12 year old girl shoots mom

[FredAkbar]

Seriously, it seems like a story like this is posted here every week...


A 12-year-old girl upset about being grounded by her mother fatally shot the woman in the face while she slept, police said.

Elvira Marion Walton, 48, was discovered in her bed early Sunday by her son. The 10-year-old boy called police around 1 a.m.

"Apparently the motive is because the daughter was upset that the mother disciplined her," police Sgt. Gary Kirkpatrick said in Monday editions of The Dallas Morning News.

The girl has been charged with murder. Police found a gun in the house, but investigators did not immediately say whether it was the weapon used in the shooting or who owned it.

An older daughter, Thanica Derrick, said her mother had been having trouble with the girl. Walton had six children and lived in a converted garage used as the family home.

"She is your average 12-year-old, hormones and everything," said Derrick, 22. "There's nothing that bad to make her do that to my mama. She had been breaking out of the house and not going to school."

link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=155021), though I quoted the entire story here.

Dunno if I agree with her being charged with murder, I don't think locking her up at this age will solve anything...maybe some counseling or whatever...

[t300]

Yeah, this news is getting old...

Looks like it's time to change the standards about what age qualifies you to be tried as an adult. She IS in Texas, though, so I say, fry her in the chair.

[Mr. Anderson]

I think its more than a case of hormones though....there's probably more to the story that's not being told.

Really sad, for the whole family.

D

[Hemingray]

This is why it's so important to use gun locks in a house with children!

Whoever owns that gun is going to be in big trouble. (Unless it was the mom, in which case... no comment.)

[sushi]

This is why it's so important to use gun locks in a house with children!
Sad story.

I am not an advocate of gun locks. Too easy to bypass.

I prefer a gun vault/safe.

Sushi

[grapes911]

Sad story.

I am not an advocate of gun locks. Too easy to bypass.

I prefer a gun vault/safe.

Sushi

I perfer both. While I think Americans should have the right to arms, they should be more responsible with them.

[wdlove]

That is beyond sad, just so tragic. Now seven lives have been ruined. Shooting her mother in the face indicates great anger. There is bound to be more to the story than we are being told. She may be 12, but she committed murder the taking of a life.

[virividox]

thats sad

yeah i think gun owners who have kids should really take all the means available to them

[edesignuk]

Sad story, and that's why I'm glad we don't have such a gun culture over here.

[Hemingray]

Sad story.

I am not an advocate of gun locks. Too easy to bypass.

I prefer a gun vault/safe.

Sushi

I would be surprised if a 12 year old girl could bypass a good gun lock (unless you mean finding the key). But I agree, a gun safe would be the better option. I'm glad that California requires a gun lock be purchased with new firearms. I think it's a step in the right direction at least...

[belair]

She IS in Texas, though, so I say, fry her in the chair.

Are you joking?
If you are, it's not very funny.

America really needs to change it's policy on gun ownership real quick. A fight can get so quickly out of hand and if everybody carries a gun the situation becomes deadly.
As edesignuk put it. I am happy that in Europe the law is very strict about guns.

[sushi]

Sad story, and that's why I'm glad we don't have such a gun culture over here.
Understand where you are coming from.

I would just like to add that guns are quite safe when handled properly by responsible adults. This come from someone who has been around guns their whole life.

The problem with gun safety, is that most folks don't know the correct way to handle a gun be it a pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc. I would like to see the requirement for anyone who wants to own a gun to have to pass a tough mandatory qualification course prior to being able to own a gun.

Having said that, even in England, and well as here in Japan, it is easy to get a gun. Illegal yes. But easy. All it takes is the right connections and some scratch.

Sushi

[edesignuk]

I would just like to add that guns are quite safe when handled properly by responsible adults. This come from someone who has been around guns their whole life.Maybe, but just the fact that they are there presents a greater danger than if they were not.
Having said that, even in England, and well as here in Japan, it is easy to get a gun. Illegal yes. But easy. All it takes is the right connections and some scratch.I wouldn't have a clue where to get one from, and I think the same would go for the vast majority of people over here.

