Year help: Guns/ shooting are guns the problem or the syptom? - Help.com

Cool post!

I see I am being out voted. :/

CSPAN says it the guns, I think is much bigger than that, I think it’s the video games that make children addicted to shoot and win in the game. So much violence, I really think the US should ban does violent video games. If you want to buy them then buy it in the black market. IT should not be on a public market.

NO GUNS..no guns at all..that’s what i say

Guns are highly-effective tools designed to kill. Guns with magazines are designed for mass killing. Who needs those kind of tools? Now, who actually has them? It is the joy of ownership and practice-shooting worth the deaths?

i know this sounds stupid and cheesy but i don’t think guns are really the weapon here, even though they kill something has to have caused him to get to the point to year death was the answer. so from past things i have heard about it may just be words. some people take them to heart and sometimes the wrong way. so the way he took the words hurt him so much that killing was the only solution he could find, when there could have been others. that is my opinion on it.

To the “you don’t need a gun that powerful” point:

The initial point of allowing citizens to have weapons is so that they could keep the government (read: government’s military) in check. That can hardly be achieved when the government denies it’s own citizens the very same weapons that it uses. How could citizens reasonably defened them selves from a corrupted government when they’ve been weened down to 10 round, difficult to load, and marginalized weapons when the government has access to high caliber, long range, reliable, and large capacity weaponry?

I will concede that some weapons are a matter of war time use only, but most small arms are not.

in 2005, 44,757 people died as a result of auto accidents in the U.S.
do we outlaw cars?

Today, the annual number of accidental firearm-related fatalities (730) is down 77 percent from a high of 3,200 in 1930. In comparison to the 730 accidental gun deaths, 809 die from being struck by an object, 893 die from natural heat or cold, 1,307 suffocate, 3,306 drown, 3,369 die from fires, flames and smoke, 4,272 choke, 17,229 fall to their death, 19,457 are poisoned and 44,757 are killed in car accidents

as i said in another post, when i was younger, i ran with a very bad crowd. we would break in houses, steal cars, etc. not proud of this, so do not get the wrong idea. the thing is, if we knew, or even suspected someone had a gun, they were off limits. we would not take the chance of getting shot. we preferred unarmed victims. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but in america, if you outlaw guns, the crime rate will go up.

to go on with the video games with all of its killings, people have come ammune to is so killing and other things have come to an everyday thing. they have gotten used to it. it also goes with the movies. and people don’t know how bad it really is until it happens nearby or to someone they love.

Fair enough jblogg — how do you differentiate cars from guns then?

Being in england where guns are illegal, its a very obvious decision.

Currently, pretty much EVERY shooting is in a paper or in the news. Thats how rare it is.

http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/hom…

On page 32 you can see we only have 20000 25000 recorded crimes in which a firearm is used.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/g…

Now look at this, in the US its around the 400000 mark. Thats a HUGE difference.

I believe this is because most people dont know where to get guns from. I dont, if i REALLY wanted to get one i probably could after a lot of searching and asking questions.

As for people breaking in with guns, this will be also be reduced by a gun ban.

england is a different society. how long have guns been illegal, and how many are left over in curculation?

Yes, obviously it will take quite a few years for it to work. But i can happily say i can walk down ANY street in england and not have to worry about being shot.

can you say that about the US?

Additionally, the rationale is that if you take away a gun, you take away the crime. Which is not true — as I recall, crime rate with blunt instruments and/or knifes took off when guns got harder to find.

and in the U.S., if you want to, you can get ANY type of firearm from the black market. I have SEEN shoulder mounted rocket launchers, pick one up for a cool $1000.

p.s. the rockets cost extra

jblogg: not really sure where you stand on this — which way did you vote?

I’m trying to figure out if we’re arguing the same side or not…

I think school secuirty should have the same alarm as banks do, Banks have a button it pressed and cops come right away with out asking questions.

One time I was watching I think it was the CI channel there was this crazy man went into a motor cycle store and he shot 2 workers one of the workers was only 17 years old. and he called 911 for help he told the operator shhhhhhhhh be quiet he is coming, and the operator said hello and the gun man shoot again the 17 yr old but in the head it so sad,

I think there should be press a button and cops come strolling in with out asking any questions.

I think there should be more cops and I do believe it a state problem

That’s getting a little off topic visiting. There are some other post around where that would be better posted.

you know what would be great? if we had firearm education just like we have drivers ed in school.

and, i also heard that vir tech just voted not to allow their security to be armed, before this shooting took place.

guns can be purchased in the black market, the idea is how to prepare and protect our society from preditors and killers

and to me, the scariest part. humans are very creative. if someone is gonna kill me, i would rather it be by gunshot than by chainsaw or sledghammer. ha ha

“you have to realize that the huge majority of these shootings your fine media tell you about are confined to inner city neighborhoods that are poorly policed. giuliani proved that because as mayor new york he increased the police presence in those neighborhoods.”

Not true, the only ones we hear about on the news are the ones where someone has gone crazy and shot random people in a public place. We do have rough neighborhoods, but none of them come close to the bad US ones. I believe this is because we dont have guns, and therefore policing them is easier.

The simple fact that i hear more about US gun crime than gun crime in my own country, shows how much worse it is in the US.

we don’t have soccer huligans either, lucky us. again, different cultures. should the U.K. outlaw soccer?

and you never answered my earlier 2 questions

Tough luck — current events bring standing debates to the fore front. That’s life and not a valid reason to dismiss the debate.

“The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? “Gun control” did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 – one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany – new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives. ”

To be fair, Americans did a good number on Indians and Japanese. But that’s getting a bit off topic.

if we are looking for relevance to the shooting yesterday, i guess we need to know if the firearms were aquirred legally or not. i have not heard yet. does anyone know?

Yes, football supporters can get aggresive and violent. I agree that something should be done about it. But banning a perfectly innocent sport isnt the correct way to go.

It doesnt matter if it was legally purchased or not. Had a gun ban been in effect for the last 10 years. I doubt he would have had a gun.

Oh, btw, since guns are illegal in the UK, who makes them? Since there is no market for them?

