Gun Control implications of VA Tech massacre

[lycheng]

I thought I'd open up a new thread to discuss one of the issues that have been brought up from the VA Tech massacre – gun control in America.

After reading Cho's so called Multimedia Manifesto, there's no doubt he had a serious mental illness. In fact, he was detained in a Psychiatric Hospital in late 2005 after female students complained about Cho stalking them.

In the United States, the Right to Bear Arms in enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The impact of this right is not lost on me. The fundamental freedom to own guns is a unique defining characteristic of American culture. This concept feeds into the thriving gun culture that we see in the United States today.

Yet there are limits to gun ownership on the law books. One of those limits expressly forbids anyone who has a history of mental illness to own guns. In fact, the paperwork that Cho had to fill out to buy his guns asks:

"[h]ave you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" (ref. Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre))

In other words, Federal laws prohibit gun ownership if you've been forced into hospitalization for mental illness. It appears Cho had lied about his 2005 stay at the psychiatric hospital in order to purchase his guns.

In hindsight, isn't it silly to rely on the gun purchaser to tell the seller that he has been confined to a mental institution? Didn't the gun purchaser waive his right to privacy of his medical records when he decided to purchase a gun? After all, the spirit, if not the letter of the law, is trying to prevent a crazy person from owning a gun.

Finally, I can't help but imagine what would happen if Cho didn't immigrate to the United States. Assuming that Cho's mental illness would have manifested itself in Korea, would he be able to commit the same heinous crime? Since gun ownership for ordinary citizens are banned in Korea, I bet the answer is no.

lycheng

[aelward]

I am on the fence with regards to gun control laws.

In Japan, where there are pretty strict firearm laws, the mentally ill end up using knives. The unibomber didn't use guns. Not a single gun was needed to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center.

At the same time, when I see the pro-gun folks say "had there been someone else with a gun, it would have ended earlier..." it just makes me sick. Who knows? Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it, or have the level head to deal with the stress of someone shooting at you. Just like I said in the other thread about the National Review writer: the most vehement people oftentimes are the biggest chicksh!ts out there.

[atlasien]

In Japan, where there are pretty strict firearm laws, the mentally ill end up using knives.

Just saying... there are really only two reliable, portable ways to kill a lot of people at the same time: guns and bombs. 9/11 was a rare exception. You cannot kill 30 people at once using a knife.

I'm thinking of the sarin attack in the Tokyo subway. That was meticulously planned and there were a lot of resources dedicated to it, but the actual death count was very low.

[Dialectic]

Here's a good Economist article discussing Guns in America:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9030529&fsrc=RSS

Americans still don't want more gun control

IT IS surely an American oddity that, after the worst mass shooting in the country’s history, some are already saying that such horrors would be less likely if only guns were easier to own and carry. Americans love firearms. The second item in the constitution’s bill of rights, just after freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press, is the right to bear arms. It is part of the national religion.

Mass killings remain rare events, whatever outsiders might think, and they also happen in other countries, including those with tight rules on gun ownership. But life in modern America is punctuated frighteningly often by such attacks. Making any sort of accurate international comparison is tricky, but some attempts have been tried. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an activist group, counts 41 school shootings in America since 1996, which have claimed 110 lives, including those in Virginia this week. IANSA also looks at school shootings in 80 other countries. Culling from media reports, they count only 14 school gun killings outside America in the same period. Putting aside the Beslan massacre in Russia—committed by an organised terrorist group—school shootings in all those countries claimed just 59 victims.

As striking are the overall rates of violent death by handguns in America. The country is filled with 200m guns, half the world’s privately-owned total. Residents of other countries may fret that criminals, gang-members and insane individuals are increasingly likely to use guns and knives. But in comparison with America, few other developed countries have much to worry about. The gun-murder rate in America is more than 30 times that of England and Wales, for example. Canada—like America, a “frontier” country with high rates of gun ownership—sees far fewer victims shot down: the firearm murder-rate south of the Canadian border is vastly higher than the rate north of it. America may not quite lead the world in gun murders (South Africa probably holds that dubious title) but it has a dismally prominent position.

What might be done to improve matters in America? The intuitive answer, at least for Europeans and those who live in countries where guns are less easily available, is that laws must be tightened to make it harder to obtain and use such weapons. Not only might that reduce the frequency of criminal acts, goes the argument, but it may also cut the number of accidental deaths and suicides.

Yet some in America are reaching the opposite conclusion. Within hours of the shootings in Virginia on Monday April 16th, a conservative blogger was quoting a Roman military historian, suggesting that “if you want peace, prepare for war” (“si vis pacem, para bellum”). Others put it more bluntly: “an armed society is a polite society”. Virginia’s gun laws are generally permissive. Any adult can buy a handgun after a brief background check (as required by federal law), and anyone who legally owns a handgun and who asks for a permit to carry a concealed weapon must be granted such a permit. Yet Virginia Tech, like many schools and universities, is a gun-free zone. Gun advocates are daring to say that if Virginia Tech allowed concealed weapons, someone might have stopped the rampaging killer. To gun-control advocates, this is self-evident madness.

The issue remains one of America’s many culture wars, dominated by an uncompromising dialogue between two extreme camps. Western and southern states, libertarians and American exceptionalists believe that guns are part of the national fabric. They say the second amendment is plain: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun-control advocates note the introductory clause to that amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, and say that the framers of the constitution never intended America to be packed with citizens bearing private weapons.

In recent years the right-to-arms camp has been getting stronger. Even Democrats are shifting in favour. The Democratic presidential candidates carried only one state in the south or mountain West in 2000 and 2004, so the party has decided that, to win at the national level again, it must drop support for gun control. That strategy seemed to work in the congressional elections of 2006, when pro-gun Democrats did well. The likes of Jon Tester, a new senator in Montana, and Heath Shuler, a North Carolina congressional freshman, did much bragging about their lifelong gun ownership and support for the second amendment.

This suggests that, though gun laws may be tweaked after the Virginia massacre, there will be little significant change to come. The Columbine killings of 1999 failed to provoke any shift in Americans’ attitudes to guns. There is no reason to believe that this massacre, or the next one, will do so either.

