The Gun Control Debate

[garya505 2]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

That's true. Someone asked earlier if the perp didn't have access to firearms would he go on a similar rampage with some other weapon. I have to say, I doubt it - given the suicide component that seems to be pretty consistent with the phenomenon.

At a guess - I'd say that without a gun, the perp would probably just off himself.

Why would he just kill himself? Whatever reason he had for killing them, he had it whether he owned a gun of not. Why not just drive his car into a group of NIU students waiting for a bus?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

That's true. Someone asked earlier if the perp didn't have access to firearms would he go on a similar rampage with some other weapon. I have to say, I doubt it - given the suicide component that seems to be pretty consistent with the phenomenon.

At a guess - I'd say that without a gun, the perp would probably just off himself.

Why would he just kill himself? Whatever reason he had for killing them, he had it whether he owned a gun of not. Why not just drive his car into a group of NIU students waiting for a bus?

Well as pointed out its all speculation, but there does seem to be a very specific pattern of behaviour involved in these incidents which always seems to involve the perp offing himself, rather than being apprehended by the authorities.

Driving your car into people doesn't offer the same easy-checkout - so as far as that goes the suicide does seem to be a key part of the process. Without a means for the guy to take as many people with him before he offs himself, the guy can only turn his anger/depression inward.

I'm not saying that these incidents are reason enough to ban guns (as I say I think its a bit more complex than that seeing as this kind of psychotic-break shooting spree represents a very small proportion of gun crime) but I don't think we should pretend that the firearm is for the most part, the tool of choice for these maniacs. For obvious reasons.

[garya505 2]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

That's true. Someone asked earlier if the perp didn't have access to firearms would he go on a similar rampage with some other weapon. I have to say, I doubt it - given the suicide component that seems to be pretty consistent with the phenomenon.

At a guess - I'd say that without a gun, the perp would probably just off himself.

Why would he just kill himself? Whatever reason he had for killing them, he had it whether he owned a gun of not. Why not just drive his car into a group of NIU students waiting for a bus?

Well as pointed out its all speculation, but there does seem to be a very specific pattern of behaviour involved in these incidents which always seems to involve the perp offing himself, rather than being apprehended by the authorities.

Driving your car into people doesn't offer the same easy-checkout - so as far as that goes the suicide does seem to be a key part of the process. Without a means for the guy to take as many people with him before he offs himself, the guy can only turn his anger/depression inward.

I'm not saying that these incidents are reason enough to ban guns (as I say I think its a bit more complex than that seeing as this kind of psychotic-break shooting spree represents a very small proportion of gun crime) but I don't think we should pretend that the firearm is for the most part, the tool of choice for these maniacs. For obvious reasons.

Sounds logical. I wonder if the nuts use the same logic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

That's true. Someone asked earlier if the perp didn't have access to firearms would he go on a similar rampage with some other weapon. I have to say, I doubt it - given the suicide component that seems to be pretty consistent with the phenomenon.

At a guess - I'd say that without a gun, the perp would probably just off himself.

Why would he just kill himself? Whatever reason he had for killing them, he had it whether he owned a gun of not. Why not just drive his car into a group of NIU students waiting for a bus?

Well as pointed out its all speculation, but there does seem to be a very specific pattern of behaviour involved in these incidents which always seems to involve the perp offing himself, rather than being apprehended by the authorities.

Driving your car into people doesn't offer the same easy-checkout - so as far as that goes the suicide does seem to be a key part of the process. Without a means for the guy to take as many people with him before he offs himself, the guy can only turn his anger/depression inward.

I'm not saying that these incidents are reason enough to ban guns (as I say I think its a bit more complex than that seeing as this kind of psychotic-break shooting spree represents a very small proportion of gun crime) but I don't think we should pretend that the firearm is for the most part, the tool of choice for these maniacs. For obvious reasons.

Sounds logical. I wonder if the nuts use the same logic.

Who knows - but it is the suicide part that seems key to this. The shooters never want to face up to the consequences of their actions. So it seems unlikely that they'd use a mode of attack that doesn't allow them an easy way out.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Who knows - but it is the suicide part that seems key to this. The shooters never want to face up to the consequences of their actions. So it seems unlikely that they'd use a mode of attack that doesn't allow them an easy way out.

This killer, it seems, definitely planned to kill himself...he'd written a goodbye note to a girlfriend saying "never forget me"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who knows - but it is the suicide part that seems key to this. The shooters never want to face up to the consequences of their actions. So it seems unlikely that they'd use a mode of attack that doesn't allow them an easy way out.

This killer, it seems, definitely planned to kill himself...he'd written a goodbye note to a girlfriend saying "never forget me"

Every one of these cases that hits the news - "the gunman turned the gun on himself".

[SteveLaura 0]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

They want to be famous, or they're getting some sort of revenge on the people they kill because of some perceived wrong they've done to the murderer. Or, they think their victims are the devil.

Maybe. The Columbine killers, the Virginia Tech shooter and this latest one, Steven K, all have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you're the sort of person that feels that the world has neglected you, for whatever reason, these incidents do tend to live on after your otherwise uneventful life. Some people, it seems, would rather check out, in their own minds at least, in "a blaze of glory". Sadly, the relatively easy access to guns in this country makes that choice available to them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

They want to be famous, or they're getting some sort of revenge on the people they kill because of some perceived wrong they've done to the murderer. Or, they think their victims are the devil.