Oh i know, they are smuggled into the country from somewhere where they arnt illegal… like the US.

WOAH there Rye. England makes plenty of their own guns. The military probably takes out large contracts to do just that. Additionally, wishes are nice and all, but American has to live with the fact that we HAVEN’T had a ban like that in effect and that there are enough working guns, reloads, and ammo around to make sure that even if legitimate ownership disappaeared today the black market trade would not be affected for a very, VERY long time.

And, as I had heard, the guns were legally acquired.

found an answer too

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=304…

but rye….how long have guns been illegal in the U.K.?

and did anyone read the nazi gun laws above?

heh:

1997 they were banned iirc.

“around 90% of the world’s illegally-held weapons start off in the legal trade.”

So basically by banning guns around the world you would cut off 90% of the supply.

The nazi laws are irrelivant today. But what are you getting at. are you likeing the nazis(toughest criminals) to the american population?

no, i am saying that restricting right is the path to a facist state, controled by the few. the right to bear arms was one of the first things we established here in “the new world” and good thing, it allowed us to fight back against the opreesors from overseas, the mighty british empire.
first, you take away the peoples rights, then their freedoms, then you lower their level of education, and so on. sorry, when i say it will not work here as it work in england, i mean it. we are an arrogent and independant people, and have been for a little over 200 years. what works for you will not work for us. We will not accept our rights being taken away from us, and if it starts to go that way, we will fight back, in whatever way we must. this is why prohibition did not work in the U.S.

solid.

all the wording was wierd back then. i have heard that the writers left some parts vague with the intention of making it easier for the citizens to stage a revolt if the new gvm’t got out of control.

yeah, that is a hard one to justify. ha ha.

Hmmm where to start

“and 100% of illegal abortions started as legal pregnancies… do we stop abortion by banning pregnancy? “
Firstly, i doubt they were all legal, since many would have been under age or rape victims.

The statistics of gun crime in the UK compared to that of the US CAN NOT JUST BE IGNORED!! i cant believe you just swept my post aside by saying that england is a different society… well duh, of course its different. Its things like gun bans that MAKE IT different.

Those statistics, TAKEN FROM US AND UK GOVERNMENT SOURCES, are PROOF that gun bans work. And im sure if i googled for some other countries stats i would find similar results.

The fact that i grew up in a gunless society means the thought of using a gun doesnt even occur to me. I bet americans cant say the same.

I knew that US freedom would come up.

So what if you have more freedom than me. I dont care, its not like i want a gun. I prefer KNOWING that im safer. A recently passed law is about to take affect in england. It makes it illegal to smoke in a public building. Be it a pub, bar, club etc….

This is fantastic news for all those who hate coming home with clothes stinking and eyes red. Not to mention the health benefits of not breathing in other peoples fumes. And health benefits mean the NHS will have less smoking related illnesses, this means that we tax payers are happier about where our money is going.

Yes its a loss of freedom, but people who smoke will quit because they will have to go outside to smoke. Children grow up learning smoking is bad for your health and they grow up where smoking is made difficult / awkward. (beneficial, even to smokers)

So i’d rather have loss of freedom if it means i feel safer / healthier.

As for being controlled by the few. This isnt the case. We have a democracy. People vote on issues. If the majority of people in england didnt want a gun ban or smoking ban, then it wouldnt have happened.

I think if guns were illegal the bad guys would either buy them illlegally or make more home made bombs or something. If they have that type of mind to kill someone they will find a way to do it leaving good no option for protecting themselves.

Guns aren’t the problem. The bullets inside are. i say people should be allowed to bye guns all they want. Just not ammunition. Problem solved.

I’ll be honest with you man. I’ve never read a dilbert strip in my life

you ever been hit by an empty gun itach? they hurt like hell.

Rye: The allegory to smoking wasn’t a very good one. For starters, I think you’d be hard pressed to give me one positive effect cigarettes have, like, stopping a raging madman wielding guns at a school. Also, the idea behind our freedoms is that I am allowed to be and do as I please, as long as my pursuit of such freedoms to not impede upon the freedoms of others.

Demonstrated using the logic of smoking bans in public places: You are more than welcome to smoke till your lungs go pitch black and you cough tar for all I care. Knock yourself out. However, when you smoke around me YOU are adversely affecting my health and impeding my ability to live. That’s a direct assault on my liberty to life and my pursuit of happiness. As such, you are now impeding on my rights and should be stopped.

Secondly, while you can provide intriguing statistics about guns involved in crimes in the UK, I can similarly find statistics from the U.S. that crime rates dropped once gun laws were relaxed, or that in areas with lax gun control there is less crime. However, in both of our cases correlation may not prove causation.

…

“The fact that i grew up in a gunless society means the thought of using a gun doesnt even occur to me.“

You are also not a criminal either. However, should you have a desire to kill or maim another person, would the fact that you don’t have access to a firearm stop you from brutally beating the person to death or stabbing them in a bathroom? No, it certainly does not.

Humans are the most brutal species on the planet. We have invented more ways to hurt and kill each other than any other species in existence. Removing ONE manner in which we do it would be a far cry from stopping it — but what it does remove in this case, is the ability for other people to have the CHANCE to stop the crime.

…

One of my favorite little things to think about is how objects can be polarized as good or evil, when truly no “thing” is either until it is put into the hands of humans. Nuclear bombs|power. Bacterial infections|cures. Hunting|Scalping knifes.

My opinion holds: I will take the accidental discharges and the “bad apple person who got it legal and went nuts” shooters any day of the week over a crowd of people who are defenseless and at the mercy of not only the criminals whom do not obey the bans, but also the government which cannot be opposed because they have the guns. (Believe that — one gun is a lot of power when you have nothing.)

I take it in the same manner that I accept that bad things happen from other technology. Cars to car accidents or tall buildings to jumping suicides. I accept the trade-offs that come with gun ownership in exchange for what they afford myself and the people around me.

