, we have to look at why people kill. Few become killers simply because they pick up a firearm or touch a knife. In fact, I haven't even heard of anyone who was a normal guy (or gal), grabbed a gun, and then suddenly turned into a monster. Maybe that has happened, I don't know, but it doesn't seem very common. In most cases, a person first has the desire to kill, they have the intent, and then they pick up a gun as the tool for the job. At least around here, experience has shown that stringent gun laws don't change anything. The problem that I see is that making people not want to kill, is pretty tricky and requires far more resources than most politicians are willing to devote to it. How to make them take action to lessen people's desire to kill other people... beats me, at least common sense doesn't seem to work.
Well, I think the best compromise is to make it as difficult to buy a gun as it is to do lots of other things these days. Here in the UK, if you want to work with children, you have to allow a huge number of background checks before you can be issued a permit to do that. If you want to apply for citizenship (as I've just done) you have to allow the authorities to search police records, you have to have two professional people identify you and vouch for you, they check your tax records, your employment history, etc. Employers have a right to check your background before you are hired for a job, and for certain kinds of jobs this is a must. This isn't foolproof, but nothing is. However it would go some way to eliminating people who already have a criminal record or a dubious personal history from owning a gun. Guns are one of the most dangerous things a person can own. So I support background checks ...and stringent ones ...before anybody is allowed to buy a gun—especially a handgun or one that is not used for hunting purposes. Anything that would prevent you from acquiring citizenship, working with children, caring for the elderly, being a teacher or a policeman should mean you will not be able to own a gun either. Where there is a will there's a way. It would be a start.
Shooter is dead. No word yet on who else got shot. They locked down the school right away according to some kids now starting to contact their parents.
The fact that we are having a mass shooting epidemic leads me to believe that media sensationalism could be a factor.
They don't seem to have any ambulances leaving. Makes me wonder if this wasn't just a suicide in public or something? Or maybe a targeted killing of one or two people. Cops are closed lipped. That's a good thing, I think.
I agree. And if you get busted even from drunk-driving, it's taken away. It shows you're an irresponsible ass who can't use even alcohol responsibly so he shouldn't have a gun either. Or a car or a driving license, for that matter. Also, I'd suggest that every person who buys alcoholic beverages should show an ID (this is the norm here already, you ask for the ID from pretty much everyone). Those people who've been caught using alcohol irresponsibly, should get some kind of chip or something to their ID so whenever they try to buy alcohol, their purchase would be instantly denied. If they are so desperate for booze, they can make their own anyway, but at least the government is doing everything in their power to prevent alcohol-addled murders, assaults, hit-and-runs, etc. And just in case you think I'm taking a piss out of you: I shall quote the Angry Video Game Nerd: "I'm dead - fucking - serious." I'd rather get shot by a pistol 'cause hunting rifles are often chambered with big enough rounds to kill a sizable target such as a deer. They are also more accurate, so in this sense I don't get your point. Why can't we just simply stop hunting and get rid of particularly dangerous type of small arms altogether? This one guy brought a rifle to a restaurant in a bag a few years back and shot his father. I don't know, maybe the restaurant should've had a doorman who checks every client coming in with a gymbag. ETA: of course there are metal detectors, but either option seems financially less than feasible when it comes to smaller restaurants. Personally, I feel safer because our cops carry their Glocks, and there have been instances where it's a good thing they did 'cause pepper-spraying an armed nutcase from a distance would be quite a feat. Of course, they can always turn around, drive 10-50 km to the nearest station, get the guns, and then come back. As for teachers... At this point I trust my and T's gun, or my parent's guns don't go spree-killing my students while I'm at school 30 km away from my home. I can assure you, if I flip out, I will flip out with a kitchen knife just so that I don't 'cause problems to non-crazy gun owners.