[Dialectic]

A brief Salon article discussing the reaction of the World Press. Most of it deals with American culture and guns as well. The opinion in the Saudi paper is especially interesting. My own opinion, as well as that of every other developed country, is that everyone having a gun, or being able to easily get a gun, is bad, bad, bad. America, however, is in a political, social, and economic place where it is impossible to take these guns away.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/18/worldpress/

The world press on Virginia Tech

International reactions to the mass slayings range from shock and sympathy to bewilderment about America's gun culture.

Compiled by Jonathan Vanian

Only the names change. And the numbers

The scale of the Virginia incident is, sadly, all that distinguishes it.

The truth is that only an optimist would imagine Virginia Tech will hold the new record [for the worst shooting in U.S. history] for very long. Surely in a year or two the news networks will be replaying the same footage from another college, with only the numbers different.

Perhaps of all the elements of American exceptionalism -- those factors, positive or negative, that make the US such a different country, politically, socially, culturally, from the rest of the civilised world -- it is the gun culture that foreigners find so hard to understand.

The country's religiosity, so at odds with the rest of the developed world these days; its economic system which seems to tolerate vast disparities of income; even all those strange sports Americans enjoy -- all of these can at least be understood by the rest of us, even if not shared.

The Korean Herald, South Korea -- Deep Condolences

The pain and anguish that families of the victims are now feeling is shared not only by members of the Korean community in the United States, but also Koreans here in Korea. There have been expressions of shock from President Roh Moo-hyun and from ordinary people, who may or may not have children studying at American schools.

The Korean government and people will have to do what they can, however small, to help those affected begin the healing process as soon as possible. In this regard, President Roh took the right initial action when he twice sent "deep condolences" to the victims -- the first came shortly after the tragedy was first reported, and then again when the criminal suspect was identified as a Korean student. He said he was "shocked beyond description."

The slayings were a crime committed by a member of the Korean community, one rotten apple. But the savage act was not sponsored by the Korean community or the Korean state. Nonetheless, there is no denying that the shocking incident will taint the good image that the Korean community and the Korean nation have strived to build among Americans.

Arab News, Saudi Arabia -- Heavy Price

The massacre of 32 students at Virginia Tech University has left Americans dumbstruck. It is the latest and so far the most bloody in a series of murderous attacks at US educational institutions. At each of the appalling crime scenes, youngsters have settled grudges or played out video game fantasies with powerful automatic weapons. And those weapons are sold over the counter in virtually each of America's 50 states. However at this hour of America's horrified grief, in which all decent people worldwide share, it is worth pointing out that there is a lesson here which, on past evidence, no US administration will choose even to hear, let alone learn.

That lesson is this: if a suicide bomber walks into a crowded market in Iraq and blows himself up along with 32 innocent bystanders, it is terrorism. If the same thing happens in America, it is not. Americans -- and by extension anyone in the country -- enjoy a constitutional right to bear arms. However anachronistic this may seem to outsiders given that the days of frontiersmen and citizens' militias are long past, there still remains a powerful lobby, funded by the weaponry manufacturers themselves, that defends what it claims is a fundamental right.

Yet at the same time, the Americans lose no time in insisting that others around the world surrender their weaponry -- whether the weaponry belongs to Afghan tribesmen, Iraqi neighborhood patrols or, on a larger scale, the nuclear arms of North Korea and the suspected Iranian atomic program. The scale of the weapon is irrelevant. There is an inherent moral contradiction in the rights that Americans seek to maintain for their own citizens and the demands they make on the citizens of other countries.

The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia -- A Society Armed and Dangerous

With the Virginia Tech massacre setting a sickeningly high American record for gun rampages, will anything be changed in that country's debate on gun control? Not immediately: its politicians are dodging the issue, running scared at the influence of a particular voice over a sizeable tranche of voters as a presidential election looms.

The voice is that of the National Rifle Association, which bills its 3 million members as the "front-line defenders of the Second Amendment". America's shooters claim a vital democratic safeguard is enshrined in this late-18th-century afterthought to the US Constitution: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

At present, the front line includes Florida, where the association backs a bill that would prevent "arrogant" business owners barring customers from bringing guns into their parking lots. And the Tennessee legislature is debating a bill -- supported by the association -- that will disallow any curbs on carrying guns during a state of emergency. In Illinois, there is a battle over moves to ban the .50 calibre sniper rifles, powerful enough to bring down an aircraft at a range of more than a kilometre.

It would be nice to think that the past decade's string of big massacres, plus many small ones not reported here, are gradually persuading Americans that gun ownership is scant protection against atrocities and crime when nearly everyone who wants guns can arm themselves to the teeth and will nearly always have the advantage of surprise and superior firepower.

Jamaica Gleaner, Jamaica -- Guns Again Spark an American Tragedy

Although we are not accustomed, in a single event, to the scale of the Virginia Tech mayhem, we in Jamaica understand only too well the trauma of gun crime. Indeed, in this country more than 1,000 persons are murdered annually, many of them multiple killings, with upwards of 80 per cent the result of shootings.

There is, too, another connection between Jamaica and the United States with regard to gun violence, which we feel has to be addressed on the basis of national policy -- mostly on the part of the Americans. It is known, and notoriously known to be so, that the majority of the guns used in Jamaica to commit criminal violence originate in the United States, whether smuggled directly to this island or via third countries.

We do not believe that the United States is doing enough to deal with this problem. And it is not enough for U.S. authorities to say that they cooperate with Jamaica in an effort to stem the flow of weapons. The issues are far more fundamental. The bottom line is that guns are too easily accessible in the U.S.

Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates -- Shooting in America

We are shocked, too ...

America is currently in the best of positions in many respects. Its people are among the best cared for in the world by virtue of the affluence of the nation and the systems that support the life there. Yet, without doubt, something ails the society at its very roots, symptoms of which are evident in cases like the Virginia one. Whether this has something to do with the overall weakening of the value systems, or America's own pre-occupation with the affairs in the rest of the world in as much that it has little time to care for its own affairs, is simply a matter of conjecture.