I agree with #1 and #4 but i put 1 because…

erm. oops.

over here guns ARE illegal, i think. shouldve put number 4. chuy…lol

chuy, aks and amebous all agree on this issue??? something is wierd here, and i blame bruce

that is too funny

apart from protection, nothing good can come from a gun and violence. It is better for no one to have a gun than everyone have a gun. Then there is one less thing everyone would have to worry about. Unless you work somewhere where there are bears and other things that could be a danger to you.

bears, crazy people, its all the same jetmoo, except the bears need a reason to attack you. and bears can’t chop you up with a chainsaw.

GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED!!! VIDEO GAMES ABOUT GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED!!! VIOLENT MOVIES WITH GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED!!! GUN SHOPS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!

At first though, I thought people should be more friendly with anybody, including the shy, closeted people. For example, the social people should talk to others who are quiet, so they could feel appreciated. When I saw that interview with the suspect’s former roommates, they pretty much did all they could. That guy was past his weirdness and needed immediate psychological help.

Its a bit overboard rainhead to say video games and violent movies should be banned there is no scientifiec evidence to suggest they encourage violance in real life.tho i do strongly agree that guns should be banned

if we ban all that, we have to ban the nature channel and discovery and national geographic too. and old cartoons. and disney movies. and the internet.

I do see a point on the video games & violient movies myself. Dont think for one minute that these sort of things dont influence people & their perceptions. Many say well I play them & I dont go out & do things like that but there are people who may not be as mentally stable who that sort of thing really takes an effect on. Im not sure how we would go about banning them altogether but it is something to think about when we introduce things like this to our children.

Guns are the most that should to be banned. There is medical evidence of video game violence. It was all over the news the past years.

well i’d like to hear such evidence, and if there was games would be banned already, i believe its the gardians responibility to monitor what the children are subject to not the media

this goes right back to assuming responsabilty for our actions. and there is evidence that video games promote violence. there is also evidence that video games give a healthy outlet for aggression, and curb violence. so where does that leave us, boys and girls?

i know, i know

it brings us back to taking responsability for our own actions.

there are lots of disturbed people who do not take it over the line. they maintain, somehow. and others just let loose.

if you are a sinner, and you **********, who’s fault is that?

“Sorry God, Jesus please, it was the video games. it was not my fault”

does that put it into perspective at all??

I voted for #4, however I also agree with #3 and #5. When I was in elementary school I had a severe anger problem but was not exposed to any violent behaviour until I was in the 4th grade when I got a TV and watched violent cartoons (i.e. Looney Tunes and Disney movies). After watching all those I actually became less violent.

Guns are just an easier way for someone to kill another person. If I didn’t have a gun, I’d use a knife. If I didn’t have a knife, I’d use my fists! Oh no, should we ban fists because they can kill people?

Alcohol kills more people than firearms but it’s easier for anyone to obtain than guns. They’re both legal but you never hear anyone piss and moan about someone dying from alcohol poisoning and trying to enact harsher alcohol laws.

Rye: While your evidence is great proof of your point you seem to forget that the US has about 20 times (and more) the land mass and population of the UK. This means that the UK statistics probably equal the statistics of New Englands. 40000 deaths over a whole continent is very small compared to 20000-25000 deaths within the space of Texas.

I live in the Southwest (Arizona to be precise). We can openly carry weapons but we don’t. There are some people who do but no-one really gets bothered by them. Most of our gun crimes happen by (who could have guessed) criminals! Criminals who obtained their weapons illegally or by robbing the people who had the guns legally. We have had some accidental shootings but our stats are actually in a low period right now.

drunk drivers are responsable for more deaths in the U.S. than guns, by the way.

so, outlaw drinking. wait,we tried that, and it did not work.
ok, outlaw cars. well, you are right, that fixes everything. ;D

There is nothing to blame but the shooter himself. It wasn’t guns, it wasn’t society, it wasn’t “violent” video games, it wasn’t anything. Yes, guns made it easier for him to kill 30+ people, however, if the guns hadn’t been available he could have just made a bomb. Then what? We blame fertilizer and nitrates?

If we’re going to ban violent video games, we need to also ban violent TV. Like Looney Tunes, Disney movies, CSI, etc.

Dang moderation, AKS used the same thing as me.

now better gun control laws would HELP, but not solve the problem.
to find out gun laws by state

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbyst…

i’m in ireland, there are no guns owned by civilions, just by farmers and few criminals, i dont see why usa woulndt lead by example of such countries.

i agree with you whiskey 100% u got it in one

all i have to say is

People kill People…

Falling trees have been known to do the same. Quick, ban trees near people!

To add to this interesting discussion,
I remember learning in psychology about how the presence of a gun in a room, even just sitting on a table, will result in higher violence between participants in the study, then if the gun is not present.

Here is the source for that:

Berkowitz, L. & Lepage, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2, Pt. 1), 202-207

This study supports the causal relationship of how the presence of guns causes increased aggression.

Ok guys and gals, I come to you as a gun owner. Yes I own guns, actually I own 5 military surplus rifles that fire rounds that are far more deadly than what the shooter used and what are used in assault rifles. Now that I have your attention please bear with me. The vast majority of gun owners are level headed everyday people that never dream about using a gun violently. It is the small minority, rednecks included, that give gun owners as a whole a bad reputation. A gun is a tool, no more no less, a metal tube and a couple of moving parts if you will. If someone was really motivated to kill they could find another way, an example that comes to mind is the Oaklahoma City bombing, a bomb made by disel and fertilizer. Virginia Tech was deemed a “Gun Free Zone” months before and that disarmed anyone that could have stopped the incident before it got to such an extent. Criminals don’t follow the law, so by disarming the law abiding citizens you are making the criminal’s job easier. An example, you have criminals robbing banks and other unarmed places, when was the last time you heard of someone robbing a gun store or going on a shooting spree in a gun show? Never. Thats right, never, the possibility of someone having a gun that could stop you acts as a deterant. There are far fewer gun related deaths in the United States than there are other types, here are the stats:
In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said 43,443 people were killed on the highways last year, up 1.4 percent from 42,836 in 2004. It was the highest number of fatalities in a single year since 1990, when 44,599 people were killed.
http://cbs5.com/national/local_story_…

Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity Deaths: 365,000
http://tinyurl.com/yry6zn

More than 400,000 deaths occur in the United States every year from smoking
http://scienceu.fsu.edu/content/tobac…

Do those stats mean that we should ban those items too? No, it is all about responsibility. The pity is that the media only reports negative gun incidents, which in turn makes people anti-gun. There are many instances of gun owners using their guns to do good, protecting others, check out the NRA magazine. There was a school shooting, the name escapes me at the moment (I’ll look for it), where the shooter was subdued by two gun owning students that were Concealed Carry lisenced. I have to add getting a muzzel loader is easy because it is not a high volume fire weapon, you can get off three rounds a minute if you are good. Also, AK-47s are not available on the civilian market, civilian models are single shot, also the most common variety of the AK-47 you are familiar with is actually the AK-74. Now you do know that since England and Australia banned guns their gun crime rates have dramatically increased because the threat of the victim having a gun was removed. I implore you all to take a look at Surplusrifleforum.com , you will see that gun owners are not crazy nutjobs, just normal people. So in closing, guns are not a problem, it is the rare mentally unstable person that uses it for evil purposes. The vast majority of gun owners are good, normal people that are not crazy and are not looking for trouble or flaunting their guns about. I merely stated how many guns I had to make a point, what do I do with those guns? I go to the range to shoot at little metal disks, not people.

It seems from the survey that between 3,4,5 people like guns. I agree with banzibill!

Thanks, that was insightful. :p

Whoa whyme! That is unwarranted, I know MANY people that voted for bush but have NEVER killed people. By sayiny that you are proving that you are ignorant and oblivious to reality. Mr. President Clinton killed many more people by his INACTIVITY. He had so many oportunities to difuse situations that have shaped the world today. He could have killed Osama Bin Laden but he said that we couldn’t kill him. You can’t criticize a President’s decisions until he is out of office and the new one is in. All these negative comments are actually a reflection of your dear Mr. Clinton. That statement you made goes to show how ignorant the left is for the most part. It is disgraceful that you must stoop to such a level as this and using a tragedy to further your political agenda. Pray do tell what was insightful?

banzi, please reactivate your sarcasm detector. Thank you.

(FYI, the “:p” character is a smilie for myself sticking my tongue out in contemptuous response to the plain stupidity of what was said.)

im sorry i mite be a little lost with where this has gone to…why is it the presidents fault that there was a shooting?

Stop getting this thread off topic. You’re more than welcome to debate which president was worse, just not in this post. Thanks.

Whoops, I missed the sarcasm. But I have a simple way to explain that debt.

1) We just went through two wars and are now fighting a war on terror as well as policing two countries.
2) All the foriegn aid that the US gives to countries.
3) All the social programs including, but not limited to, welfare (which has been exploited) and Social Security (Which was a good idea but could not handle the baby boomer generation and their children).
4) The lack of a favourable trade balance with the rest of the world, particularly with Asia.
5) The switch of the US from an industrial economy to a service based economy.

How is that? Now I think we must return to on topic, yes?

As I posted on this site, my speculation is that he could have been sexually abused, contributing to his motive.
http://help.com/post/63657-re-the-sho…

And back to the main topic of whether guns are the problem or the symptom. I see them as being part of the problem, not the only cause.

Along with guns causing increased aggression, there are many studies which support media violence causing increased aggression.

If anyone wants me to site the journal articles, I have several.

“This study supports the causal relationship of how the presence of guns causes increased aggression.“

I’d be interested to know if the study took into account experience with guns as a factor in determining if there was more/less/equal aggression in the guns presence.

Yea, and the guy was mentally unbalanced. That would be interesting to find out Chuy. I have never seen anything to support that though, I have been around guns all my life and at the range, and never once have I seen any agitation or violence. One may say that any weapon could increase agitation. The main problem might be that modern american culture always portrays guns as evil or being used to do violent acts, but in the meantime many americans have never used a gun and know very little about them so they think that this is what guns are used for. That might be why they say that they cause increased agitation. I would apperciate it if you could cite the sources.

hi Chuyskywalker,

Random selection of participants for control (no gun on table) and experimental (gun on table) conditions are used to ensure that past experience, genetics, etc. are evenly distributed in both the experimental and control groups.
This measure prevents the degree of previous gun experience from being a third variable and affecting the results of the study, which is focused on the presence or absence of a gun causing aggression.

This study showed the effects on aggression of short-term presence around guns. A study examining previous experience with guns would have to be a long-term study to be causal, by randomly assigning people into groups of high experience with guns, or low experience with guns.

hi banzibill,
I actually have to run off now, but I will cite the sources for you either later today or tomorrow.

The idea I think we’re trying to dig at is this: would people become more agitated by the presence of a gun if they were all more accustomed to the presence of a gun.

Many people argue that cars are just as, if not more, dangerous than guns, but you don’t get more scared or agitated walking down the street in the presence of cars because you’re quite used to them being there and being operated near you.

If people are shown guns used in high tension situations (tv, movies, games), and lack exposure to them in safe handling and responsible situations, it wouldn’t surprise me at all that a gun in the room would promote increased agitation any more than a red spinning siren light would.

Yes, that is what we were aiming at. These people might not have been exposed to guns and all they hear is from the media.

Sure, take your time, no rush. Thank you.

I like Chris Rock’s idea. Make all guns legal and easily obtainable. Make the bullets $10,000 each, limit 2 at a time.

This would literally prevent all crimes committed with a LOADED fire arm.

The NRA would be happy. The jails would be less overcrowded. Everybody wins.
Except for the politicians whose pockets get lined by the gun lobby.

Hey now, thats not fair. I enjoy my hobby and it is absolutely harmless when done by responsible people. Also, the bullet is just the part that leaves the gun, I think the proper term your looking for is cartridge.

hi banzibill,

Here some sources:

Anderson, C.A. & Dill, K.E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
Bartholomew, B.D. & Anderson, C.A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-290.

They found that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts and behaviours.

Leyens, J.P., Camino, L., Parke, R.D. & Berkowitz, L. (1975). Effects of movie violence on aggression in a field setting as a function of group dominance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and social Psycholgoy, 32, 346-360.