I do support background checks to the extent of discovering past criminal behavior/a rap sheet and possible histories of unprovoked violent behavior (because a person shouldn't be punished for having bashed someone's face in if they were just defending themselves/someone else from a wrongful assault). I'd still place far more emphasis on mandatory training courses and regular quals you have to pass to keep your permits. That would have three huge benefits: 1. People would know how to handle their firearms responsibly and safely, i.e. we'd eliminate mistakes stemming from idiocy. 2. The instructors could also educate the gun owners about relevant laws as well as the social and psychological issues regarding the use of firearms (especially in the context of self-defense) to educate people about when the use of deadly force is justified/called for as well as how to prevent needless casualties. 3. The instructors would get to observe the gun owners regularly, and if someone consistently displayed irresponsible or dubious behavior, the instructors could react accordingly and if it's called for, the person's permits could even be revoked. I believe a lot of problems could be eliminated that way, as far as firearms are concerned, especially firearm-related accidents. In addition to that, we have the whole issue of people who develop a desire to kill others for whatever reason. I believe that issue has nothing to do with firearms and all to do with society's relationship with the individual. So many spree killers have displayed anti-social behavior, posted misanthropic material on the internet, and generally expressed their dissatisfaction with the society around them, that it's pretty easy to detect some patterns that repeat in several cases. Call me a pessimist, but fixing those problems would be such a massive undertaking that I'm not holding my breath; in today's profit-oriented atmosphere, I don't doubt for a second that the individual's needs come last when the big shots make their decisions. The way things work today often alienate individuals from their surroundings, and I believe more often than not, the results are anything but positive. That's why I also believe spree killings will continue, no matter what the gun laws are like. At least that's what experience and statistics show. This I don't understand at all. Why would you want to disarm the police when we have armed criminals? What has being a teacher got to do with firearms? How many teachers have started shooting their students? Isn't it usually students who shoot students and teachers? Like @KaTrian, I'd also much rather go face to face with a guy with a pistol than a guy with a hunting rifle. Have you seen the difference between the damage that a 9mm out of a pistol makes vs. a .308 out of a hunting rifle? Hunting rifles are much easier to hit with, they're easier to handle, some have a range of over 1000 yards (so running away wouldn't save you, whereas handguns are accurate to only about 50 yards) etc. Their only weakness is portability, but as experience has shown, it's perfectly possible to smuggle a rifle just about anywhere where you can smuggle a pistol, so it's not that big of a handicap. I'd argue hunting weapons, rifles and shotguns, are far more dangerous than any handgun, so if you want to restrict the most dangerous firearms, start with the long guns. I also support what @KaTrian said about driving and alcohol: If you are caught drunk-driving or even driving irresponsibly while sober, your driver's license should be revoked and your vehicle confiscated. For good; you shouldn't be able to get another license or another vehicle. If you are caught drunk-driving or causing trouble while you're drunk, your right to purchase alcoholic drinks should also be revoked, so no store or bar or restaurant would sell alcohol to you ever again. Sure, people could bypass both security measures with some effort and ingenuity, but at least we'd be making trouble-making a tad more difficult for the assholes who can't drive or drink responsibly. And no, I'm not joking or being sarcastic: if you can't drive responsibly, if you act like a jackass when you're drunk, you shouldn't be allowed to drive or consume alcohol. In fact, I believe we should allow almost everything for the people who act responsibly and don't cause trouble, including concealed carry of firearms, but I also believe we should restrict the rights of those who can't act responsibly and do cause trouble. We should extend those restrictions to just about everything they can cause trouble with, be it firearms, tools, vehicles, alcohol, computers (e.g. deliberately producing viruses, breaking into people's accounts etc), phones (harrassing people by repeated calls, threats made over the phone etc), and so on: if you abuse it, you lose it.
I actually agree with most of what you said. However, I think you misunderstood my 'teacher' quote. I mean they do background checks on anyone who wants to BECOME a teacher or a policeman or somebody who works with children. These same sorts of background checks should also be applied to people who want to own guns. In other words, the authorities should check criminal records and other extensive background personality checks, before issuing a permit. Perhaps make it a law that the permit must be renewed quite often, and the background checks re-run? (I'm not sure about that, maybe that law is already in place.) Make sure the person who is buying the gun WILL be a responsible owner. Even getting a couple of professional people who know you personally to vouch for you would be a start. There was a time when American and British drivers didn't need to have a driving license to buy and drive a car either. However, as things got more complicated and more and more people got hold of the vehicles, the regulations changed. I don't think there are too many people out there who would now support unlicensed driving. I think we need to apply the same principle to gun ownership. That's all I'm asking for here. I also believe that if you're going to own a gun you should be properly trained in the use of it, as you suggested. These shootings aren't happening by accident though—the implication being that these kinds of incidents could be prevented with proper training. These are people with severe personality disorders ...sometimes with extensive police records ...who can just go out and buy a gun and use it however they like. No checks to speak of are in place to weed them out. Training isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to them, except perhaps to make them more deadly and more confident. I don't personally have any love for guns or any desire to own one, especially a handgun. However, if they are properly regulated, I don't object to other people having them. But new strategies must be worked on to keep them from falling into the wrong hands—or as I've said on several occasions on this forum, mass shootings are going to continue happening, and, with copycat culture the way it is these days, will probably continue to escalate in numbers. It's not rocket science. If you want things to change, you have to change them.
