Gunman kills self at Colorado high school; two other students shot

[Guest shiloh357]

"Hey, a couple of people were shot but as long as it wasn't a full on massacre." I'd rather people, especially children were not shot in the first place.

 

Yeah, we would all prefer that, as well.   But no amount of gun control will prevent these shootings.  You can't stop a shooting until the shooter starts shooting.  It's not like we can lock someone up because they think they might shoot someone.  All you can do is prepare and respond quick enough to save as many lives as possible.  In this case, had the armed guard not been present, think of how many people would have died at Arapahoe.

 

 

Gun control doesn't work...unless you look at all the other countries that have it and their lack of gun violence.

 

Yeah, but if you want to kill someone there are numerous ways massacre people without guns.  Guns aren't the problem. Gun ownership isn't the problem.

 

 

I said better access to mental health and intelligent gun control.

 

 

The cities in the US that have the strictest gun control laws have incredible problems with gun violence and other types of violence as well.  Chicago is one example.   As far as mental health, the shooter at Arapahoe wasn't mentally ill.  He was very angry adn seeking revenge. But he was not mentally deranged.   Guns are regulated in the US but people obtain guns illegally and no amount of gun control is going to fix that.  Gun control only works on law-abiding citizens.  It won't work with people who don't intend to keep the laws in the first place.

 

 

 

[JustinM]

Quote MsRational:  "I did read the articles and my statement was no massacre was PREVENTED by a "good guy with a gun".

 

This makes no sense in how you are trying to frame it.  You are basically saying, that an armed person that intervenes to stop a massacre didn't stop a massacre because a massacre didn't happen because someone intervened and stopped it.

 

So, what, in your mind, is considered a massacre?  1 person being killed, 2. . .3. . .4. . . ? 

 

If you mean to say that massacres occur because no one is there to intervene or stop them, then yes, some massacres happen because no one that has the capability to intervene, is present, willing, or able to intervene, or respond in a timeframe that would have prevented the casualties from building up.  But, that is not a good example of irresponsible gun posession, it's an example of a lack of responsible gun posession and criminal misuse of a firearm.  And as has been argued time and time again, just about anything can be unlawfully misused as a lethal weapon.

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13946-china-school-knife-massacre-why-no-media-coverage

 

This pretty much refutes most of the data you've submitted in this thread.  Be sure to read the actual source material too.  Most of the vital statistics came from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics.

 

In the case of Arapahoe.  This first responder begins to intervene after he hears gunshots, he gets there 80 seconds later and confronts the shooter.  But, he didn't have to do anything but demonstrate a capability and willingness to use lethal force to stop the assailant.  Instead of shooting it out, or surrendering to the authorities, the assailant chose to end the assault by taking his own life.  Massacre prevented.

[The_Patriot21]

I did read the articles and my statement was no massacre was PREVENTED by a "good guy with a gun".

 

Shooting someone as they already start blowing people away isn't prevention it is intervention. Now perhaps you'd rather people take one for the team but I am interested in prevention not intervention.

 

Even if these media outlets are for gun control...so what? That is their right as free citizens and journalists. You don't have the right to demand that only your voice is heard in a discussion. If you are opposed to any and all gun control, even sane laws that keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and irresponsible than there is no real discussion to be had is there?

I would say they were very much prevented. Sure a couple people got hurt but it wasn't a mass shooting. A mass shooting there's no one to shoot back. Let's be rational here gun control laws don't work. No matter how many laws you make. Look at new town. The style weapon the kid had was already illegal in that state and yet he still got one. gun control laws won't stop shootings it will just have the opposite effect-more shootings because there's fewer people to shoot back.

 

"Hey, a couple of people were shot but as long as it wasn't a full on massacre." I'd rather people, especially children were not shot in the first place.

 

Gun control doesn't work...unless you look at all the other countries that have it and their lack of gun violence.

 

I said better access to mental health and intelligent gun control. You act as if I said to just ban all firearms when I clearly stated I own guns myself. I am quite content for responsible people to own whatever they like with as little hassle as possible.

Question-who decides who is responsible? Problem is the government is power hungry-power corrupts that is biblical. And we already have to many gun laws controlling who can and cannot have them-and as you can see they don't work either. Further gun laws won't "prevent" massacres, even using your unrational definition of the word.

[MrsRational]

This makes no sense in how you are trying to frame it.  You are basically saying, that an armed person that intervenes to stop a massacre didn't stop a massacre because a massacre didn't happen because someone intervened and stopped it.

 

So, what, in your mind, is considered a massacre?  1 person being killed, 2. . .3. . .4. . . ? 

 

If you mean to say that massacres occur because no one is there to intervene or stop them, then yes, some massacres happen because no one that has the capability to intervene, is present, willing, or able to intervene, or respond in a time frame that would have prevented the casualties from building up.  But, that is not a good example of irresponsible gun possession, it's an example of a lack of responsible gun possession and criminal misuse of a firearm.  And as has been argued time and time again, just about anything can be unlawfully misused as a lethal weapon.

