Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Mad Studios. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gun control in the wake of Virginia massacre
Topic Started: Apr 17 2007, 07:12 AM (1,069 Views)
lumpy
Citizen B
I think this has been the best debate topic in the history of the section. Kudos, everybody.

Quote:
 
If we had harsher laws against gun control, somebody who was planning this type of attack out could certainly get access to them illegally, as was the case with Columbine.


Exactly. Tighter laws would not stop the people mad enough to go on a killing spree from illegally accessing them, no matter the consequences. What do they have to lose? Unless they are complete fools they would most certainly predict their own death in the process of the crime.
FUN
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Awesome
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
Which has been one of my solid points from the beginning. I think (what should be) the greater issue is recognizing potential threats. He had been writing things that had worried his teacher, but nobody recognized just how angry he was.


Oh, and Dneezy, I'm sorry to say that this topic has made me break my limit of... what was it, 14 words?
Guess what! I'm writing a book called Nuclear Winter!
giggleguy
 
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stormbreaker
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
Yeah. I noticed that. Kudos.

Nice point, lumpy.

I'll go for tighter laws, though. It is better than nothing...

Ya know this guy went into a mental asylum in 2005?
BOOM DE YADA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mars
Member Avatar
Igor Bonanimals
Admin
El
 
First of all, the biggest threat to a shooter is what - other guns. If we had harsher laws against gun control, somebody who was planning this type of attack out could certainly get access to them illegally, as was the case with Columbine.


So, what do you think, we should arm every student? That's ridiculous. The guy had barely been in the country a year, do you really think he would have known how and where to get illegal firearms? He killed those people because he was extremely frustrated and the current lack of gun control let him vent those frustrations. I keep hearing the "more guns!" argument, which is a horrifying situation to imagine. How woul you feel attending a school where every student has a weapon? Guns are banned in all schools for good reason. Teenage guys get riled up regularly and fist fights are common in certain schools. Imagine the situation if everyone were allowed a concealed weapon and a fight broke out. People would get shot on a daily basis.

The mental health situation does need to be improved, although how is another question. One would like to think that people should have noticed all the twisted things this guy was writing but at a university with a large population it would be hard to keep everyone under wraps. Teachers should be encouraged to report odd incidents of aggression like El mentioned.

El
 
A faster, better law enforcement would have certainly helped here.

Agree on the law enforcement issue, perhaps less people would have died if they had acted quicker.

El Carnemago
 
I agree that my casual use of racial slurs is certainly offending to some, but gun control wouldn't help at all here.

That's a rubbish statement. I can't even comprehend how that justifies racism. The killer's race had nothing to do with the attack and slurs like that aren't welcome here.
Assassin's Creed: "Press X To Win"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
European Son
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
Yeah, El most of my intended rebuttal is in Mars' above post.

The easiest way to discuss and determine whether or not legal (and I'm talking United States standards in terms of legal) possession of firearms is having positive or negative effects on a nation, is to compare it with nations of similar development and their chosen gun-legislation.

(sourced directly from Bowling for Columbine, so they are current as of 2002)

USA 11,127
Germany 381
France 255
Canada 165
United Kingdom 68
Japan 39

The rate of gun related deaths in Canada (Canada being almost on par with the United States, for ownership levels) clearly supports the idea that high levels of gun ownership is not the cause for such high rates of death. Second, the video game debate, I don't know where to even begin, as this has been debunked so many times previously.

I think Moore is roughly accurate in suggesting that a combination of nationwide fear, of all things unknown, instilled by the media at large, is what encourages such high rates of ownership. This, coupled with theory that some owners consider it patriotic to own a firearm, as it is in the constitution. Again, that idea is infinitely ridiculous and unreasonable in it's very nature, that it just may be accurate.

This IS about gun ownership, and legalization of 'concealed carrying' is only going to increase the risk of pure accidents if anything. Again, the lack of precautions in the system of purchase is also relatively abhorrent, coupled with the pathetic state of the national mental health system (just like over here.)
Posted Image
Dead children playing!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mars
Member Avatar
Igor Bonanimals
Admin
Quote:
 
This IS about gun ownership, and legalization of 'concealed carrying' is only going to increase the risk of pure accidents if anything.