They found that exposure to media violence increases aggression in children.

Thomas, M. (1982). Physiological arousal, exposure to a relatively lengthy aggressive film, and aggressive behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 72-81.

Thomas (1982) found that students who watch TV violence not only became accustomed to it, but also became more aggressive.

hi Chuyskywalker,

Actually, Thomas (1982) found taht when people are exposed to media violence, they become more accustomed to violence, and also become more aggressive. So, I guess your argument is that if people had experience with guns which were related to responsible use only, then they would not cause violence. I searched for research about that, but I have not found any that directly answers that question yet. So, I have provided other research which is rather interesting.

Killias, M., Kesteren, J. V., Rindlisbacher, M. (2001). Guns, violent crime, and suicide in 21 countries. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(4), 429-448.

They found strong correlations between presence of guns in the home with suicide committed with a gun, rates of gun-related homicide where females are the victims, and assaults with guns.

Dixie, D., Massie, J., Wycoff-Horn, M., Pleban, F., Monge, E. & Sarvela, P. (2002). Weapon carrying among rural southern Illinois elementary school children. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Undeserved, 13(4), 413-424.

A considerable proportion of children self-reported to have carried, used or shot a gun, and without an adult present.

Wintemute, G. Where the guns come from: the gun industry and gun commerce. The Future of Children, 12(2). 55-71.

Wintemute found that guns can be bought legally from gun owners buy illegal gun owners who sell them to criminals and youth. Problem with regulation of private sales between gun owners.

Ding, C., Nelsen, E. & Lassonde, C. (2002). Correlates of gun involvement and aggressiveness among adolescents. Youth and Society, 34(2). 195-213.

Males who had more experience with guns reported that they reacted more violently to frustration, and had participated in higher numbers of violent incidents.
Boys and girls who had families who owned guns believed that guns were harmless.

Slovak, K. (2002). Gun violence and children: factors related to exposure and trauma. Health & Social Work, 27(2). 104-112.

Studied rural students who participated in a student-assistance program.
Of these students, high correlation between real-life gun experience (gun pointed or shot at them or someone else) and negative effects on their mental health. Presence of a gun in the home increases risk of firearm injuries to children.

Also, for an argument based on reason:
If a gun is easily accessible, then the gun will more likely be used, then if the gun was not accessible.

For example, one of my friends was beaten very badly. If one of his attackers was carrying a gun, people would have be at greater risk if they intervened, and he would have probably been killed.

Wow, thanks mate! I must say though, I have grown up in a household that has a high military tradition, I have been familiar with guns and the like since I was young and I am not a violent person.

You’re welcome. :)

The research applies to the average person of the sample that the research was conducted on, not necessarily to every individual person, so there are a few exceptions.

Nice! I am an exception once again! … Is that bad that I seem to be the exception more often than not?

Everyone is different :).

Hi BruceTuxedo,
Whenever I wrote that the researches that I cited found that television violence caused or resulted in increased aggression, then the study was an actual example.

The methods for these studies (and many more have been conducted on children), involve exposing the experimental group to media violence or violent video games (the independent variable). The control group is not exposed at all. Then a method is used to measure the violence and aggression of the experimental group and control group, and the violence and aggression is compared between the two groups. Since both groups are made up of participants who have been randomly selected to each group, any difference between the groups is due to the differences in procedure for the experimental and control groups, resulting from manipulating the independent variable. This method of conducting studies allows researches to determine causal relationships.

One example cannot be applied universally. In order for a set of data to be statistically relevant it must have at least 25 participants. If a study is conducted on one person, external variables cannot be controlled for. For example, if testing violent video games on one person results in increased violence, then results could be due to many factors such as genetics, environment etc. Therefore, the results can only be applied to that person, and the results are not valid.

However, if the manipulation of the independent variable (exposure to violent video games) affects the group exposed to the violent video games in a similar way as opposed to the group not exposed, then the independent variable is the probable cause. Since each group is randomly selected, a person who is genetically disposed to be violent will be present in each category as well as a person who is environmentally affected by violence, and so on. Therefore, studies containing randomly selected experimental and control groups are more valid than one example.

not really sure what the video games have to do with gun control laws, but thanks for the info.

Since I am unaware of these things, can you tell us where you are getting these studies from? Web reference, library, ridiculously-large-bookshelf-in-your-home?

While I don’t have access, I’ll ask you: In the studies about exposure to video game violence, what kind of testing were they doing? Also, what size samples were they working with? From where? What was the time frame for these tests? Finally, did they do any pre/post testing? IE: Testing everyone’s “aggression” levels before exposure, immediately after exposure, and a few days later?

studies have shown ( i can’t find them now, but i will) that watching some competitive sports such as football and soccer can cause aggression levels to rise in some people, temperarily. but so can about a million other things. driving a car (hate to keep going back to that) arguments with family, trying to program a new cell phone, crowded public places, etc etc. so i fully believe that video games could trigger some agressive tendancies, for about five minutes.

also watching any of the “ROCKY” movies, except the latest one, which only triggers depression.

“Aggression, according to Freud (1950) is an inborn drive similar to sex or hunger. Aggression is an integral part of our existence and like any other drive, may be regulated through discharge or fulfillment. “

taken from

http://www.kidsfirstsoccer.com/violen…

if anyones interested

I dont think
“would people become more agitated by the presence of a gun if they were all more accustomed to the presence of a gun.”

is relevent to the topic. The answer is obvious though. I’d be terrified if i was in the same room as someone carrying a gun. Somewhat less if it was a police man, but even then i would still be agitated.

But this doesnt answer the question about guns being the problem or not. And you cant place all the blame on guns. Your whole upbringing / life is what makes you who you are. And if you turn out to be mentally unstable then your WHOLE upbringing is to blame.

As for guns, their ONLY purpose is to inflict harm against something. In my opinion this makes it something the human race should be rid of. Same for nukes, same for chemical weapons.

Things like knives and cars might cause harm, but their main purpose (generally) is that of somthing useful, transport, cooking etc..

This is what makes guns banable and car not banable imo.

As for violence in media. I would not say it makes you more agressive. I think a better description would be that it desenseitises you from the things you see.

The ammount of violence ive seen on TV and in games doesnt make me feel more agressive, but it might make shooting someone seem less. And therefore the chance of it actually happening increases.

This might be seen as agression, but its probably a different part of the brain. probably the part that deals with right and wrong and the grey inbetween.

Hi Akslogistic,

My mention of video games and media violence was to show that guns as an object are not the only cause of increased aggression.
I have also come across studies invovling sports and aggression, so I will look them up and cite them.
Also, Freud’s theory is rather interesting, however it cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, in psych, he is only mentioned in the introductory and history courses.

Hi ChuySkywalker,
Some of these journal articles are available online, for some a membership to a site is needed, and for others, they are only available in hard copy form.
Despite that, I will access the ones I can, and answer your questions for each one, since it will give me more practice reading these things. It will take me a few days.

Hi Rye,
As I cited above, Thomas (1982) found that when students (university students) watched TV violence, they became more accepting of violence (measured by physiological responses). However, they also became more aggressive. The students who saw the violence gave more electric shocks to a fellow student than the students who did not see the violence. So, violence on TV desensitizes the person to violence as well as increases aggression.

And, when certain things in our environment affect us, often we are not consciously aware of their effects (social cognition, attention and memory/learning psych courses explain this).

Also, the nature/nurture debate has been going on for a long time, so it seems that both upbringing and genetics contribute to our behaviour.

elate, since you have read the articles and studies, do they mention the duration of the effects, i.e. 20 min, an hour, days, or is there a cumulative effect?

Hi Akslogistic,
The studies usually specify that, I’ll find that out too.
As for now, I have to run off to play hockey, but I will provide the info within a couple of days to a week.

hocky, no way. ha ha. talk about violent sports. have fun, be careful

Yeah, go get those aggression levels up ;D

Rye, I must say that I disagree with you. Guns are a tool, no more, it all depends on how they are used. They can be used to provide food and as a defense, these are good things. There are more car related deaths than there are gun related deaths, that is a statistic. Knives were first used as weapons. Might I ask if you have been around guns or ever used one?

I chose gun deter crime, cuz in china there is no one has a single gun except the police who wants to protect citzens from hurting, so i think this is the reason why more and more crime in the US now, gun gives the criminals a good tool to crime. Here if we hatred another person, the most harsh way is to beat or pierce him in hands or knives, but it would not give rise to kill a person’s life, besides, violence is the consequence of any adult can buy a gun, it’s horrible if people around me have guns.
I hate guns, although it has many strong points, killing animals for food. nevertheless, it can kill human being.

LOOK at the replies fro people from countries besides the U.S. their governments have succeded in convincing the people that guns are “bad” unless the authorities are using them, then they are “good”
now, fellow Americans, think on this, and then think of the spin that is put on every gun crime or accident in this country.

anyone remember a time from history when the leaders did not want the common people to be able to read, or count, or, own weapons?

again i say, thank God for our freedoms, and thank Guns for our ability to keep the freedoms.

Guns might be a tool. But as i said, it is a tool purely designed for causing harm. OK so you might argue that the simple presence of a gun could stop someone coming into your home etc… but if you have a gun and he has a gun, then one of you, if not both of you, are gonna get hurt.

As for hunting, i doubt very much you would use a hand gun or ak47 etc.. You would use a rifle, and with rifles being much bigger, they are very hard to conceal.

Yes, i have used a shotgun when i went clay pidgeon shooting. I enjoyed it, but it was kinda scary coz the thing i held in my hand could easily kill any one of the people there, and i was only about 14. Thinking about it, that is the only gun ive seen (that i can recall) that wasnt in a museum.

As for comparing land size to gun crime, this is a bad way of doing thing. Try comparing population. UK = 60 million, US = 300 million. So you should only have about 5 times the gun crime…

hmm UK = 30000 gun crimes per year…..30000 * 5 = 150000.. hmmm a bit smaller than the US 400000.

this works out as
One gun crime per 2000 ppl in the UK
One gun crime per 750 ppl in the US

This speaks volumes imo.

It just occured to me..

Those of you living in the US are living under fear that someone will break into your house armed with a gun.

THIS is the major difference. There is no such fear in the UK since guns really are that rare.

And i think that it is this fear that makes you want to own a gun of your own as protection.

“There is no such fear in the UK since guns really are that rare.”

And that is why you logic fails in a US context. IF your statistics are true and there truly are less guns in the UK to worry about, then fine. Congrats, you are in a better positions than us.

But the reality of the situation in the us is that we have a LOT of guns and they aren’t going to just disappear overnight (nor even in the next XX years). So if we ban guns, you are right, we can reduce the gun count over all. But, where does that reduced gun count number come from? The people who are trading arms on black markets here (you know, the people we WANT to not have firearms), or the people that have legitimate reason to own and safely handle such firearms?

I will post the research, some of it tonight, but I just had to write this…

I am wondering how guns are functional for speaking out against the government. It seems these days that a lot of Americans are not comfortable with their current government, so I guess the solution for them is to band together and shoot the government? Or, how exactly does is the right to bear arms properly implemented?

Up here in Canada, we don’t need to use our guns. We rely on our media (which is reasonably objective, but not always), university profs, assortment of parties to point fingers, assortment of left and right-wingers, multitude of political groups, justice system and our usual and numerous protestors. All of this keeps our government serving the people. As soon as the government does one thing out of line, such as buying a fur coat with taxpayer money, it is reported. The government cannot become oppressive, since there are too many people intensely supervising every action it takes, too many people willing to write articles, freely voice their opinion, vote, and be involved in politics.

As for some psych info on this, if government is trying to prevent you from being involved and understanding what they are doing, they will try to keep you happy. Happy people judge politicians based on physical appearance rather than what they are actually talking about. So, when you watch a political debate, be in a sad mood. This way, you will be able to pick up on what the politicians are really saying. (Only happy versus sad moods have been studied, so I’m not sure about the other emotions.)

Guns are a necessary part of a rebellion or secession from country because, quite simply, if they have guns and you don’t, the in-place government just shoot you instead of hitting the borders, having a fight and coming to terms.

“The government cannot become oppressive, since there are too many people intensely supervising every action it takes,“

Ahh, that’d be nice. But governments are HUGE and watchdogs are not numerous enough to catch everything. Heck, a good portion of U.S. senators don’t even read every bill that passes before them despite choosing to VOTE ON IT!

Besides which, as has been shown in America, even with the best intentions and media, freedoms and measures can still be eroded over time and small measures (such as the fact that my rifle is perfectly acceptable and legal — unless I put a pistol grip on it — CA gun laws are ridiculous)

Ok, I gotta go back and read most of your posts to see if there was something I need to adress but the US gun crimes are lower than your number there.

None of the above dude. Guns are not the problem, nor the symptom. I would suggest quit blaming people’s inadequacies on other things than themselves. It was the shooter’s fault for all that he did. The gun did not talk to him and tell him what to do. Neither did the pictures of violence. Maybe they swayed his thinking, but ******, it’s his own **** fault for what he did. He DOES NOT DESERVE to be excused.

Thank you, now if the vast public would recognize that.

Oh, that explains it. Well rye, if you are ever down here near me I would be more than happy to take you shooting. Sound good?

Hi cajun406,
If you read above, you will see that Rye is not a Canadian, but from the U.K.
Also, how long have you been following Canadian politics to know if any prime ministers are dictators?
And, certain rifles can be owned in Canada, as long as they are properly registered. So, if Rye was a Canadian, he would be able to be around a registered gun.

Hi Chuyskywalker,
How effective would guns be in defense of the U.S. military? Should not every citizen then have access to tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, grenades and military technology in order to overtake the hypothetical corrupt government?

Anyways, I only have a certain extent of access to the journal articles, otherwise I would have to order them and wait two weeks. However, you have the option to purchase most of them online.

Since you were inquiring on the articles about video games, I was able to access the info for two articles summarized in the introduction of another journal article.
At this link, read the section in the introduction about the experiments conducted by Bartholow and Anderson (2002) and Anderson and Dill (2000). Golf.http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/810.asp

Hi Akslogistic (and for Chuyskywalker as well),

I was able to access this article by Berkowitz and Lepage (1967).
participants: 100 undergraduate male university students

procedure: 6 groups, with the 7th group as a control
-half of the groups - made angry by confederate
-other half - treated well by confederate
-2/3 of groups - guns (12-gauge shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver) lying next to shock key on table
-all given opportunity to electrically shock confederate
-half were told weapon belonged to confederate in order to evoke aggressiveness -in them
-other half told weapon belonged to previous experimentor (were not told the purpose of it being there)
- 7th group subjected to a badminton raquet lying on the table instead of a gun

All groups told that the experiment was testing psychological reactions to stress, and the stress would be created by electric shocks.
Groups tested one participant at a time along with the confederate (appearing to be another participant).
participant wait 8 minutes in lab
Participant and confederate instructed to solve a problem then rate each other. (one shock if good up to 10 shocks if bad)
participant and confederate put in separate rooms to shock each other
delay of 30 seconds (?)

participant given 7 shocks (angered condition) or 1 shock (nonangered condition) first, then given opportunity to shock confederate and exposed to guns next to shock key (if in that condition)

mood also measured after participant receives shocks, and after giving confederate shocks

results:
not angered condition: low number of shocks for groups with guns present and absent
angered condition:
- highest number of shocks for guns on table belonging to confederate to incite aggressiveness
- very close in 2nd - number of shocks for guns on table for no reason
- lower number of shocks for no gun on table

mood results:
- subjects receiving 7 shocks rated themselves as being angrier
- high correlations for before and after moods
- lowest correlation = 0.89 for guns on table for no reason angered group

So, Berkowitz and Lepage (1967) argue that the presence of a gun functions as a cue for eliciting aggressive behaviour.

Are there any other specific articles that I have listed that you are interested in? :)

Yes, im from the UK.

“And that is why you logic fails in a US context. IF your statistics are true and there truly are less guns in the UK to worry about, then fine. Congrats, you are in a better positions than us.”

Why thankyou. I believe you are correct.

“But the reality of the situation in the us is that we have a LOT of guns and t……….r the people that have legitimate reason to own and safely handle such firearms? “

Yes, but do you believe in 1997 (when guns became illegal here), that all of them just vanished. Maybe the criminals just handed their guns in to be destroyed?

I doubt it. What happened is the main source of guns, ie the gun shops, had to close down (guns being illegal n all). And a stat said 90% of guns in crime originated from a legal source. So youve just removed the main source of Guns for criminals.

And every time a gun is taken from a criminal by the police, that is one gun that will no longer be circulated in the criminal world.

And so eventually most of the guns that are used by criminals, will be taken by the police. Resulting in guns being rare.

This is what happened in the UK, and it worked. I have to admit tho, being an island, it makes it very difficult to smuggle guns into the country. Whereas the US has huge borders that make smuggling easier.

As for computer games, i dont think it is relevent to the topic.

And Elatenradiate is correct. You and your hand gun would be all but useless against the US army.

Things have drastically changed since hitler etc… Governments can no longer make people believe what they want them to beleive. The media prevents this. And its very unlikely that if Bush wanted to reintroduce something like slavery etc.. that the US army would actually back him.

So i doubt a civil war is ever gonna occur again, in the US or the UK. since the people have easy access to the truth and the facts.

Maybe you should read my post.

I was talking about !!IF!! you banned guns.

You would have to smuggle them in illegally. Just like youd have to do in the UK.

And certain guns ARE allowed in the UK, but the regulations and control are so strict, it stops most people from having them.

Here have a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_poli…

If you read the full article, you will see that we had incidents like you are having in the US…Hungerford massacre…Dunblane massacre

The main difference is that our government took steps to prevent them happening again.

YOUR goverment seems to think, “ooo lets give freedom to everyone so everyone can go and massacre people” I hear amazing things like the possibility of letting students carry guns around campus. i mean OMG, thats just asking or more homicide. Someone at college looks at you funny and POW, you blow their head off with the 9mm at your waist.

Again, our government may have taken a freedom away, but it has worked. THAT IS A FACT!!

and none of your sarcy comments about being controlled will make me think otherwise. I dont live in fear, YOU DO!! Im happy in a safe country, YOU LIVE IN FEAR of another massacre.

My point has been made.

Spoken like a true subject..

Yes, because i speak what i want, its the way over here in England.

The simple fact that you own a gun is proof of your fear.

You Americans are so scared of losing freedom that you will put up with all kinds of things.

Do you honestly believe that if people could carry guns around with them that such tragedies as the Virginia Tech shooting, wouldnt happen? No of course not, he would still have gone in and got some shots off, ok so maybe some1 would shoot him before he killed 30+ people.

But HE was the one who shot first, so im gonna go with maybe 3 or 4 people being killed (at least) before someone killed him.

Still too many in my opinion.

His guns were purchased legally, therefore a gun ban would have stopped him from having the guns that he used. Therefore 0 people would have died.

Hmm thats a bit better dont ya think :/

OK, so him being a citizen makes it illegal, fair enough.

Doesnt change the fact that the place of purchase was a legal one. And therefore the EASIEST. Had that shop not existed due to a gun ban, he would have had to find some illegal source.

This is more difficult.

And please please, stop attempting to insult me.

Read my posts and answer my points with CONTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. Otherwise i wont be able to take you seriously.

Points for you to comment on properly…

1) If his guns were from a legal source. Then making the source ILLEGAL would have stopped him easily obtaining guns
2) Why, when my country obviously has less gun crime due to a gun ban, will you not accept its a good thing?
3) My points about carrying guns around campus will just increase shootings. And would NOT have stopped people from being killed.
4) If 90% of guns in gun crime originate from legal sources, surely removing those legal sources will remove 90% of gun crime.

When you can address the above points properly, i may respond. But if all you do is attempt to insult me, or make silly comments, then you will simply prove my points are good ones and you cant think of a answer / flaw.

1) Had he bought a chainsaw or meat cleaver, the students could have simply used anything at hand to stop him (chair table etc..), or they could simply run away and wait for police. And carrying a chainsaw around a college would attract a lot of attention. Had it been a chainsaw or knife its unlikly as many people would have died as did die.

2) The law abiding citizens are not being punished. If you want to go hunting you can. I believe there are some shooting ranges in the UK. But as a population we generally dont care much for guns. As i said, i have been clay pidgeon shooting. And the guy at virginia might have been law abiding, but he had mental problems, and this along with easy access to guns, resulted in the massacre.

3) Do you honestly believe the INSTANT that the guy pulled out a gun, some1 else would know what he was about to do and shoot him? .. of course not.
He would have got some shots off before anyone realised something was going on.
And those shots can easily be killing shots. So how am i totally wrong. a few people would die even if EVERYONE at college carried a gun.

4) Actaully a reduction in gun crime by 90% is quite large.
the 10% is the gun crime where the gun was from an illegal source.

Comparing the gun ban to a cage? To me the cage is infinitely big. Not having a gun only removes a way of hurting someone. And i cant say i like hurting people tbh.

Yes, so you agree that there would still be deaths.

Remove the guns and there is a chance there would be NONE. And even if that chance is only 1%, that is high enough for me, and probably high enough for the poeple who died, and the families of the people who died.

And although i have never known growing u in a country with guns (my apparent ignorence), likewise you have not grown up in a country without them (your ignorence).

But in my case, i want to see less people in danger, less people dying, people feeling safe etc.. etc..

In your case, you want your freedom at any cost, and that cost has just increased by the lives of those at virinia tech.

hi cajun406,
I am disappointed that you did not read my whole reply. In order to correctly quote a source which is not a complete sentence, it is important to include (…) at the end before the (”). Media is not the only factor for securing freedom. I listed several others. Also, I should have mentioned the fact that we not only have access to our Canadian corporate and publicly funded media, but the BBC and American media, and the internet, which is full of media created by the average citizen. In the Canadian media, people are able to comment, the comments are published and aired, and they tend to be balanced: left, centre and right wing views.

And again, I ask you to clarify how you can make a judgement of which Canadian prime minister is a dictator. Again, I ask you, how long you have been following Canadian politics?
In Canada, the people are the dictators, and the government is composed of subjects.
I am also aware of other countries, and the different laws and government systems. However, as I mentioned before, it takes other kinds of action before use of guns in order to preserve a democratic government.

Also, someone could mention women’s rights here. Why is it that Killias, Kesteren and Rindlisbacher (2001) found that the more people who own guns, the higher number of female homicides? What steps can be taken to prevent this, while having easily accessible guns in a country, since the guns also increase aggression levels, contributing to homicide?

hi cajun406

I see that you are very sensitive with this issue, so I do not see any point in posting further.
I enjoyed the debate while it was constructive.

Guys and gals, I found this little article about the top 9 gun myths. Please read it, you will find it enlightening. http://www.rense.com/general76/mths.htm

Okay… so it’s been proven extensively that Americans and Europeans think differently. But it’s also been proven that no one thinks exactly alike. So get over it… please.

Consider this: Go into history and look up what happened when alcohal was prohibited. It started the rumrunners.

The way I see it is this: you shouldn’t outlaw **** just because you’re afraid of it. The more illegal it is, the more tempting it becomes. I mean… when you were a kid, and your mom said “don’t you dare touch that!” What’s the first instinct? Rebellion. Outlawing schtuff will only cause trouble.

Hehe… I don’t pay attention to dates. I just read the content and respond. Sowwy. ^_^

Pot’s illegal. Anyone have any problem finding it? Going over the speed limit and drinking and driving are illegal and more people die in automobiles than by guns. If you outlaw guns the honest citizens will turn them over and become helpless to those who make their living stealing and killing… Is that really your solution? This is one of the stupidest ideas to ever face our nation, enforce the laws on the books and when you catch a convicted felon in possession of a weapon put him away for life. Problem solved.