14 year old Ohio student kills himself and injures others

[Undesired Walrus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038532.stm

I don't really have an opinion on gun control, nor much knowledge on if it works, but when you see things like this you have to ask, are humans competent enough to own a gun?

I'm perplexed as to why humans, with a history of crap behaviour, are entrusted with these weapons.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I grew up with guns in the house, along with numerous friends who's parents also had guns. I was taught to respect guns and to use them properly. I knew it would have been stupid to take one to school. I never did. Neither did any of my friends. I never had the urge to shoot a person with one of my dad's guns. Neither did my friends.

Gun related deaths have become a very big problem in the US. Senseless killings at schools are on the rise.

Is it that there are more people, so the chances are greater that something like this occurs, or are there more crimes like this per capita?

I don't think guns are the problem, but they are exacerbating it.

The cause of the problem is much more deeply rooted in American culture, and until that root cause is addressed, shootings like this will continue.

 

[Bikewer]

Unfortunately, these things get into the public consciousness, and then disturbed individuals see them as attractive.

There were incidents of mass killings prior to Charles Stuart Whitman (the Texas Tower), but they were not well publicized. However, that incident made it onto live news, and afterwards these incidents became if not common, at least well known.
Columbine was extremely affecting to a wide variety of disaffected students, who no doubt continue to see the two lads as hero (or martyr) figures.

The possibility of such persons having access to firearms is real, and not likely to be resolved in a nation with such a long history of firearm ownership.

 

[fishbob]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038532.stm

I don't really have an opinion on gun control, nor much knowledge on if it works, but when you see things like this you have to ask, are humans competent enough to own a gun?

I'm perplexed as to why humans, with a history of crap behaviour, are entrusted with these weapons.

You understand that a 'weapon' is a specialized tool?
Humans are tool makers.
Humans are idiots.
What do you expect?

 

[fuelair]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038532.stm

I don't really have an opinion on gun control, nor much knowledge on if it works, but when you see things like this you have to ask, are humans competent enough to own a gun?

I'm perplexed as to why humans, with a history of crap behaviour, are entrusted with these weapons.

Damn big shame about the others!!!

(Fuelair's Theory of Problems: You have a perfect right to have problems, nothing about that includes any suggestion of any right to take them out on others.)

 

[NYCEMT86]

I just want everyone to know that I am a full supporter of the NRA and have my hunting license.

I grew up with guns in the house, along with numerous friends who's parents also had guns. I was taught to respect guns and to use them properly. I knew it would have been stupid to take one to school. I never did. Neither did any of my friends. I never had the urge to shoot a person with one of my dad's guns. Neither did my friends.

Same here. I started shooting when I was 12 and I was 16 when I first went hunting, but it goes beyond peer pressure.

Gun related deaths have become a very big problem in the US. Senseless killings at schools are on the rise.

I can't argue with you on the Gun related deaths, but however School shootings are not on the rise.

Is it that there are more people, so the chances are greater that something like this occurs, or are there more crimes like this per capita?

I would say neither, NYC-Metropolitan area has 19 Million residents. In 2006 there were 921 murders overall and 4.8 per 100,000 capita

I don't think guns are the problem, but they are exacerbating it.

No, Guns aren't the issue, but the lack of responsibility is. Illegal guns are a major issue as well as the neglect to lock up their guns.

The cause of the problem is much more deeply rooted in American culture, and until that root cause is addressed, shootings like this will continue.

I am 50/50 on this, particularly towards the American Culture statement. I have seen my fair share of violent movies, played violent games, and listened to violent music. I never once have killed anybody or ever wanted to kill anybody. I think its more psychological and the ability to access weapons. These kids want to kill, they don't care about anything else. They believe that this will resolve everything, but some do it for the fame as well, i.e. Virginia Tech Shooter. Since there is no profile to go by or standards its harder to pick out the kids who need help and should get it before an incident like this happens again. Maybe mommy didn't hug them enough when they were a kid?

 

[Blue Mountain]

I would say neither, NYC-Metropolitan area has 19 Million residents. In 2006 there were 921 murders overall and 4.8 per 100,000 capita

In 2004, the province of Ontario (2004 population 12.4 million) had 178 murders (source), for a rate of 1.4 per 100,000--1/3 that of New York City and area. Care to speculate on reasons for the difference?

 

[bigred]

No, Guns aren't the issue, but the lack of responsibility is. Illegal guns are a major issue as well as the neglect to lock up their guns.

I agree w/everything said on this thread up to this. BOTH guns and lack of responsibility (general human stupidity) are the issue. You don't seriously think if we took away guns that the same # of killings would happen with knives or some other such, I would hope. The way guns make attacks/killings so easy is most certainly a HUGE part of the problem.

 

[Bob Klase]

In 2004, the province of Ontario (2004 population 12.4 million) had 178 murders, for a rate of 1.4 per 100,000--1/3 that of New York City and area. Care to speculate on reasons for the difference?

I'll go out on a limb and speculate wildly on one possible reason:

http://saontario.tripod.com/id67.htm

Ontario is Canada's second largest province, covering more than one million square kilometres (415,000 square miles) - an area larger than France and Spain combined.

Care to speculate on how many square miles the 19,000,000 in New York are packed into? Think that could have any effect at all on crime rates?

 

[Big Les]

Ready access seems to be the key to these spree shootings, if the lack of similar since Dunblane and the subsequent handgun ban in the UK is significant. Disturbed people may find it much easier to fantasise, pre-plan and to carry out an attack when they know they have that ready access to a psychologically intimidating and especially-lethal weapon (i.e. semi-auto guns) that they can use from a bit of a distance, and be somewhat removed from the killing (at least in their imagination). You don't seem to get the same sort of thing with edged weapons, and the results are always going to be less bloody (need to get closer, need some skill, risk being overpowered etc).

That theory doesn't account for sniper-style attacks, but then we don't tend to get those anyway in the UK. I also wonder why shotguns aren't used instead, but then I suppose the fear of being overpowered whilst reloading would be rather greater, and to make them an effective indoor weapon you need to cut them down, which is an overtly illegal and pre-planned act that I suspect your "average" gun-toting loon would rather not bother with.

All speculation of course. I would rather we still had the ability to buy and shoot handguns here, but I acknowledge that having that privilege is dependent upon the safety of others. Cars kill people, but they are also necessary in modern life. Handguns are not, so (here) the government, with overwhelming public support, chose to ban them. I might disagree with this move (the evidence that it might prevent shootings in future was limited at the time IMO), but I increasingly accept it after the fact, as long as the move is borne out by a lack of similar shootings. You could probably even argue the case just on accidental deaths and suicides (ie guns not necessary, X many people dying as a result of ownership - legislation changes necessary).

But banning them (might have) worked in the UK, I can't see the same applying to the US, for various reasons.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

If you could magically make every gun disappear in an instant, you would prevent a lot of innocent people from getting shot, but you'd be left with teenage kids and young adults who are willing to kill other people because of their own problems.

Whatever it is that is enabling these individuals to cross the line and take a gun and start shooting people indiscriminately has to be addressed and fixed, or society as a whole will continue to suffer with or without guns.

 

[Big Les]

Agreed, but readily-accessible guns are an "enabler". People don't AFAIK go on the same sort of multiple death and serious injury killing sprees with swords, knives, broom-handles or what-have-you. This I think is partly because guns are psychologically (to people like that) attractive as (perceived) instant and remote takers of lives. They are far more effective in untrained hands at achieving this end, and case disproportionately high casualties and deaths (compared to other weapons). It's also possible with legally held guns to conduct an externally normal, law-abiding existence, until cumulative problems result in the urge to kill. Bingo, you have the perfect tool right there at hand to do this.

I'm playing devil's advocate in a way, because personally I'm pro-gun. In the scheme of things people with legal access to guns killing other people is a tiny, tiny problem, but one that attracts a lot of attention, and one that can be seen as unnecessary (semi-auto weapons being primarily used for recreation). A comparison could be made with smoking, which is far more deleterious an activity, but because it's widespread and socially accepted, it's taking a long time for opponents to eradicate. The same is true of US gun ownership, which is both historically acceptable and very widespread. Whereas in the UK, the handgun (and semi-auto rifle/shotgun) shooting community was small (40,000 people?), so it was a relatively straightforward matter to make and execute the decision to take those legal guns away and remove the opportunity for those with mental health issues to plan and execute spree killings. I personally think this was done mainly for political gain, in full recognition that the minority would be unable to stand up for their pre-existing rights. Certainly the number of potentially saved lives must be very small indeed compared to road deaths, accidents in the home, sporting accidents etc. Crimes are means, motive and opportunity, and banning those guns (arguably) broke the triangle. However, the deaths from illegally held guns have gone up since then. Both social problems need addressing - those of troubled individuals who might cause harm to others and themselves, but as far as I know, most campus-shooting type killers tend to use legally held weapons.