I shouldn't have missed that glaringly obvious point. You're absolutely right. If they did arm all students they'd have to screen them for mental illness, train them for firearms and emergency situations etc. If you put the incredible cost of that aside, what you're looking at is a militant state. Not going to happen (I sincerely hope).
Assassin's Creed: "Press X To Win"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stormbreaker
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
I heard the guys was here since he was four years old, not a year. Whatever.
BOOM DE YADA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Awesome
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
Quote:
 
So, what do you think, we should arm every student? That's ridiculous. The guy had barely been in the country a year, do you really think he would have known how and where to get illegal firearms? He killed those people because he was extremely frustrated and the current lack of gun control let him vent those frustrations. I keep hearing the "more guns!" argument, which is a horrifying situation to imagine. How woul you feel attending a school where every student has a weapon? Guns are banned in all schools for good reason. Teenage guys get riled up regularly and fist fights are common in certain schools. Imagine the situation if everyone were allowed a concealed weapon and a fight broke out. People would get shot on a daily basis.


I hadn't said that. I said that if guns were harder to acquire, it would make self-defense more difficult, implying for every other college student to carry weapons was not at all my intention. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Quote:
 
El Carnemago
 
I agree that my casual use of racial slurs is certainly offending to some, BUT gun control wouldn't help at all here.

That's a rubbish statement. I can't even comprehend how that justifies racism. The killer's race had nothing to do with the attack and slurs like that aren't welcome here.

I was apologizing for it, not justifying it. What part of my post made you think I was using my ideas about gun control as a shield for racism?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
This IS about gun ownership, and legalization of 'concealed carrying' is only going to increase the risk of pure accidents if anything.


I shouldn't have missed that glaringly obvious point. You're absolutely right. If they did arm all students they'd have to screen them for mental illness, train them for firearms and emergency situations etc. If you put the incredible cost of that aside, what you're looking at is a militant state. Not going to happen (I sincerely hope).
Again, I'm unsure why everyone thinks I said letting all students run around with firearms was a good idea. The obvious solution here is to raise weapon restrictions on universities, but NOT anywhere else. I can't think of a legit reason for a student to need guns to protect himself, unless the university in question's standards are sub-par, in which case the focus of our attention should be on the more immediate problem.

And stormbreaker, I'm pretty sure he was here for four years. I guess we'll all have to check our sources again.
Guess what! I'm writing a book called Nuclear Winter!
giggleguy
 
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mars
Member Avatar
Igor Bonanimals
Admin
El
 
I hadn't said that. I said that if guns were harder to acquire, it would make self-defense more difficult, implying for every other college student to carry weapons was not at all my intention. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

You implied it by suggesting that perhaps if guns were easier to acquire (and allowed at schools) a student could have killed Cho Seung-hui. Most college students would carry guns if the already flimsy laws were revoked, for the reason that "everyone else is". Ask someone who has a gun in their house. They have a gun because there are other people with guns, who could use said gun against the home owner to steal their property and in the process, maim or kill them.

Quote:
 
I was apologizing for it, not justifying it. What part of my post made you think I was using my ideas about gun control as a shield for racism?

Separate sentences would have helped, but I see now that you were apologising and then stating an unrelated point. My point is retracted.

Quote:
 
Again, I'm unsure why everyone thinks I said letting all students run around with firearms was a good idea. The obvious solution here is to raise weapon restrictions on universities, but NOT anywhere else. I can't think of a legit reason for a student to need guns to protect himself, unless the university in question's standards are sub-par, in which case the focus of our attention should be on the more immediate problem.

How would allowing people outside of the college to carry concealed weapons have helped the situation? The shootings occurred within the university. This means there were no guns present. You heavily contradict yourself within that statement, opposed to your earlier statement of:

Quote:
 
First of all, the biggest threat to a shooter is what - other guns. If we had harsher laws against gun control, somebody who was planning this type of attack out could certainly get access to them illegally, as was the case with Columbine. Although it may prevent a few sudden angry attacks, in the long run it would make it more difficult for the innocent to defend themselves.

So basically in order to achieve a situation in which a student will be able to shoot an assassin, you propose we raise (and I assume you mean "heighten") weapon restrictions in schools? I think you should review this part of your argument because it appears to be flawed.

Quote:
 
And stormbreaker, I'm pretty sure he was here for four years. I guess we'll all have to check our sources again.

Wikipedia says he migrated to the United States in September 1992.

