Forums > Personal > Could better gun laws have prevented this?

forum rss feed
Author

magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Oct 06, 19:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In case you aren't aware, there was a horrific scene at an Amish school in Pennsylvania where a guy went in armed to the teeth and then some, and killed 5 young girls ages 7 to 13.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_re_us/amish_school_shooting

I was reading some of the points of discussion about this, and one person simply said -

We need stricter gun laws. <EOM>

Someone else replied with this - "How would more laws stop criminals, since criminals do not purchase there guns from a guns store, they buy them on the street from other criminals. In my NRA member opinion, I have no problem with a 24 hour waiting period and background check, but any law that prevents me from owning will not stand."

Sweet, ain't he?

They say this bastard who killed those 5 young girls didn't have a criminal record and bought his weapons legally. So... going according to the above guy's comment, I can't help but wonder what waiting 24 hours and submitting to a background check would have done for these kids.

Stricter guns laws? Outlaw guns completely? What? In your opinion, what's the answer here?



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Oct 06, 21:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

George Harrison said something like : The world would be a better place if everyone who had a gun went and shot themselves.

It's like this..... I know a couple of people who own guns (in rural areas) and who have used 'em, and I certainly don't wish death on them. But - ol' George was pretty much right on the money with that statement. A little like that other one 'there will be world peace when all the humans are dead'.

There were massacres before guns were invented; but you know, that's got nothing to do with gun violence. The fact is, it's too fucking easy to get a gun. And the *kind* of guns they continue to manufacture, and to sell.... is just ridiculous. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT KIND OF FIREPOWER, for recreation, for hunting, or self defence. Isn't it enough to just put a really freakin' strong tranquiliser in the bullet?

It is absolutely foolish behaviour - and the worst proponents are those ones that live in bunkers and fly Confederacy flags... I think the bunker busters should be aimed at THESE guys instead.

Nah, live and let live.... I'm just absolutely sick to death of hearing that jackasses are robbing other people of their lives when they obviously haven't got a clue how to run their own. Couldn't they skip the senseless murder bit, and go straight to the suicide? It's a much nicer way to end things.

I did wonder actually - since it's a frugal Amish town, who phoned for help? My brother reminded me they only lived a mile out of town, so I suppose it was a fortunate case where they could just 'run' for help.

Jesus... fuck you, rifle association.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
yamaha user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 314 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Oct 06, 22:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm not so sure that further restricting guns would have avoided this mans' venting. It's been reported that this was the result of a twenty year old gruge against girls stemming from a molestation incident of some sort. That would mean that the man was twelve y.o. or so, but nontheless. If the man wanted to take out a handfull of girls without a gun, he could have easily driven to Intercourse and mowed down a group of girls on a school trip with his pickup.

Except in very rare conditions, Amish schools are located within close proximity of a phone. Between English neighbors, businesses, or a passing motorist, it would take just a few minutes for a 911 call to be made. I would expect to hear of forthcoming legislation concerning the installation of an emergency phone in every school. I think the Amish religious leaders have enough sence to see the benifit of that kind of link to the outside.

Just for reference, I have lived near Amish country for my entire life. I now pass right through when driving between school and home. These events are quite shocking to me.

Mike

user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 01:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In our free liberal state, citizens should be granted full negative freedoms, and therefore government can only restrict actions which infringe upon the rights of others. Like gay marriage, owning a gun restricts the rights of no one.

It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom.

Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.

Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue.

A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 03:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

In our free liberal state, citizens should be granted full negative freedoms, and therefore government can only restrict actions which infringe upon the rights of others. Like gay marriage, owning a gun restricts the rights of no one.

It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom.

Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.

Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue.

A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.


I can't agree with you Musicman... I think your post is highly ignorant. The figures tell us that legalizing firearms causes thousands of deaths. In the US, 38.000 people die of murder, accidents or suicide with guns while 'only' a few thousand die of firearm accidents in Europe. And is Europe less liberal? I dare to say that we are even more liberal than the US.

You compare the use of firearms with driving cars. Well, we all know that some cars are important for the current economy. People need to be mobile. But what are the arguments for owning guns? I agree that a hunter should be able to have one, same as police officers. But people like you and me? You're probably going to say "self defence"... but realise that you need a gun for self defence, because your neighbour has one as well.

To come back to the question asked in the topic title. "Could better gun laws have prevented this?"... It's impossible to prevent these kind of idiots to do such terrible things. But you can make things harder for those idiots. So in the end I'm sure you save lives with it.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
The Fairy King user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Fairy King
Deity: 8686 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 03:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Watch Bowling for Columbine.


Killed by drones.
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 03:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Can you explain why?


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 03:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Lol, good one Burak! :D


"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 03:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Can you explain why?


It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school


"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 03:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Can you explain why?


It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school


Well.. culture and history plays a big role as well. I mean, America has quite a violent history. Though I haven't seen the movie/documentary.. I guess I should do that.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
MDNA user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 06:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Do that The Miracle.
I think you will be surprised.

As for violent history

Germany - responsable for one of the largest genocides in history.

England/UK - held an empire at the point of a gun. watch Gandi for some of their graetest moments.

Violent history is no excuse or explanaition for this. The fact is that the US is the modern world country that counts the highest gun related deaths in a non war environment.
The reason ? In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).