I would far rather governments were able to identify and address the social causes for gun crime than to outright ban the guns themselves. But I can understand why they would wish to do the latter, and why the public might support them in that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I grew up with guns in the house, along with numerous friends who's parents also had guns. I was taught to respect guns and to use them properly. I knew it would have been stupid to take one to school. I never did. Neither did any of my friends. I never had the urge to shoot a person with one of my dad's guns. Neither did my friends.

Gun related deaths have become a very big problem in the US. Senseless killings at schools are on the rise.

So it is the sensible ones that are on the decline?

In general school violence in on the decline.

It is just that there are big splashy stories that make all the news.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you could magically make every gun disappear in an instant, you would prevent a lot of innocent people from getting shot, but you'd be left with teenage kids and young adults who are willing to kill other people because of their own problems.

Being willing and being able are not the same thing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

CNN had some rather racist coverage of the event last night. During their regular news cast, they had several crawls at the bottom of the screen that said things like "Coon shoots 4 at Ohio high school" and "Coon had history of mental problems". I was outraged.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Being willing and being able are not the same thing.

Being willing is still a problem that needs to be addressed. Are there more willing now than in the past? If there are more, why is that? Where is society failing? (I have my opinions on that, but that's fodder for another thread.)

 

[NYCEMT86]

I'll go out on a limb and speculate wildly on one possible reason:

http://saontario.tripod.com/id67.htm



Care to speculate on how many square miles the 19,000,000 in New York are packed into? Think that could have any effect at all on crime rates?

Those 19,000,000 are considered in the New York Metropolitan area which is 6,720 Square Miles or 17,405 sq. km. NYC alone is 320 square miles with 8 Million people.

I don't know if this has any effect on crime, because St Louis is only 62 sq. miles (171.3 sq. km.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Being willing is still a problem that needs to be addressed. Are there more willing now than in the past? If there are more, why is that? Where is society failing? (I have my opinions on that, but that's fodder for another thread.)

Why is it failing? You assume that society is not promoting a dirrect sense that violence is a good solution. I have seen plenty of people on these boards advocating a dirrect personal retribution sense of justice.

 

[Geek Goddess]

I wish I had access to the article, but recounting the summary as best I can, although the UK had a decrease in shooting and gun-related violence after the guns were confiscated, the number of home invasions and property thefts had greatly increased, and the brutality (beatings and rapes) went up in those incidences. An example was given of a man who, illegally, had kept his shotgun and shot someone who broke into his home and was brandishing a knife/bat/something. The homeowner was sent to prison.

I read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" many years ago. There is a passage about how the Nazis preached public safety when the confiscated guns.

Do you remember when all the stuff was going on in Haiti about 12-14 years ago, and there was revolution in the air (again) against the brutality of the regime? this was during the Clinton presidency, and there was endless discussion on the news about whether the U.S. should go help the people. At a business luncheon, a man who I did not know was against the idea. His words "if the people of Haiti want to dispose of a bad government, they should rise up and overthrow the dictator on their own." He was quite vehement on this point. I finally interrupted and said "I agree. How should they do this?" He started in on a scenario of the people getting together, marching on key facilities, seizing the communications, and so on. He didn't get it. I then asked "so how do you think the pitchforks are going to stand against the government troops' machine guns? The enlightened people of Haiti have no guns. How then shall they overthrow the evil bastard?"

He shut up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wish I had access to the article, but recounting the summary as best I can, although the UK had a decrease in shooting and gun-related violence after the guns were confiscated, the number of home invasions and property thefts had greatly increased, and the brutality (beatings and rapes) went up in those incidences. An example was given of a man who, illegally, had kept his shotgun and shot someone who broke into his home and was brandishing a knife/bat/something. The homeowner was sent to prison.

I read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" many years ago. There is a passage about how the Nazis preached public safety when the confiscated guns.

Do you remember when all the stuff was going on in Haiti about 12-14 years ago, and there was revolution in the air (again) against the brutality of the regime? this was during the Clinton presidency, and there was endless discussion on the news about whether the U.S. should go help the people. At a business luncheon, a man who I did not know was against the idea. His words "if the people of Haiti want to dispose of a bad government, they should rise up and overthrow the dictator on their own." He was quite vehement on this point. I finally interrupted and said "I agree. How should they do this?" He started in on a scenario of the people getting together, marching on key facilities, seizing the communications, and so on. He didn't get it. I then asked "so how do you think the pitchforks are going to stand against the government troops' machine guns? The enlightened people of Haiti have no guns. How then shall they overthrow the evil bastard?"

He shut up.

If you are advocating the ability for the people to overthrow the government you need to advocate weapons far different from handguns and rifles. You want RPG's, grenades and so on. Look at Iraq at how a successful insurgency is run.