Globe and Mail, Canada -- A mass shooting at school, yet again

If the frequency of the mass shootings is uniquely American, it is also uniquely American to have a respected public-health authority label 220 school shootings in six years as rare. That lack of perspective goes some distance toward explaining why so deadly a massacre as the one at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999 did not bring about a nationwide crackdown on guns. (Twelve students, one teacher and two teenage gunmen died at Columbine.) "What have we done as a nation in the eight years since Columbine about this problem?" Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, asked [Monday]. Guns are still proliferating. No new gun controls have been legislated. A federal ban on assault weapons was left to expire in September, 2004. Canada has had school shootings, but they have been much less common, and the outpouring of rage and disbelief has prompted the country's legislators to react. After Marc Lépine killed 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989, the federal government passed gun-control legislation that may have helped limit the carnage last September when Kimveer Gill took semi-automatic weapons into Dawson College, also in Montreal, and killed one student. Mr. Lépine used a gun that could fire 30 bullets, but the 1991 law that followed his attack limited most rifles to five rounds of ammunition, and handguns to 10 rounds. As of [Monday] evening, it was unclear how the killer at Virginia Tech obtained a weapon. What is clear is that it is far too easy to obtain deadly weapons. A CDC survey two years ago found that 5.4 per cent of all students in Grades 9 to 12 had carried a gun in the 30 days preceding the survey. The U.S. needs to address the ease with which so many people, including the young, obtain access to lethal weapons.

[Vetrean]

Why the hell would anyone need a .50 caliber sniper rifle?

[lycheng]

Thanks for those articles, Dialectic. I just find some of the arguments from the pro-gun side to be ridiculous.

Here is a consumer product that's designed to do bodily harm or even kill, yet, there is a lobbying group called the NRA who will fight any gun control legislation. They were against even the more sensible laws, like the Brady bill.

lycheng

[cattygurl]

http://pandagon.net/2007/04/19/the-only-security-system-that-works/#more-5202

Read the lovely piece by Derbyshire. Makes me sick to my stomach. Monday night quarterbacking at its best. Students are not trained as soldiers or cops, and how dare some of the pro-gun assholes blame the victims for cowardice when they tried to barricade doors or got down on the floor?

I think it's a really lovely commentary on how crazy certain segments of society has become when people feel that the right to carry concealed weapons to college classes.

It's sad to see these pro-gun assholes bleating that is people had conceal and carry weapons, there may be less victims. Cops and soldiers train intensely for months on end, both psychologically and physically, to be able to shoot at a human target, and even with intense training, some freeze up during their initial training with live rounds, or freeze when shooting at a real, live, human being. It's one thing to have experience shooting at a target that isn't shooting back- aka beer cans and deer. It's a whole other dimension to shoot at a live human being, especially one that is actively shooting, possibly, at you. Most soldiers and cops on the job are aware of the dangers in their job- and they steel themselves for it. I was talking to a local sheriff about the shootings, and he said even if one of the students/professor was armed, the element of surprise is a motherfucker. They're there to learn, take notes, give classes- not be prepared to shoot someone dead at any given second. Add lack of training and they're likely to cause harm more than help.

[Hater Depot]

Finally, I can't help but imagine what would happen if Cho didn't immigrate to the United States. Assuming that Cho's mental illness would have manifested itself in Korea, would he be able to commit the same heinous crime? Since gun ownership for ordinary citizens are banned in Korea, I bet the answer is no.

Korean shooting sprees involve disgruntled cops and soldiers. A few years ago one soldier tossed a grenade into his barracks. The worst spree killing in history was committed by a Korean in the early 80s, killing over 50 people.

So, it's possible. More difficult but still possible.

[minbo]

People are loosing touch with why the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution. The constitution was written by "the mob" who just won a revolution that would never have been fought, let alone won, had the population not had "arms". The right to bear arms is to allow give the population the ability to overthrow the US government if at some point in the future, the "little experiment" of democracy turns into a failure. It exists to enshrine that the government rules by consent of the people, and a threat to the government that if they should overstep their bounds, that they can and will be kicked to the curb.

Over the years, the little experiment has proven that it works. Even when we get a fascist government who chips away at our liberties while wrapped in the flag and holding a bible, the possibility and probability is that these will be aberrations which can be corrected peacefully. Even if I do have an arsenal of hundreds of Barret M1A50s and tens of thousands of M16s, I'm not going to be able to overthrow the US government. The central reason behind the right to bear arms is decreasingly valid. Still it is a constitutional right. Gun control laws are IMHO, un-constitutional. What we need is not pissant laws like those outlawing Tech 9s by name, but a constitutional amendment covering all "arms", but good luck finding a politician with the brass balls to float such a bill, let alone a congress that will pass it.

Either that, go the other way and re-interpret arms and re-affirm the right such that the mass populous again has the possibility of overthrowing the government via violent revolution. Hell with Iran, I should have the right to walk around with a tac-nuke strapped to my back! Then lets see if some young punk with a box cutter will try to mug me. Booyah, who's yo daddy now b*tch? Ludicrous.

I realize that there are actual uses for firearms on ranches, deep sea fishing boats, hunting, etc. We can protect those while curbing "carry" gun ownership, concealed weapons, weapons that lend themselves too well to violent crime and homicide. You don't need automatic weapons, you don't need hand guns, you don't need armor piercing bullets, etc.

[Lum]

I go back and forth on the gun control issue, but people saying everyone should have been armed in VA is insane. If all those people were packing they'd probably still be running around shooting and screaming. Chaos breeds chaos.

Here in AK you can pretty much buy and carry a concealed firearm anywhere, anytime without much trouble, and many people do. I never really thought about it until once I was in a sort of road-rage incident on my way home and sat pensively in my house pondering how long it would take the police to arrive if these guys decided to follow me and try to break in. Well, I never got around to getting one but up here it's probably not a bad idea to have a rifle in the home, if even just in case you get between a moose and her calves.

There is actually a huge difference between a 30.06 and a glock or an automatic, since people are a lot less likely to be carrying a hunting rifle everywhere they go, but at the same time there are just so many idiots out there and I don't even trust them getting behind the wheel let alone using a weapon. A few weeks ago my friend found his dog shot dead, right in the middle of the road in a manner that was obviously not a hunting accident. Some douche had probably been out all day, unable to bag any game and shot his dog for lack of anything else to kill.

But some hunt for sport, others hunt for fun and there is a whole bunch of people here who hunt to survive. On top of that, handguns are commonly carried along with a rifle as a backup in case of bear attacks. So they can take away the TEK-9s and the Uzis but anything with bullets can be used to massacre students, and so can the over-the-counter ingredients be used to make napalm. The problem obviously lies in piss-poor education and masses of angst-ridden people, made worse IMO by two terms of the Bush administration. Sadly the tools, the knowledge and the desire to sow destruction are already out there in the hands of the people, and I don't have a solution for that. I wish I did.

Update: CBS News is now saying that "Cho had been bullied for his shyness and for the way that he talked." I've a feeling the words "racially motivated" are not too far behind, but you never know.

[atlasien]

Either that, go the other way and re-interpret arms and re-affirm the right such that the mass populous again has the possibility of overthrowing the government via violent revolution. Hell with Iran, I should have the right to walk around with a tac-nuke strapped to my back!

There is nothing in the amendment defines what the "arms" are. Facetious question: why does the NRA invoke the second amendment so much to defend the right to own an AK-47, while they don't really care about the right to own nerve gas, smallpox virus or polonium-210?

So let's take "arms" to mean firearms/guns only... but what kind of firearms?

Why not a strict definition based on the idea that no firearm created using technology before the framing of the second amendment can be made illegal. Flintlocks can be owned without a license, modern hunting rifles need a license, AK-47s are right out.

I've also read an argument by Paul Fussell that according to the second amendment firearms should be restricted to people who actually belong to a well-regulated militia. So you can own any weapon you want if you form a militia, and any group can form a militia, but the militia needs a special license and every member has to spend a certain number of logged, verified weeks a year on military maneuvers, target practice, drilling, plus keep careful accounts of all inventory and ammunition, not be clinically insane, etc.

[aelward]

I think the problem with legislating who can and cannot own a firearm is that it will create a black market for them. Just like illegal drugs, liquor during prohibition, cigarettes to minors, etc. That puts weapons in the hands of people who have no respect for the law in the first place. Further, any time in history when a "state-of the era" weapon was banned, people improvised new weapons whose strengths and limits were unknown. Think Okinawa farming tools and corresponding martial skills, Filipino stick fighting, Brazillian Capoeira, Iraqi IEDs.

At the same time, thinking that life would be better if EVERYONE had a firearm? Please, there would be constant killings for small things and misunderstandings. "The guy's reaching for his pocket!" "Oh, he was just going to pay the cashier. Oops."

[Lum]

I've also read an argument by Paul Fussell that according to the second amendment firearms should be restricted to people who actually belong to a well-regulated militia. So you can own any weapon you want if you form a militia, and any group can form a militia, but the militia needs a special license and every member has to spend a certain number of logged, verified weeks a year on military maneuvers, target practice, drilling, plus keep careful accounts of all inventory and ammunition, not be clinically insane, etc.

This is a point I always seem to be on about especially given the nature of my current profession. Forgive me, it is a sensitive subject.

From the age of 14 or 15 everyone in the US is given the opportunity to acquire a most devastating weapon that is likewise subject to the same dangers of recklessness and irresponsibility that is commonly associated with firearms, and despite aggressive attempts to educate and promote public awareness of the obvious dangers of such a weapon the death-toll continues unabated. Yes I am talking about the motor vehicle and at this very moment some jackass is zipping up and down my residential street at about sixty miles an hour on a motorcycle which is pissing me off to no end. Just yesterday in national news someone drove a 2-ton pickup truck right through a gas pump, leaving a giant fireball in its wake and then continued right into the interior of the service station. And apparently all this guy did was fall asleep at the wheel.

Despite all the warnings of everything from simple distractions to the more obvious danger of combining this activity with alchohol, not to mention the punishment of such a crime has risen to epic proportions, people everywhere simply REFUSE to operate their vehicles responsibly. More frightening is how people behind the wheel are often given to fits of rage and a sense of overwhelming power over others.

And let us not forget that the operation of a vehicle also requires a permit, a license and both a written and field test before one is deemed qualified. When I'm at work, people always ask me if I'm afraid of a crazed gunman entering my cab. I tell them simply that in five years on the job I've had maybe two close-calls with questionable passengers, and at least a hundred with other motorists.

You can probably see where I'm going with this, as all of the dangers of driving and the attempts to reduce fatalaties are similar if not the same as those of firearms and how groups like the NRA propose to prevent shooting deaths. If everyone were to take up arms I suspect the numerous failures of such regulations would be exactly the same.

One more thing: It has now been reported that Cho Seong-Hui passed extensive medical screening for suspected mental illness, so apparently that is a great big failure as well.

[lycheng]

^^ I understand where you're coming from Lum. But there is a fundamental difference between a motor vehicle and a handgun -- a handgun is specifically designed as a weapon.

Setting aside the very small percentage of vehicles designed for sport racing, the purpose of motor vehicles is to transport passengers and goods. Certainly accidental deaths can result from its mis-use, and one can use it as a weapon as well. But the benefits of a motor vehicle to society totally outweighs its dangers.

A ban on motor vehicles will shut down commerce overnight. Since rail transport is quite insufficient as a substitute transportation mechanism, and air freight is too expensive, there really is no viable alternative for the motor vehicle.

The question I have for you is, what would happen if we were to ban handguns ownership for the general population? If handgun ownership were only allowed for the police and the military, what would happen? Would the general population be left without an alternative for self protection? No, you can still call the police. They're the ones with the training to respond to criminal activity.

The bottom line is you have to look at the big picture of risk versus benefits. An automobile or truck should not be banned because it serves an important role in society. Contrast that with Lawn Darts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_dart), who's purpose to society was very negligible (a toy), but posed a danger to society as an instrument of accidental death and injury. That's why Lawn Darts were banned in 1988.

lycheng

[minbo]

NOOOOEESSSS!!!! Not my lawn darts! The horror, won't somebody think if the children! Damn HaX0rS.

Out of my cold dead heads!

[atlasien]

Pray for Coal (http://www.radarmagazine.com/features/2006/12/toys.php): The 10 most dangerous toys of all time

Lawn darts are number one.

http://www.radarmagazine.com/features/images/2006/12/dangerous-toys-lead.jpg

[Lum]

Hahahaa didn't even know lawn-darts were banned, but then I never seen one so there you go. I guess I shouldn't laugh..there must be someone out there trying to heal emotionally from a lawn-dart incident.

I understand a ban on motor-vehicles could result in chaos, but many thousands of cyclists that show up for Critical Mass rides would probably say it's chaos well worth having. It may seem like a stretch to us; comparing automobiles to guns, but not to these folks. To them, intended purpose is a moot point. But not being a radical cyclist I'm getting into weasel-word territory here.

For me the effect of a gun ban would be neither direct or immediate, but after last night leaving deadly weapons in the hands of law-enforcement alone has become a terrifying prospect. Over the course of the evening I repeatedly encountered a cop who exhibited signs of racism and gleeful abuse of power as well as driving in a matter I felt highly unsafe. I even went as far as warning people to stay off the streets as there seemed to be a dangerous rookie or officer on-the-verge out there that was shaking people down willy-nilly and practically laughing about it. I'd never seen anything like it in this town. Things got even more frightening later on when someone told me that all signs were pointing to a cop being responsible for the two bodies that turned up shot excecution-style on the edge of town two months back. The flyers are still posted; letters written by the mothers of the victims offering reward for any information regarding the murders. One of the mothers described her son as "a proud Jewish boy". Of course a lot of this is conjecture and probably sounds like a work of fiction anyway; but years ago in a town south of here there was a trooper who got sent up for murdering a woman, so it's not like this shit never happens. Anyway for a few hours after I got home I definitely felt a chill thinking about it. And yes this all happened after my uncomfortable walk through the store, if anyone read that. Jeez what a fucked up night.

[ChÈ]

Well, I'm only as Australian - and we are only a Slave Race of the Harkonnens, anyhow.

But I never cease to be amazed at the level of SOPHISTRY flying around in the American debate on guns... why don't you all just do the Rest Of The World a favour and just shoot yourselves. Seriously.

Just stick that ol' metal cock in yo' mout' and pull the goddamn trigger...

does a fuckin' gun drive your kids to school? does a fuckin' gun help you take your wife to the hospital after her waters have broke?

if your answer is yes, then maybe you should do the rest of the world a giant favour and OFF yo'selves.

This is a point I always seem to be on about especially given the nature of my current profession. Forgive me, it is a sensitive subject.

From the age of 14 or 15 everyone in the US is given the opportunity to acquire a most devastating weapon that is likewise subject to the same dangers of recklessness and irresponsibility that is commonly associated with firearms, and despite aggressive attempts to educate and promote public awareness of the obvious dangers of such a weapon the death-toll continues unabated. Yes I am talking about the motor vehicle and at this very moment some jackass is zipping up and down my residential street at about sixty miles an hour on a motorcycle which is pissing me off to no end. Just yesterday in national news someone drove a 2-ton pickup truck right through a gas pump, leaving a giant fireball in its wake and then continued right into the interior of the service station. And apparently all this guy did was fall asleep at the wheel.

Despite all the warnings of everything from simple distractions to the more obvious danger of combining this activity with alchohol, not to mention the punishment of such a crime has risen to epic proportions, people everywhere simply REFUSE to operate their vehicles responsibly. More frightening is how people behind the wheel are often given to fits of rage and a sense of overwhelming power over others.

And let us not forget that the operation of a vehicle also requires a permit, a license and both a written and field test before one is deemed qualified. When I'm at work, people always ask me if I'm afraid of a crazed gunman entering my cab. I tell them simply that in five years on the job I've had maybe two close-calls with questionable passengers, and at least a hundred with other motorists.



You can probably see where I'm going with this, as all of the dangers of driving and the attempts to reduce fatalaties are similar if not the same as those of firearms and how groups like the NRA propose to prevent shooting deaths. If everyone were to take up arms I suspect the numerous failures of such regulations would be exactly the same.

One more thing: It has now been reported that Cho Seong-Hui passed extensive medical screening for suspected mental illness, so apparently that is a great big failure as well.

[Tyger Durden]

Well, I'm only as Australian - and we are only a Slave Race of the Harkonnens, anyhow.

But I never cease to be amazed at the level of SOPHISTRY flying around in the American debate on guns... why don't you all just do the Rest Of The World a favour and just shoot yourselves. Seriously.

Just stick that ol' metal cock in yo' mout' and pull the goddamn trigger...

does a fuckin' gun drive your kids to school? does a fuckin' gun help you take your wife to the hospital after her waters have broke?

if your answer is yes, then maybe you should do the rest of the world a giant favour and OFF yo'selves.

You're Australian? Wow, that can mean a lot of things down there (92% White, 7% Asian, 1% Other) but i bet you're not Aborigine. I'm sure Australia wasn't conquered with slingshots and only they would know.

Well, in the interest of fairness, how do Australian gun laws compare to USA gun laws? Keep in mind each State in the USA has it's own laws regarding guns.

[Subwaybrum]

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/firearms

What are the requirements for purchasing a firearm?

* You must be in possession of a valid firearms licence for the type of firearm you propose to purchase.
* You must obtain from the Firearms Registry a 'permit to acquire' providing the name of the dealer who will be handling the transaction and details of the firearm you wish to purchase.
* You must have a permit for each firearm that is to be purchased.
* The Firearms Registrar will issue the 'permit to acquire a firearm' 28 days after application, provided you have a genuine reason for possession and meet the ‘special need’ conditions for category B, C and H firearms licences.
* You have 30 days after the issue of your 'permit to acquire a firearm' in which to make your purchase.
* You may only arrange your purchase through a licensed firearms dealer or club armourer.
* You are required to notify the Firearms Registry of your purchase (register the firearm) within seven days of the purchase sale, returning your 'permit to acquire'.