The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 07:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

MDNA wrote:


In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).


That's what I meant with culture.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 07:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yamaha wrote:

It's been reported that this was the result of a twenty year old gruge against girls stemming from a molestation incident of some sort. That would mean that the man was twelve y.o. or so, but nontheless.


Sad thing is, the twenty year old event that occurred was not him being molested but rather HIM molesting two young female family members.

His explanation for his current actions was that he'd had dreams recently, and the need to do it again was very strong. He went into that school with two tubes of KY lube, flex cuffs and 10" boards with I-bolts at the ends. You figure it out.

So in the end, he intended to kill them because... what? They tempted him? They MADE him do it? He couldn't live with himself and his thoughts so he tied up 10 young girls and shot them execution style? If he didn't have a gun and just plowed them down, it would have been anticlimactic for him. The guns gave him the courage. And he didn't have just one gun, he went in there prepared for a 'long siege'.

So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?

Musicman - I understand your post and on the surface agree, but I cannot get the point or reason for the average person to own a gun. Why is that 'right' even still on the books, so to speak? It's an archaic right that no longer serves a legitimate purpose.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 07:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

If he didn't have a gun and just plowed them down, it would have been anticlimactic for him. The guns gave him the courage. And he didn't have just one gun, he went in there prepared for a 'long siege'.

So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?


Exactly... This is also why there are more suicides in the US. Killing yourself with a gun is easier than taking pills or jump in front of a train. It's fast, painless but also quite often impulsive.

That's why I stick with my point... I'm not sure if it would have prevented this case, but it will save many lives.



I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
Haystacks Calhoun II user not visiting Queenzone.com
Haystacks Calhoun II
Bohemian: 930 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 09:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No. There are a myriad of gun laws on the books today.

Think about it. If someone is goinog to break the law, do you think for a second that they are worried about gun laws?

If the teacher was packing heat, this would have been avoided. I know that the knee jerk reaction from feel-good folks is to blame guns, blame gun laws, but this nut job had a gun, illegally mind you, and killed these kids, planned the whole thing out for a week in advance, as he knew he could do it due to the lack of security at the school.

The only way this oculd have been avoided would have been for the teacher to be packing.


The Golden Gate Bridge should have a long bungee cord for people who aren’t quite ready to commit suicide but want to get in a little practice.
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 09:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Haystacks Calhounski wrote:


I know that the knee jerk reaction from feel-good folks is to blame guns, blame gun laws, but this nut job had a gun, illegally mind you, and killed these kids, planned the whole thing out for a week in advance, as he knew he could do it due to the lack of security at the school.


You're right, he did plan it out in advance - that's clear by his 'shopping list'. But I have to correct you - his weapons were not purchased illegally. According to the sheriff during the press conference, his weapons were legally obtained. Therein lies the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, there are laws on the books already. So, then, it should be fair to say either they're not being enforced or they need to be revisited. However, with all the $trength behind the NRA, I doubt tougher laws would stand a chance.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



eenaweena. user not visiting Queenzone.com
eenaweena.
Deity: 2355 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 09:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i don't think better laws will prevent more casualties, because people still break laws. change should start within people themselves. if they go drunk and start shooting everybody, then there's a lack of discipline. if they just shoot at foreginers for no reason, then they lack open-mindedness.

iGSM user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5001 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 09:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Why is that Amendment still in the Constitution? Worried the King of England is going to come into your house and push you around?*



*Simpsons quote


...this kettle is boiling over...

...one dump...one turd...two tits...John Deacon...

...one prawn...one shrimp...one clam...one chicken!
AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 09:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

There is no way this tragedy could have been prevented. Like it was brought up before, this guy had no criminal record, so he could have purchased the gun legally. Guns don't kill people in and of themselves...people use guns to kill people. Taking away those guns isn't going to stop people from snapping and killing people, it's just going to change the method they use to kill the person. Unless you take everyone who has a gun and put them through such heavy duty testing that you can determine that under no circumstances would they ever loose their sanity and go postal, more laws don't help. I've got two examples that prove this case.
1) In the state of Michigan, it is now legal to carry a concealed weapon. You have to get a permit and take a training course, and there are limits to what guns you can carry, but once you are certified you can carry a concealed weapon without being arrested. Anti-gun activists claimed that this would lead to a huge growth not only in the crime rate, but in the number of gun deaths in the state. Surprise! No increase! There is actually a decrease out there, because if you have a city like Detroit where there is a lot of crime and it's legal for you to carry guns, the criminals are going to think twice, because they don't know who has one. Doesn't stop all crime, granted. But it did lead to a decrease in gun deaths and violent crime comitted with a firearm.
2) In Japan, they have outlawed guns completely. However, they have the same murder rate per capita as the US; their murders are just comitted with knives instead. If someone really wants to kill someone, taking a gun away won't make them stop. They'll just find another method to accomplish that goal.
Remember, when the anti-gun people start throwing numbers out there about the number of murders, they are counting all of them, not just the ones that were comitted with guns.


Formerly MHG
iGSM user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5001 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Oct 06, 09:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I want to steal your sexy brain one day.


...this kettle is boiling over...

...one dump...one turd...two tits...John Deacon...

...one prawn...one shrimp...one clam...one chicken!