[belair]

I wouldn't have a clue where to get one from, and I think the same would go for the vast majority of people over here.

How come?
I just have to ask my friend Bill, the drug dealer, and my golf partner, where he gets his guns and I'll just ask him to sell one to me. If that does not work i'll as jesse, my pimp mate, whom I enjoy going to theather with to sell one to me, now if that does not work I ring up my Bingo evening buddy Norman, I guess I will have to wait before he gets out of prison tough…

[James L]

There are separate issues here:

1) The whole gun safety issue, which I agree with. The right to bear arms MUST be balanced with the responsibility to safe guard those weapons. BUT...

2) This is NO WAY excuses the actions of this child. Sad or not, unless an underlying psych disorder (and I am talking mostly about a psychopath who has no sense of right or wrong) is discovered, 12 year olds know shooting your mother in her sleep is wrong. It is completely irrelevant why the child had access to the weapon... personal responsibility still applies.

3) Sad or not, if the child did this knowing it was wrong, try her as an adult and lock her up. Emotions (i.e., being sad because she is a child) have no place in the equation.

[frozenstar]

Yeah, this news is getting old...

Looks like it's time to change the standards about what age qualifies you to be tried as an adult. She IS in Texas, though, so I say, fry her in the chair.

You've got to be kidding. "Fry her in the chair" - yes, that's exactly the kind of attitude we need in order to prevent the spread of violence.

She's 12, barely even through puberty, and you wanna liquify her insides.

This girl wasn't born with the inclination to put a bullet in the head of a loved one. She probably had aggressive tendencies which were only reinforced by her environment. It's not something she DID that made her this way; it's something we DIDN'T do. So instead of following the "eye for an eye" ideology and pretending that the problem has been solved, let's admit that we've really just been trying to ignore a problem that we all know is only getting worse.

That's my take anyway. I could be wrong, of course.

[EminenceGrise]

America really needs to change it's policy on gun ownership real quick. A fight can get so quickly out of hand and if everybody carries a gun the situation becomes deadly.
As edesignuk put it. I am happy that in Europe the law is very strict about guns.

Except that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by Amendment to the Constitution, as part of the Bill of Rights:

AMENDMENT[II.] 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.

Further, it is (by design) difficult to modify the Constitution (or it's Amendments - the Second Amendment can only be stricken by another amendment (like Prohibition was)), as set forth in Article V. of the Constitution. An Amendment must be passed by 2/3 of the votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate - or it can be proposed by 2/3 of the States' Legislatures. It must then be ratified by 3/4 of the States to become an Amendment.

You have to understand some of historical background to know why this Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. A short list:

1) Firearms were very much a necessity in the early history of the US - the country was a frontier, after all. You had to hunt your own food, and the natives could be 'hostile'.

2) The Revolutionary War would obviously not have happened if the people had not had access to arms. In addition, after the war, the Framers of the Constitution were very distrustful of any form of government, and to some extent each other (in the sense that the different States had differing ideas about how things should be run; the Constitution is direct evidence of this - see also the previous 'Articles of Confederation'). An armed populace would keep things in check, in the sense that should an armed conflict become the only resolution to an oppressive government (as had just occurred), the people would have the tools to deal with that.

3) The US had no standing army at the time. The only defense available were the volunteer colonial militias, which could be called up should they be needed. Traditionally, they supplied their own firearms (they already had them as part of frontier life).