@jannert, okay, now I understand and I agree: people who hold any kind of authority (like LEOs, teachers etc) should go through background checks so we don't have a pedophile running a kindergarten or a murderer working as a detective. My point with compulsory and repeated training courses and quals is that not only would they be very beneficial in preventing gun-related accidents, not only would it educate people of laws and psychology (to the point of helping them understand themselves better, because a lot of self-defense -related psychology revolves around self-reflection), it would give the instructors the opportunity to influence the way people look at firearms, the way they see self-defense, to mold their beliefs and understanding regarding these things into a healthy direction. The instructors could and should also keep an eye on the gun owners, get to know them, and see who display antisocial or otherwise alarming behavioral patterns. It wouldn't hurt if the instructors had a psychologist specialized in these matters as a co-instructor in every training session/test. Yet another benefit would be that everyone who owns firearms would essentially be forced to be a part of a community: it would help in the already difficult process of preventing social alienation, it would expose lonely people to social situations, and drag loners out of their homes, away from their computers, and out into the real world. That is, if they want to own/carry firearms. That way owning a firearm would become a link to other people, a community of gun owners, a forum where likeminded people can meet others like them and make new friends. It's not much, but it would be one of the many things that might help in preventing alienation, anti-social behavior, and misanthropy.
Yes, I agree. COMPULSORY training would do all the things you mentioned, including give instructors the ability to perhaps spot the potential troublemakers. However, my point has been ...these kinds of compulsory regulations need to be put in place. So far they are not, and groups like the NRA are opposed to them, and there are enough people in congress who agree with them that any gun control measures keep getting voted down. President Obama is right. The change has to start in the minds of the voters, and there have to be enough of those voters to get the people that represent their point of view elected. I just checked Amazon.com. You can buy handguns there, no bother. No hint of any regulation or check of any kind. You can't buy a bottle of hard liquor from Amazon.com, though. I just checked Amazon.co.uk. You can buy a toy gun from them but not a real one. You CAN buy hard liquor from Amazon.co.uk, but the drinking age is clearly stated, and a 'signature' and proof of age will be required upon delivery. Priorities????
Yeah, well, never said my opinions are particularly popular. But I do believe such compulsory courses and tests would help reduce gun-related problems. Are you sure about that? How could Amazon's sales policies override state legislations, laws, and regulations? I mean, even in Finland, you can purchase firearms online, but the process is exactly the same as in real stores: you have to present your permit to purchase and own that specific type of firearm or there won't be a sale.
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/president-obama-points-to-australian-gun-control-laws-as-an-example-of-why-the-us-should-be-ashamed/story-fncynjr2-1226950336777
I just checked. Have a look yourself. I mean, I haven't gone as far as the checkout, because I don't want the gun, but there doesn't seem to be any warning or any mention of a regulation... I just put 'handgun' into the search box...
If Obama thinks the Australian model works, he truly is an idiot. Like I've already said in a few threads where people have brought up the Australian model, sure, gun-related crime was lowered significantly after the gun ban, but all other kinds of violent crime (assault, murder, robberies, rape etc) skyrocketed. Is that really what we want? I did too, and only found BB guns. Furthermore, I googled Amazon's firearms policy, and found this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200277700 According to that, they don't sell any real firearms, not even antiques, no ammo, no nothing. Just BBs, airsofts etc, i.e. toys. Could you link to an actual firearm sold on Amazon?
It does, but... that's a BB gun. Not a real gun. You don't need a permit for those anywhere in the world (as far as I know). ETA: It even says so in the product description, that it fires BBs, that it requires CO2 cartridges etc. I'm not surprised since if Amazon sold real guns, especially with no questions (or permits) asked, they would be breaking several laws and would be neck-deep in trouble, not to mention going against their own no-firearms -policy.
Well, this is my mistake, for sure. I had no idea that BB guns were sold as handguns! So slap me with a wet noodle...
No worries, happens to the best of us. It looks like the Amazon search engine always offers the closest equivalent of what you search for vs. what they have, so since the closest thing to a handgun they have is a BB, that's what the search for a handgun yields.
Maybe this is to soon, maybe this is in poor taste, and I do apologize if it offends someone. But a little bit of black humour never harmed anyone: I blame those damn violent video games