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13946-china-school-knife-massacre-why-no-media-coverage

 

This pretty much refutes most of the data you've submitted in this thread.  Be sure to read the actual source material too.  Most of the vital statistics came from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics.

 

In the case of Arapahoe.  This first responder begins to intervene after he hears gunshots, he gets there 80 seconds later and confronts the shooter.  But, he didn't have to do anything but demonstrate a capability and willingness to use lethal force to stop the assailant.  Instead of shooting it out, or surrendering to the authorities, the assailant chose to end the assault by taking his own life.  Massacre prevented.

 

I um...never...cited any data... I merely deconstructed the links from Shiloh.

 

I didn't say gun control would end violence so why argue as if I did? Is it easier to counter a point someone never made?

 

You will notice that there were zero deaths in that knife attack. This is because it is very difficult to actually stab a person to death, where shooting someone is highly likely to be fatal. Since a gun shoots about a bullet a second depending on several factors that 80 seconds is a lot more lethal than had he been brandishing a knife.

 

"But, that is not a good example of irresponsible gun possession, it's an example of a lack of responsible gun possession and criminal misuse of a firearm. "

 

Does that sentence seriously make sense to you?

 

Question-who decides who is responsible? Problem is the government is power hungry-power corrupts that is biblical. And we already have too many gun laws controlling who can and cannot have them-and as you can see they don't work either. Further gun laws won't "prevent" massacres, even using your IRrational definition of the word.

The government is not some monolithic hive mind, it's an organization filled with people who's job is to administer public duties. Appeals to paranoid or conspiracy laden beliefs don't move me. The U.S. has by far the loosest and most loophole laden gun laws in the industrialized world. You think you still have "too many laws"? Seriously? Are you worried Children and pets still can't buy a gun?

[Guest shiloh357]

I um...never...cited any data... I merely deconstructed the links from Shiloh.

 

No, you didn't.   You mocked and tried to misrepresent the data in the links I provided.  You certainly didn't deconstruct anything.  None of your responses to my links amounted to any kind of intelligent refutation of your bogus claim that there was no evidence to support gun violence being affected by violent media.  I demonstrated your claim to be false.

 

I didn't say gun control would end violence so why argue as if I did? Is it easier to counter a point someone never made?

 

Uh, you cited other countries with gun control and their "complete lack" of gun violence.   So yeah, you have made the point that gun control will stop gun violence.

 

You will notice that there were zero deaths in that knife attack. This is because it is very difficult to actually stab a person to death, where shooting someone is highly likely to be fatal. Since a gun shoots about a bullet a second depending on several factors that 80 seconds is a lot more lethal than had he been brandishing a knife.

 

 

Ah but the article says that China has had a large number of stabbing massacres despite having strict gun control laws.  Gun control laws don't prevent violence.  If a person wants to go on killing spree, they have a number of options available to them.

 

Notice the statistics offered by the US Justice Dept. Bureau of Justice:  

 

 82,500 crimes across the nation are stopped by law-abiding gun owners annually, while only about 270 incidents involve the law-abiding citizen killing the criminal perpetrator (police also kill an average of 400 violent criminal suspects annually). The BJS also noted that law-abiding citizens were also far less likely to be injured in crimes while using firearms defending themselves. “A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.” 

 

And

 

Professor John R. Lott, interviewed on CNN after the Newtown massacre, noted,

Every place in the world that we have crime data, both before and after a gun ban has gone into effect, every single place has seen an increase in murders after the ban has been put in place. And many times it's been a several-fold or more increase. And there's a simple reason for that, and that is, when you ban guns, it's basically the most-law-abiding citizens who turn in their guns, not the criminals. And rather than making it more difficult for criminals to commit crime, you actually make it easier.

 

 

"But, that is not a good example of irresponsible gun possession, it's an example of a lack of responsible gun possession and criminal misuse of a firearm. "

 

Does that sentence seriously make sense to you?

 

The point is that the usual arguments about irresponsible gun possession doesn't work with the Arapahoe shooter.  The guns were owned legally and the shooter wasn't deranged or mentally ill.   The shooter didn't fit the usual profile the media asserts as the reason for gun violence.  This is an example of a criminal misuse of a firearm by a sane person who is simply angry.    I am sure a person with your education knew what he is saying, but since you can't refute it, you prefer to mock the wording of the sentence.

 

The government is not some monolithic hive mind, it's an organization filled with people who's job is to administer public duties. Appeals to paranoid or conspiracy laden beliefs don't move me. The U.S. has by far the loosest and most loophole laden gun laws in the industrialized world. You think you still have "too many laws"? Seriously? Are you worried Children and pets still can't buy a gun?

 

Well when we are talking about strict control what needs to be kept in mind is that the "gun control" enacted by some other countries isn't gun control at all.  It the ban of all private owhership of guns with only the most narrow of exceptions, such as in England.   That isn't gun "control."   Gun control amounts to regulating freedom.  But the strict gun laws of other countries, don't regulate freedom, they simply eliminate freedom.