On the mental health issue, this wikipedia entry is interesting as it shows the amount of information various people knew about his mental state. This raises the question, why didn't they do anything about it?
Assassin's Creed: "Press X To Win"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Awesome
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
Quote:
 
You implied it by suggesting that perhaps if guns were easier to acquire (and allowed at schools) a student could have killed Cho Seung-hui. Most college students would carry guns if the already flimsy laws were revoked, for the reason that "everyone else is". Ask someone who has a gun in their house. They have a gun because there are other people with guns, who could use said gun against the home owner to steal their property and in the process, maim or kill them.

Solution =
El
 
Again, I'm unsure why everyone thinks I said letting all students run around with firearms was a good idea. The obvious solution here is to raise weapon restrictions on universities, but NOT anywhere else. I can't think of a legit reason for a student to need guns to protect himself, unless the university in question's standards are sub-par, in which case the focus of our attention should be on the more immediate problem.


Quote:
 
How would allowing people outside of the college to carry concealed weapons have helped the situation? The shootings occurred within the university. This means there were no guns present. You heavily contradict yourself within that statement, opposed to your earlier statement of:

Quote:
 
First of all, the biggest threat to a shooter is what - other guns. If we had harsher laws against gun control, somebody who was planning this type of attack out could certainly get access to them illegally, as was the case with Columbine. Although it may prevent a few sudden angry attacks, in the long run it would make it more difficult for the innocent to defend themselves.

So basically in order to achieve a situation in which a student will be able to shoot an assassin, you propose we raise (and I assume you mean "heighten") weapon restrictions in schools? I think you should review this part of your argument because it appears to be flawed.

I kinda changed my ideas about halfway through, but realize that my thoughts on gun control elsewhere are not directly related to helping gun+university situations, but more of reasons why we shouldn't strengthen gun control anywhere but universities.

I'm sorry for being confusing. My points are basically as follows:

1. Stronger gun restrictions on Universities
2. Better health tests (mental) on buying guns/earning license.
3. Change nothing else
Guess what! I'm writing a book called Nuclear Winter!
giggleguy
 
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lumpy
Citizen B
El Carnemago
Apr 20 2007, 11:01 PM
Better health tests (mental) on buying guns/earning license.

But as I stated above, if someone's planning to massacre, why would they even bother obtaining firearms legally?
FUN
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arkan
Member Avatar
Better than sliced bread
Yes, but imposing heavier laws on gun control will reduce the amount of illegal firearms as it will be harder to obtain it anyway. Where do you think all these "illegal" guns are coming from. You could say overseas but that would be a totally different topic.

I just don't see the point that you can walk into a store and by a gun with the same amount of security as say, alcohol. And also the fact that you can buy uzis, snipers and automatic rifles. What do you need those for protection. A pistol is good enough. Its not like an entire army will try to rob you.
Bioshock is awesome
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Awesome
Member Avatar
Master of His Domain
Some people have hobbies. Hey, Americans are weird.
Guess what! I'm writing a book called Nuclear Winter!
giggleguy
 
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arkan
Member Avatar
Better than sliced bread
Gun collecting? Yeah i guess. But seriously, laws should be changed. After a massacre by one person in Tasmania over a decade ago here in Australia that killed around 14 people, the laws were dramatically changed.
Bioshock is awesome
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mars
Member Avatar
Igor Bonanimals
Admin
Arkan
Apr 21 2007, 02:48 PM
Gun collecting? Yeah i guess. But seriously, laws should be changed. After a massacre by one person in Tasmania over a decade ago here in Australia that killed around 14 people, the laws were dramatically changed.

That would be 35 people. I covered this earlier.

Me
 
Also, on a local note: Australia has a low level of gun related deaths because we have an excellent system of gun control. A family friend used to own and fire guns at a range in the eighties. When Martin Bryant murdered 35 people in 1996 at Port Arthur Prison the government went crazy and ramped up gun laws big time. The guns that weren't taken away, the poor guy had to store in a painfully expensive concrete safe, transport them directly from the safe to his car boot (also containing a safe) and take them to the range, use them and then transport them back home. When he found out he had to reinforce his roof to prevent break ins he dropped his hobby. Stuff like that is unfortunate but it is necessary if we are to maintain our excellent low gun death statistics.
Assassin's Creed: "Press X To Win"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply