I just turned on CNN...

[crowdog66]

THIS is why gun control is a GOOD idea, people

Thanks to nightdog_barks for the pointer.

Comments

[beckyh2112.livejournal.com]

... No.

Not being able to shoot back at a guy who was chaining doors shut to keep his victims in is a bad idea.

[crowdog66.livejournal.com]

The point I'm making is that if guns were less widely available, insane people wouldn't find them so easy to get ahold of in the first place.

Compare the number of mass murder shootings in places like Canada and the UK to the number in the USA. I think there is definitely a correlation between legal gun availability and tragedies such as these.

[beckyh2112.livejournal.com]

It's already illegal for lunatics to own guns. It's already illegal for people to commit murder with them.

Someone who seriously wants to commit a crime is not going to be stopped by the illegality of what they're doing. All it will accomplish is getting guns out of the hands of people who are already law-abiders.

Also!

Population of US: 298 million+
Population of UK: 60 million+
Population of Canada: 32 million+

Statistics alone show that the US is more likely to have violent crime involving guns, simply because we have more people.

Additionally, while gun crime may be going down in the UK, knife crime is going up.

[CharlesRB]: Unfortunately knife attacks have gone up, and there's been a recent spat of teenage gang murders around London and in some other areas, though London got the most focus
[CharlesRB]: Youngest death being 13
[CharlesRB]: Not that this is entirely a new development, there's been interest group and police focus on knife violence for a few years - knives seem to be more popular than guns coz they're easy to get, you just borrow them from the kitchen or whatever

You don't make the world a safer place by taking away the defenses of law-abiding people.

We have laws in place regarding what people are required to do in order to purchase a gun legally. The problem is that 80% of the guns used to commit crimes are bought by family or friends, or they're a street buy, or they're from an illegal source.

Stricter gun control laws aren't going to stop that sort of thing.

[silverjackal.livejournal.com]

Actually the United States has more violent crime, and a much higher rate of deliberate homicide involving firearms than other first world nations.

Using the numbers available from The United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000) (you can download the spreadsheet yourself to check the numbers, here's a comparison of the U. S. figures to a random selection of other first world nations:

Australia:
1998: 54 homicides; 0.28 per 100K(pop)
1999: 62 homicides; 0.33 per 100K
2000: 59 homicides; 0.31 per 100K

Canada:
1998: 151 homicides; 0.50 per 100K(pop)
1999: 165 homicides; 0.54 per 100K
2000: no information

United States:
1998: 9257 homicides; 3.37 per 100K(pop)
1999: 8259 homicides; 2.97 per 100K
2000: no information

England and Wales:
1998: 49 homicides; 0.09 per 100K(pop)
1999: 62 homicides; 0.12 per 100K
2000: no information

Germany:
1998: 402 homicides; 0.49 per 100K(pop)
1999: 414 homicides; 0.50 per 100K
2000: 384 homicides; 0.467 per 100K

Adjusted for population the U. S. *still* has more firearm related homicide -- and this doesn't cover the the unintentional injuries and homicides. While it's true that a certain amount of homicide always happens, and that other weapons will be used if firearms aren't available, the number of people in the general population who have sidearms makes the commission of such crime easier. School children, for example, aren't going to have the means to acquire weapons if they can't steal them from family members or friends.

While I believe that gun control *isn't* the answer (it's expensive and ineffective), I don't pretend to have a better solution.

[sammelsadvocate.livejournal.com]

Take away guns, knife crime will go up. Look at Stabmonton.

It's human nature. And besides, a number of lunatics (Read Serial Killers) still perfer the use of a knife to a gun.

Anything can be utilized as a weapon. Humans are resourseful little bastards.

[silverjackal.livejournal.com]

You can't massacre a large number of people quickly with a knife. You also can't threaten and control as many people, because they only need to get out of arm's reach to be out of the assailant's power. There's also a certain psychology involved -- many who wouldn't hesitate to wield a gun would be too squeamish to use a knife, and they also risk their victim fighting back. There's also the fact that knives, frying pans, or what-have-you used in impulsive crimes are less likely to inflict lethal damage than a gun.

I know that gun control doesn't work -- that's a well established fact. It doesn't address the larger cultural issue that seems to invoke higher rates of firearm related violence in the United States. And my point was it *is* a higher rate, not merely a figment of a larger population base. I don't have numbers to hand for the last 5 years, and the numbers have come down somewhat, but they're still more than twice that of other developed nations in general. Why is that? (I'm not talking about extreme cases like this recent massacre, or serial killers, or the other extremes which can happen anywhere. By that I mean that average homicides are more likely to involve a firearm.) I don't have an answer -- I don't think anyone does, or they would be able to work out a solution. While it's not a root cause, the fact that so many of the general population are armed, though, is certainly a contributing factor.

[silverjackal.livejournal.com]

And a last, belated addendum, now that some solid news has been released. Gun control wouldn't have worked in this instance. The serial numbers of the weapons used were filed off, meaning that they were bought illegally, and likely stolen. Not that that's any comfort for those grieving the many lives lost.

[sammelsadvocate.livejournal.com]

What bothers me is how few people try to fight back rather than be the victim of a criminal, or in this case, a madman. The first rule of self defense is attack your attacker. This simple maneuver usually throws an opponent off balance. Now granted, in this case it'll be impossible to ever determine what was running through the killers head or whether he would have been fazed by resistance, but going out trying to do something is always preferable to lying down and accepting your fate. Speaking from experience as a security officer, one man can effectively throw a group of aggressive individuals for a loop by coming in and dominating the situation (Read: wading in to the middle and screaming a lot). Most criminals run according to a script where they go in, threaten and face no resistance. When things don't go according to plan they freeze up and start posturing. In the face of continued resistance thsy usually back down and tell you how lucky you are as they walk away. (Then they run when you take after them.)

My point? One person taking a chance and attacking the gunman could have possibly overpowered him, especially if he was counting on his guns to cause people to panic.

I personally think that martial arts training in school could help.

[lenora-rose.livejournal.com]

All very well for a security guard.

Read the second section.

[lenora-rose.livejournal.com]

Gun control might be a good idea... if every method of gun control thus far attempted (At least here in Canuckistan) wasn't worse than useless -- and if they didn't keep tightening the regulations, or trying, after significant shootouts involving stolen or other illegal weaponry.

We can't make a sane gun policy by basing it off extreme incidents like this. And we shouldn't use these incidents as the *reason* why gun control should be in place.

The real question is why nobody cared enough to know this person well enough to realise they were starting to go that far out. Some of the reports suggest a recent decline in behaviour before this, a big cue something was going wrong.