[JustinM]

Quote me:  "But, that is not a good example of irresponsible gun possession, it's an example of a lack of responsible gun possession and criminal misuse of a firearm. "

 

I admit I could have worded that better.  What I intended to say was, the assailant(s) in this case and other cases aren't being irresponsible with guns.  They are unlawfully using them against vulnerable people, and that this happens because people who are responsible and use guns lawfully aren't present, willing, or capable of intervening to stop the assailants.

 

Massacres happen because no one is there, willing, or able to intervene. 

 

Based on the statistics in that article, you are more likely to be killed by a cop than an armed citizen.  There are more armed citizens in the US than LEP.  (Law Enforcement Personnel) In 2004, there was about 675,734 LEP in the US and est. 52 million gun owners in the US.  Based on the numbers below, you are 73 times more likely to be killed by LEP than an armed citizen.

 

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/index.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America#slide=6&article=How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

[JustinM]

Do you have any examples of societies with less violent media having lower violent crime rates?

Good point Burning_Ember.  The GTA series, Halo series, Call of Duty series, Battle Field series, are accessible and played worldwide.  Even moreso now that PC's are as good as or better than consoles (Playstation, XBOX, Wii).

[JustinM]

Quote MsRational:  "One quarter of Canadians own firearms and gun violence here isn't nearly the level it is in the U.S. due to mostly intelligent  gun control."

 

About 45% of all households in the US posess some kind of firearm.  We are fast approaching 300 million guns in the US, which sounds like overkill, but people collect guns, and in all practicality, it makes sense for people to have 4 or more firearms. 

 

22:  Guns and ammo are pretty cheap, which makes this ideal for target practice and training, whether long gun or hand gun.

Shotgun:  Home defense, it's much safer, because buckshot doesn't travel through walls like slugs and magnums do.  And is also great for hunting and is necessary for game fowl and smaller animals.

Rifle:  Hunting, and killing aggressive/rabid animals/predators.

Handgun:  Personal defense and while hunting.  A sidearm is much more practical to take down a wild animal that is attacking you than using a rifle.  Almost all hunters carry sidearms with them while they are hunting.

All of these weapons are used by enthusiasts for collecting and competition/sport.

 

Like we've stated time and time again.  There is no relation to the amount of weapons available with the amount of gun crimes committed.*

 

"Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-gun-homicides-the-gap-between-perception-and-reality-1.1858107

 

If you want to find a significant contribution to the gun violence in the US, look to the south.  Mexico has 3 times the number of gun related homicides than the US.  And 56% of all illegal immigration is from Mexico.  Most gun related homicides stem from drug/gang violence.

[Guest shiloh357]

It should also be pointed out that Chicago, IL had a ban on all handguns for 30 years, and it did nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens and enable criminals who committed rampant gun violence.   Stricter gun control laws only are only effective on people who obey the law.  They do nothing to stem the tide where criminal gun use is concerned.

[MrsRational]

Quote me:  "But, that is not a good example of irresponsible gun possession, it's an example of a lack of responsible gun possession and criminal misuse of a firearm. "

 

I admit I could have worded that better.  What I intended to say was, the assailant(s) in this case and other cases aren't being irresponsible with guns.  They are unlawfully using them against vulnerable people, and that this happens because people who are responsible and use guns lawfully aren't present, willing, or capable of intervening to stop the assailants.

 

Massacres happen because no one is there, willing, or able to intervene. 

 

Based on the statistics in that article, you are more likely to be killed by a cop than an armed citizen.  There are more armed citizens in the US than LEP.  (Law Enforcement Personnel) In 2004, there was about 675,734 LEP in the US and est. 52 million gun owners in the US.  Based on the numbers below, you are 73 times more likely to be killed by LEP than an armed citizen.

 

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/index.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America#slide=6&article=How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

 

So pointing a gun at someone isn't irresponsible? You aren't really improving your argument.

 

 

You seem to be confusing PREvention with INTERvention. Address my actual arguments or I will not continue this discussion with you. I am discussing making sure things don't happen to start with, not making sure someone is there to blow a criminal out of his shoes before too many get shot.

 

pre·vent

priˈvent

verb

• Keep (something) from happening or arising.

  "action must be taken to prevent further accidents"

   

in·ter·vene

ˌintərˈvēn

verb

verb: intervene; 3rd person present: intervenes; past tense: intervened; past participle: intervened; gerund or present participle: intervening

• Come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.

  "he acted outside his authority when he intervened in the dispute"

   

Like we've stated time and time again.  There is no relation to the amount of weapons available with the amount of gun crimes committed.*

 

"Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-gun-homicides-the-gap-between-perception-and-reality-1.1858107

 

If you want to find a significant contribution to the gun violence in the US, look to the south.  Mexico has 3 times the number of gun related homicides than the US.  And 56% of all illegal immigration is from Mexico.  Most gun related homicides stem from drug/gang violence.

And as I have stated time and again on this forum, repeating your argument over and over doesn't make it true. I also do not look at Wikipedia as evidence, since it is a highly unreliable source. I also do not see how citing a CBC opinion piece proves or refutes anything. I'm a data person so show me data, not websites that might sort of agree with your views.