GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I would like to point out one last thing.......those who take guns away from the honest citizens are making the non-criminals suffer for the criminals. This is kind of backwards in my opinion, shouldn't the criminals and not the good guys get punished?
I have been in war and I think the games and movies and music are too graphic for anyone. We can't blame machines for actions. We need to blame society.
No one can protect children from such a kook. Everyday we read about a kook in some place in the world doing this. UK has way more murders per capita and yet they ban all guns. Mexico has an almost total ban on firearms yet 50,000 people a year are murdered. Everyday in the Arab world we hear about a kook who blows themselves up and takes 20 or 250 more with him.
Fix the mind and the machines will not be blamed. Like blaming matches for the cause of arson.
those who take guns away from the honest citizens are making the non-criminals suffer for the criminals.
That argument is a logical fallacy and is easily proven to be such by looking at the comparative statistics of first world countries.
The simple fact is that gun control works. You don't have to give up your guns completely. You just need to better regulate them. For examples of how to do that, you can look at the laws of pretty much any other first world country.
UK has way more murders per capita and yet they ban all guns.
England, Wales included, compared to the US: murders per capita in the US about 5.7 to 8.7 times (depending on the year) higher http://gunsandcrime.org/highs.html
EDIT: Forgot this one, numbers on the situation in Australia, compared to the time before their gun control laws were implemented (because of a mass shooting, time to pass the law: 12 days): http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...#ixzz2FNYjNEeX
Last edited by TobiSGD; 12-18-2012 at 05:20 PM.
Reason: Added info
I have been in war and I think the games and movies and music are too graphic for anyone. We can't blame machines for actions. We need to blame society.
No one can protect children from such a kook. Everyday we read about a kook in some place in the world doing this. UK has way more murders per capita and yet they ban all guns. Mexico has an almost total ban on firearms yet 50,000 people a year are murdered. Everyday in the Arab world we hear about a kook who blows themselves up and takes 20 or 250 more with him.
Fix the mind and the machines will not be blamed. Like blaming matches for the cause of arson.
You mentioned 'kook'
Wasn't this man mentally unstable to begin with?
A psychopath or he had paranoid schizophrenia?
A mentally ill individual that is not medicated can be very dangerous!
"Kook" goes back to mental health and overall morality of the public I'd think. It is very very hard to predict what a kook might do or when. Would the guy have used other means? Dunno.
I still feel that part of the deal is a lifetime of violent images on games and movies and music. The lack of outlet for violent urges, the lack of a moral center and general honesty. All of that means something to a sane person but little to a crazy one.
Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning private ownership of handguns almost completely.
That argument is a logical fallacy and is easily proven to be such by looking at the comparative statistics of first world countries.
So, are you saying that just because some criminal goes to a school and shoots some kids, that we should take away or severely curtail the rights of an honest citizen that uses his gun for self defense??????
Quote:
The simple fact is that gun control works. You don't have to give up your guns completely. You just need to better regulate them. For examples of how to do that, you can look at the laws of pretty much any other first world country.
Does it? We already have some pretty hefty restrictions here in the US. Just to buy a gun, they examine your criminal record and you have to wait a certain period of time, this is for the type of firearms used in most crimes. Most of the criminals in our town have purchased their guns illegally, they have been stolen or traded between the criminals themselves. If severe gun control was enforced, the criminals would still have guns. Look at Mexico. And if they didn't have guns they would have knives, machetes, axes, ropes etc. The best way to keep people safe is to let the honest citizens have their guns, so that they can defend themselves and others from the criminals. Also, what would prevent somebody buying a gun legally and then giving it somebody illegally, this is what happened at Columbine.
Does it? We already have some pretty hefty restrictions here in the US. Just to buy a gun, they examine your criminal record and you have to wait a certain period of time, this is for the type of firearms used in most crimes. Most of the criminals in our town have purchased their guns illegally, they have been stolen or traded between the criminals themselves. If severe gun control was enforced, the criminals would still have guns.
Australia: Gun control laws, implemented because the mass shooting in Port Arthur, 1996
Number of mass shootings in the 15 years before gun control laws: 13
Number of mass shootings after gun control laws: 0
Gun related homicides down by 59%
Gun related suicides down by 65%
A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them.[3] This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, the armed forces, or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws,[4] where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents;[5] given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law.
The private sale of "non-military" firearms, however, is unregulated, and while these firearms are supposed to be registered with the government, in practice this is widely ignored. Laws dealing with the possession of "non-military" firearms are left to the states. Generally, "non-military" firearms may be kept in the home, but a license is required to carry them outside the home. President Felipe Calderón has recently called attention to the alleged problem of the smuggling of guns from the United States into Mexico, guns which are easily available both legally and illegally in the United States, and has called for increased cooperation from the United States to stop this illegal weapons trafficking.[71][72] In the five years prior to 2012, over two-thirds of illegal firearms seized in Mexico that could be traced to a source, were traced back to the United States of America.
Since most mass-shootings are carried out with legally-owned guns, the argument "we (honest people) have to have guns to defend ourselves against criminals" is irrelevant in this case. The weapons Lanza used (Bushmaster AR15 rifle, Glock and Sig-Sauer pistols) were legally owned by his mother (his first victim).
Anybody who wants to own guns should undergo thorough psychological testing first, no matter what the US Constitution says.
But this case also illustrates that the weapons may be available to others who are not the reigistered/vetted owner. Also, the press is tending to bring up the mental health angle -I'd argue that many murders are comitted by pretty 'normal' people who would not stand out in any screening process. One must only remember the last time one said something in anger and later regretted it, to have an idea of how close a really 'normal' person might be to carrying out such a crime. Even worse, when someone else has started such a scene, the reaction of regular folks who are near and armed are likely to be very unpredictable and not well-reasoned. Should you kill this guy simply because he has a gun in his hand? What if it's a toy gun?
Psychological screening is a good idea, but a normal sane person can go cuckoo in the future. Gun control is a very complex issue with many variables and those who were denied to have guns will get them from the black market. My feelings on guns is what many have heard.
In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they've done this -- it began, I think, in 2006 -- there's been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn't happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.
Since most mass-shootings are carried out with legally-owned guns, the argument "we (honest people) have to have guns to defend ourselves against criminals" is irrelevant in this case. The weapons Lanza used (Bushmaster AR15 rifle, Glock and Sig-Sauer pistols) were legally owned by his mother (his first victim).
Anybody who wants to own guns should undergo thorough psychological testing first, no matter what the US Constitution says.
And surprise! they make it so if you want to own a gun you must be nuts. Amazing how that happens.
What do you mean the argument to defend yourself against criminals is irrelevant? It's totally relevant. As primitive and savage as you believe the U.S. to be we have laws that prohibit shootings. Why weren't these followed? Do you think this nut job cared he was breaking the law?
And before you go to the lame utopian dream of "what if guns weren't available?", they are there are millions possibly a billion of them in the US. Pandora's box is opened there isn't a way to shove everything back in.
Last edited by Blinker_Fluid; 12-19-2012 at 03:03 PM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