Maybe. The Columbine killers, the Virginia Tech shooter and this latest one, Steven K, all have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you're the sort of person that feels that the world has neglected you, for whatever reason, these incidents do tend to live on after your otherwise uneventful life. Some people, it seems, would rather check out, in their own minds at least, in "a blaze of glory". Sadly, the relatively easy access to guns in this country makes that choice available to them.

Unfortunately that is the reality - regardless of what people feel about guns and gun control. In this context defending the right to bear arms essentially implies that you have to accept that your "right" is worth the ensuing 'broken eggs'. Conversely, supporting gun control implies some sort of broad legislation based on a relatively rare, but high-visibility incident - gun crime is a problem in this country, but these incidents make up a very tiny percentage of that.

[garya505 2]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

They want to be famous, or they're getting some sort of revenge on the people they kill because of some perceived wrong they've done to the murderer. Or, they think their victims are the devil.

Maybe. The Columbine killers, the Virginia Tech shooter and this latest one, Steven K, all have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you're the sort of person that feels that the world has neglected you, for whatever reason, these incidents do tend to live on after your otherwise uneventful life. Some people, it seems, would rather check out, in their own minds at least, in "a blaze of glory". Sadly, the relatively easy access to guns in this country makes that choice available to them.

Unfortunately that is the reality - regardless of what people feel about guns and gun control. In this context defending the right to bear arms essentially implies that you have to accept that your "right" is worth the ensuing 'broken eggs'. Conversely, supporting gun control implies some sort of broad legislation based on a relatively rare, but high-visibility incident - gun crime is a problem in this country, but these incidents make up a very tiny percentage of that.

So, I guess if you banned and confiscated all guns, you could reduce the number of these "broken eggs".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will go out on a limb and say that people who gun down innocent strangers want to die. Why they wish to take several people with them is unknowable. It could 'simply' be mental illness, but there may also be a desire for some kind of noteriety, general anger, a disconnect due to violent video games, etc... Arming students isn't going to be a deterrant as these people already know that they're not coming out alive. How many turn the guns on themselves afterwards anyway?

They want to be famous, or they're getting some sort of revenge on the people they kill because of some perceived wrong they've done to the murderer. Or, they think their victims are the devil.

Maybe. The Columbine killers, the Virginia Tech shooter and this latest one, Steven K, all have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you're the sort of person that feels that the world has neglected you, for whatever reason, these incidents do tend to live on after your otherwise uneventful life. Some people, it seems, would rather check out, in their own minds at least, in "a blaze of glory". Sadly, the relatively easy access to guns in this country makes that choice available to them.

Unfortunately that is the reality - regardless of what people feel about guns and gun control. In this context defending the right to bear arms essentially implies that you have to accept that your "right" is worth the ensuing 'broken eggs'. Conversely, supporting gun control implies some sort of broad legislation based on a relatively rare, but high-visibility incident - gun crime is a problem in this country, but these incidents make up a very tiny percentage of that.

So, I guess if you banned and confiscated all guns, you could reduce the number of these "broken eggs".

I'm not saying that - I'm simply saying that the debate on this issue is wider than these types of rampage incidents. At the same time of course - we shouldn't be denying that they are insignificant, or somehow unrelated to the availability of guns.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Number 6

[britty 1]

Unfortunately that is the reality - regardless of what people feel about guns and gun control. In this context defending the right to bear arms essentially implies that you have to accept that your "right" is worth the ensuing 'broken eggs'. Conversely, supporting gun control implies some sort of broad legislation based on a relatively rare, but high-visibility incident - gun crime is a problem in this country, but these incidents make up a very tiny percentage of that.

No, absolutely not. My "right" is to own a firearm. I do not accept that my right makes any implication towards a complete fruitloop murdering innocent people. Why should responsible firearms owners like me and many others on this thread take any responsibility for the actions of madmen?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, absolutely not. My "right" is to own a firearm. I do not accept that my right makes any implication towards a complete fruitloop murdering innocent people. Why should responsible firearms owners like me and many others on this thread take any responsibility for the actions of madmen?

Just saying its a side-effect of the right they (you) enjoy. It doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others, but it's there nonetheless.

[britty 1]

No, absolutely not. My "right" is to own a firearm. I do not accept that my right makes any implication towards a complete fruitloop murdering innocent people. Why should responsible firearms owners like me and many others on this thread take any responsibility for the actions of madmen?

Just saying its a side-effect of the right they (you) enjoy. It doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others, but it's there nonetheless.

If my right to own a firearm was taken away from me, do you honestly think we would never hear of a crazed lunatic embarking on a killing spree? If someone has made a decision to kill another human being then they will find a way to do it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, absolutely not. My "right" is to own a firearm. I do not accept that my right makes any implication towards a complete fruitloop murdering innocent people. Why should responsible firearms owners like me and many others on this thread take any responsibility for the actions of madmen?

Just saying its a side-effect of the right they (you) enjoy. It doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others, but it's there nonetheless.

If my right to own a firearm was taken away from me, do you honestly think we would never hear of a crazed lunatic embarking on a killing spree? If someone has made a decision to kill another human being then they will find a way to do it.

Of course not - but as pointed out these incidents have a very specific MO and behaviour pattern. Denying that this is the case doesn't change that reality.

[Sister Fracas 5]

If my right to own a firearm was taken away from me, do you honestly think we would never hear of a crazed lunatic embarking on a killing spree? If someone has made a decision to kill another human being then they will find a way to do it.

I think it's been said time and time again though that a killer of this sort at NIU would have very little success in killing 5 people if he went running at the crowd with a knife, bat, machete, etc. And he bought his guns legally.