How many firearms can I own?

* You can own as many category A firearms as you require.
* Category B firearms require proof of special need and therefore their availability and use is restricted to that identified need.
* Category C licence holders are authorised to possess or use no more than one registered rifle and one registered shotgun to which the licence applies.



ACT gun laws

On 26 June 2003, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the Firearms (Prohibited Pistols) Amendment Bill 2003. The new laws gave effect to the nationally agreed handgun reforms, placing new restrictions on access to concealable handguns in the ACT.

In summary, the legislation:

* bans high calibre handguns (above .38" or 9mm) for sporting shooters except for use in accredited events
* bans short-barrelled handguns (under 120 mm for semi automatics and under 100 mm for revolvers or single shot handguns) for sporting shooters - swapping and lengthening of barrels is permitted but must be approved in writing by the Registrar
* bans high capacity magazines (greater than 10 shot) for sporting shooters, and prohibits the possession of magazines without a licence
* requires that sporting shooters participate in a minimum number of competitions per year
* requires clubs and new shooters to operate under a new scheme of graduated access
* enables the Chief Police Officer to refuse/revoke a weapons licence because of criminal intelligence or other relevant information
* further tightens weapons storage requirements.

The legislation does not disadvantage sporting shooters who compete in Olympic or Commonwealth Games accredited events.

The laws do not apply to primary producers and people who have a handgun for occupational purposes such as security officers.

I know Automatic, Semi-automatic rifles are banned and hundreds of different models of handguns. There's compulsory training from a gun club as well before you can own a gun among other things.

[DijabutiA]

Haven't heard of the "act" gun law. I've been to the range after '03 , and havent' seen anything related to it regarding what is available to purchase. Only weapons I'm aware of that are banned are Class 3 weapons, typically fully automatic weapons or any rifle or shotgun that doesnt meet a minimum length requirement (ie. the mention of the short barrel rifle).

Last big gun law change was the assault rifle ban, and associated laws. I don't know the specifics but now you can buy full magazines instead of the 10 round stipulation.

[Subwaybrum]

hehe sorry for not making it clear. They're Australian gun laws from the australian government site.

ACT stands for Australian Capital Territory. I'm pretty sure most gun laws are similar enough in all Australian states and territories though.

[DijabutiA]

The question I have for you is, what would happen if we were to ban handguns ownership for the general population? If handgun ownership were only allowed for the police and the military, what would happen? Would the general population be left without an alternative for self protection? No, you can still call the police. They're the ones with the training to respond to criminal activity.

It's always been a point to me that the purpose of the right to bear arms was for the whole idea of an independent militia. I know we have the national guard, but that really doesn't serve THE purpose if it is just an extension of the government; it is no longer independent. We supposedly live in a society with a system of government that allows us to change (which I'm well aware this idea is a facade). I'm not going to argue the feasibility of an armed populace fighting it's own national army, but that is the purpose I see in the 2nd amendment.

With regards to the police and their response to events such as the LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina, a) I don't much faith in the police coming to protect me and b) coming to protect a minority. On top of that, look at the participation of the police and their oppression of minorities through out American history. How can you really trust the police after things like the NYC shooting of that African immigrant, a WHITE KID at Ball State University, etc.

Personally, I've accepted that people are just crazy in America and they'll use anything to kill you if they really want to. AIDs infected syringes, guns, knives, trucks filled with fertilizer; people are just crazy here.

[lycheng]

We supposedly live in a society with a system of government that allows us to change (which I'm well aware this idea is a facade). I'm not going to argue the feasibility of an armed populace fighting it's own national army, but that is the purpose I see in the 2nd amendment.

I agree that was probably what the Founding Father's had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. However, the United States is a much more mature democracy now. Not that it's a perfect democracy, mind you, but one where taking up arms against the government is not the only option for governmental change.

With regards to the police and their response to events such as the LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina, a) I don't much faith in the police coming to protect me and b) coming to protect a minority. On top of that, look at the participation of the police and their oppression of minorities through out American history. How can you really trust the police after things like the NYC shooting of that African immigrant, a WHITE KID at Ball State University, etc.

This is where I respectfully disagree. Despite the failings of the police, some of their acts are quite reprehensible, I think the alternative scenario where everyone is "packing heat" just because the police is non-existent or isn't trustworthy is much, much worst. That would completely undermine the Rule of Law.

Again, no society is perfect, and our current administration have corrupted the Rule of Law. However, you have to admit one of the characteristics of the United States that has allowed it to prosper is upholding the Rule of Law. I'm taking the long term perspective here.

Personally, I've accepted that people are just crazy in America and they'll use anything to kill you if they really want to. AIDs infected syringes, guns, knives, trucks filled with fertilizer; people are just crazy here.

People are crazy, indeed. However, a gun is a perfect weapon to commit murder. You can kill at a distance and it doesn't take much to fire one. Syringes and knives, on the other hand, can be deadly, but I would argue they can be wrestled away by someone without a weapon.

As far as fertilizer truck bombs are concerned, it's not something that your typical crazed lunatic can pull off. As we saw in the McVeigh case, he needed some help, and in that way, it's not really a good comparison with the Cho case.

The real issue is realizing the gun culture in the United States has created a civilian arms race. Of course the best way to stop a crazy guy with a gun is having a sane guy with a gun. But isn't it better not to allow that crazy guy to have a gun in the first place?

lycheng

[DijabutiA]

I agree that was probably what the Founding Father's had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. However, the United States is a much more mature democracy now. Not that it's a perfect democracy, mind you, but one where taking up arms against the government is not the only option for governmental change.

The rapid amount of changes that have happened since 9/11 makes me really question the direction this country is going in. They passed the Patriot Act with no problem, they found the new Communists (Islam), and now they want to make everyone carry a National ID card with a rfid chip which will probably be legitimized as a "solution" to illegal immigration, and I hear they will require the ID to travel on the Super Corridor mega highway from Mexico to Canada. They want a camera on every street corner, which they are already doing in England. I don't see the end of the two party dictatorship happening anytime soon, hence I don't see anything happening about all these ridiculous laws being passed.

This is where I respectfully disagree. Despite the failings of the police, some of their acts are quite reprehensible, I think the alternative scenario where everyone is "packing heat" just because the police is non-existent or isn't trustworthy is much, much worst. That would completely undermine the Rule of Law.

I'm not suggesting that arming every citizen is THE solution or any replacement for the police. I also don't believe the police have the ability, or will even exercise the ability to protect you. I am in serious doubt of the police's ability to protect me. I think people should have a right to defend themselves.

Again, no society is perfect, and our current administration have corrupted the Rule of Law. However, you have to admit one of the characteristics of the United States that has allowed it to prosper is upholding the Rule of Law. I'm taking the long term perspective here.

I agree that this is one of the reasons why this country prospered but, but how much longer? I'm not alone in the opinion that the American empire is probably going to fall within our lifetime. Katrina, LA riots, Detroit riots, etc. shows the police aren't capable of controlling a crisis. And the National Guard can't do anything either, cause they are too "busy" in Iraq.

Honestly, shit like that plus all the crazy shit the government wants to pass, makes me want to have the AK and a case of ammunition in the basement waiting for the next Civil War... or the Zombie Apocalypse. =D

People are crazy, indeed. However, a gun is a perfect weapon to commit murder. You can kill at a distance and it doesn't take much to fire one.

Shooting a rifle takes some skill, which will require some range time. Shooting a handgun is very difficult and takes a LOT of practice, and I'm not talking about any "hitman" or professional level of shooting; you'd be amazed what you CAN'T hit from 5 to 10 feet.

I used to think that a gun was empowering, but after shooting one I don't believe that anymore.

Syringes and knives, on the other hand, can be deadly, but I would argue they can be wrestled away by someone without a weapon.

This kid stabbed 30 people on a subway (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5025282.stm) and he's not even an American. Yea, he's that out lier that fucks up statistics.

As far as fertilizer truck bombs are concerned, it's not something that your typical crazed lunatic can pull off. As we saw in the McVeigh case, he needed some help, and in that way, it's not really a good comparison with the Cho case.

But so is McVeigh (fucks up statistics). What Cho (also fucks up statistics) pulled off is not something a typical lunatic can pull off either. I am in TOTAL belief that there is NO WAY this kid learned how to shoot that well in a month. I think there will be a lot more to explain in the future, like this:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9282/cho101hh5.jpg

The real issue is realizing the gun culture in the United States has created a civilian arms race. Of course the best way to stop a crazy guy with a gun is having a sane guy with a gun. But isn't it better not to allow that crazy guy to have a gun in the first place?

Meh, I'm not so sure that every "gun" person is all for arming everyone. I think that is just the typical pro/con media sensationalism reacton to this; it's pretty sad to see so many people try to push an agenda with this tragedy. Honestly, how many people in the population are mentally mature enough and willing to put in the practice to responsibily carry a concealed handgun? I dunno bout you, but when I goto the range all those bullet holes in the COVERING over the area you stand at SCARES ME.

Trying to taken the guns away now really goes to a chicken and egg situation. Plenty of people already own weapons now, so what do you plan to do? What about people who hunt, shoot skeet, and sport shoot?

Implementing something like that is honestly too late. Guns are apart of the American culture, whether people like it or not. Owning a gun used to be no big deal a long time ago, dunno WTF happened in society to change that. I might be wrong, but I recall hearing that gun ownership is higher in Canda than the US but they don't have half the problems we do. They got a policy of arming all men (http://www.answers.com/topic/gun-politics-in-switzerland) who have completed the draft in Switzerland with a Sig rifle.

I really think this is a cultural problem unique to the United States. I mean, look at the people trying to pass these gun laws; they don't even know what they are banning! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCe4yoRVaA) If you can't get people wno have real knowledge of the American gun culture involved with legislature, do you really expect any laws that will produce results?

[atlasien]

They got a policy of arming all men (http://www.answers.com/topic/gun-politics-in-switzerland) who have completed the draft in Switzerland with a Sig rifle.


I asked a Swiss guy about this once, and he said he was given a rifle, "in case the Germans come", but the bullets had to be kept in a special case and he could get into huge trouble if any bullet was not accounted for.

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

[lycheng]

Implementing something like that is honestly too late. Guns are apart of the American culture, whether people like it or not. Owning a gun used to be no big deal a long time ago, dunno WTF happened in society to change that. I might be wrong, but I recall hearing that gun ownership is higher in Canda than the US but they don't have half the problems we do. They got a policy of arming all men (http://www.answers.com/topic/gun-politics-in-switzerland) who have completed the draft in Switzerland with a Sig rifle.

I agree taking all guns away is an impossible job. There's already too many guns, legally and illegally in the U.S. What I would advocate is closing up loopholes in existing gun laws. Perhaps consolidate Federal and State databases such that mental health records are accurate. Another approach to take is to limit ammo purchases (channeling atlasien), or as was done in the years 1994 to 2004, stop the manufacturing of 15-bullet magazines.

I really think this is a cultural problem unique to the United States. I mean, look at the people trying to pass these gun laws; they don't even know what they are banning! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCe4yoRVaA) If you can't get people wno have real knowledge of the American gun culture involved with legislature, do you really expect any laws that will produce results?

As funny as that YouTube clip is to you, to me, it just shows that Congresswoman probably didn't write her own legislation... big deal. I'll bet most, if not all members of Congress on both sides of the isle don't write their own legislation.

Tucker Carlson knows this, and by insisting that Congresswoman McCarthy answer his "barrel shroud" question, he's just being the dick that he is. He's not trying to engage in a productive discussion of the issue; he's out to embarras his enemy. There are way too many Carlson's, Hannity's, and Limbaugh's on TV and radio. :(

You are right to point out that gun violence seems to be unique to the United States. And I firmly believe one of the reasons is this belief that a firearm is needed to protect himself, his family, and his country. The willingness to use deadly force to resolve conflicts, and the perception that the path to peace is with a bigger gun.

lycheng

[minbo]

I know that this is not exactly the intent behind the "gun violence unique to America", but a lot of countries that possess small arms have significant gun violence. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mexico, Columbia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Sri Lanaka...

The US however, with it's culture of indoctrinated fear that is pushed by news organizations and ambulance chasers is unique in that it combines gun violence with a paradoxically fairly good rule of law and oversight agencies.

[Tyger Durden]

Excuse me, but for the sake of comparison and curiosity, can any one here find the gun laws/gun-related deaths of Mexico and other Latin American countries? Maybe Columbia? El Salvador?

I think Mexico should be an adequate comparison since they border the "gun-crazy" USA.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

[atlasien]

I don't have those figures on hand, but in case someone posts them, I just want to qualify that it's hard to compare gun laws with gun deaths in many of those countries. Whenever enforcement is extremely corrupt, the laws on the books really don't mean much.

I'm willing to bet 1) gun laws in Colombia are very strict 2) no one pays attention to them 3) gun violence and deaths there are the highest in Latin America.

[Tyger Durden]

I think Poverty has more to do with gun-deaths in Third World countries than Police-corruption, but i was just curious to see how Latin America relates to the USA.

If one can make a correlation between first-person shooter video games and gun-violence, that would be interesting as well.

[minbo]

I don't know about poor countries crime statistics, but I think that gun violence is indirectly linked to poverty in as much as poverty generates higher amounts of physical crime compared to people of greater means. Then you also have rule of law issues in some countries, organized crime/drug cartels, etc. Sectarian violence in others like Northern Ireland, Somolia...

In regards to video game violence, the studies have been inconclusive as to it affecting violent behaviour. In my opinion, it is like porn. People who watch porn IMHO are not more likely to have sex than if they didn't watch porn, they were horny bastards before and after. What porn does is spread ideas. After all, if you never knew such a thing existed as a possibility of doing a reverse cowgirl or pulling an AtM. You would never do it unless you invented it or had some strange accident. Now that you know about it, you are more likely to do the act, but you are not more likely to have sex, you would have had the sex anyway, though perhaps more plain vanilla. If you play violent video games, you are no more likely to go postal then before, but when you do decide to go postal, all those ideas on creative ways to kill a person or how to kill lots of people tumble around your head. The ideas do not increase the frequency of violence happening, but it can increase the amplitude of the violence that does happen. The same goes for seeing violent movies, TV or books.

[DijabutiA]

I know that this is not exactly the intent behind the "gun violence unique to America", but a lot of countries that possess small arms have significant gun violence. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mexico, Columbia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Sri Lanaka...

Yea, but how many of these countires have a really stable socioeconomic society? A lot of these countries in some state of war. A lot of these groups have some passing semblance of a political goal to "justify" their violence; those school shooters just did that shit to get on television. I don't put it in the same category.

The US however, with it's culture of indoctrinated fear that is pushed by news organizations and ambulance chasers is unique in that it combines gun violence with a paradoxically fairly good rule of law and oversight agencies.

We have the news just scaring you with every day violence, then the government scaring you with terrorism. And on the opposite side, we have the entertainment industry who bombards you with even more violence. Isn't it ironic that people would point fingers at the writings of Cho as a warning sign, but would then turn around and pay money to watch a movie like Hostel?

[DijabutiA]

I agree taking all guns away is an impossible job. There's already too many guns, legally and illegally in the U.S. What I would advocate is closing up loopholes in existing gun laws. Perhaps consolidate Federal and State databases such that mental health records are accurate. Another approach to take is to limit ammo purchases (channeling atlasien), or as was done in the years 1994 to 2004, stop the manufacturing of 15-bullet magazines.

Definitely, theres a lot of room that they should tighten up laws regarding things like straw man purchases. A straw man purchace is where someone with a clean record will go into a gun store and buy several weapons, in cash, just to get them for someone else (who can't legally buy it themself). Typically, they don't care about the quality of the gun, they just want as many as possible (which usually gives them away).

Some gun stores practically sell guns on a personal observation, deeming who might use them for criminal means. On the opposite side, you have dealers who willingly deal firearms to strawman purchasers.

We DO HAVE laws against selling weapons to people who have mental illnesses and this is just a tragedy that this case slipped through the cracks. I also agree with the NRA's opinion that punishments involving firearms aren't severe enough. But that also gets into a chicken and egg situation; if a heinous crime has been committed then its too late.

I don't see much of a solution coming from the banning of 11 or higher capacity magazines. People in the past have bought preban magazines (at increased prices), or are now currently stocking up on magazines before another ban. This magazine ban and some type of assault weapons ban is still enforced in California. So it kind of goes back to the whole chicken and egg situation, where someone can still get their hands on the items. If they can't get them in the US then I'm sure they can get them smuggled from Mexico.

As funny as that YouTube clip is to you, to me, it just shows that Congresswoman probably didn't write her own legislation... big deal. I'll bet most, if not all members of Congress on both sides of the isle don't write their own legislation.

I think its pretty indicative of American culture, specifically the absence of personal responsibility; blame someone else and sue them. It's pretty sad to see this represented in the government. A barrel shroud is just basically a head sink for a shotgun to help regulate barrel temperature.

The willingness to use deadly force to resolve conflicts, and the perception that the path to peace is with a bigger gun.

I believe this to be a minority opinion, in the sense that a lot of people who disagree with gun control don't necessarily own a gun. I personally don't own a gun, thought I've thought about buying one. I don't think I'd go target shoot enough to get my money out of it; I got enough hobbies already. Hell, in the general area that I LIVE, I probably SHOULD own one! But I don't exactly feel the need for it. Honestly, I feel like having it because of the government than cause of crime. Then again, when you read about an entire family dead after a home invasion you think twice (atleast I do).