--

Modern day concerns about firearms simply didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified. People were well used to firearms safety, it was a fact of life ("common sense" if you will). Part of the current problem is that for a large part of this nation's history, firearms have been a necessity and many people still view them as such (some legitimately, and others less so...). However, the safety aspect is no longer 'common sense' to a good part of the 'gun toting' populace. There isn't anything inherently unsafe with people owning guns, any more than for people who own and drive cars. People are just no longer well equipped by life alone to know about gun safety (it's not like they teach it in school...). I personally don't own a gun, and probably never will - I simply have no reason to own one. However, I understand why the right to bear arms exists in this country, and I'm not really willing to give up a right simply because I don't have a use for it at the present time.

That's not to say that I don't think what is currently happening in this country RE: gun usage is appalling - rather, I don't think the problem can be legislated away. Too many people are imprisoned in this country as it is. Education would be far more effective (in solving this problem and many others). Something is wrong in this country when 12 year old children are killing their parents, but to me it doesn't follow that is simply because there is 'easy access to guns'. You don't need a gun to kill someone - trying to ban guns, for example, is like treating the symptom and not the disease. It would be better to figure out why so many people think that this kind of violence is an acceptable way to 'solve' problems, and fix that instead.

[James L]

You've got to be kidding. "Fry her in the chair" - yes, that's exactly the kind of attitude we need in order to prevent the spread of violence.

She's 12, barely even through puberty, and you wanna liquify her insides.

This girl wasn't born with the inclination to put a bullet in the head of a loved one. She probably had aggressive tendencies which were only reinforced by her environment. It's not something she DID that made her this way; it's something we DIDN'T do. So instead of following the "eye for an eye" ideology and pretending that the problem has been solved, let's admit that we've really just been trying to ignore a problem that we all know is only getting worse.

That's my take anyway. I could be wrong, of course.


I am not saying you are wrong, but there are WAY to many cases of people like this getting through the system, only to kill again at a later time.

There is no good solution, but a person who is intelligent enough to know that you do not shoot mom in the head as she sleeps cannot be allowed to walk the streets. I am not saying death penalty (we don't have it where I live), but do the crime, do the time.

[King Cobra]

I think this line from the article needs to be reread:

She is your average 12-year-old, hormones and everything," said Derrick, 22. "There's nothing that bad to make her do that to my mama. She had been breaking out of the house and not going to school."

Now let's say that what Derrick said about "average" is true, and that "average" is meant to characterize the female as what is already said above, plus possessing no apparent needs or desires that would qualify for student disability attention, rather than the educational average level of "C." I am very inclined to deduce that something happened that impacted the child's emotional stability, and the original cause was not her fault, as if it was, then she would self-destruct. Otherwise, the child would not murder. So now my take on the situation is: Somebody needs to redevelop parental training programs for these "average" children so that parents more carefully notice the emotional patterns and recognize all of the smallest actions that would set the "average" child off.

[wdlove]

I am not saying you are wrong, but there are WAY to many cases of people like this getting through the system, only to kill again at a later time.

There is no good solution, but a person who is intelligent enough to know that you do not shoot mom in the head as she sleeps cannot be allowed to walk the streets. I am not saying death penalty (we don't have it where I live), but do the crime, do the time.

I agree, that many are lost in the system and allowed to commit a crime again. More needs to be with chronic offenders.

I agree, don't think that she could ever be trusted. She will need to be under constant monitoring,

The problem with guns doesn't need more laws, the current laws need to be aggressively enforced. If someone knows you have a gun, it is less likely they they will attack. Legal carrying of guns and proper care saves lives.

[tdhurst]

You've got to be kidding. "Fry her in the chair" - yes, that's exactly the kind of attitude we need in order to prevent the spread of violence.

She's 12, barely even through puberty, and you wanna liquify her insides.

This girl wasn't born with the inclination to put a bullet in the head of a loved one. She probably had aggressive tendencies which were only reinforced by her environment. It's not something she DID that made her this way; it's something we DIDN'T do. So instead of following the "eye for an eye" ideology and pretending that the problem has been solved, let's admit that we've really just been trying to ignore a problem that we all know is only getting worse.

That's my take anyway. I could be wrong, of course.

You're saying her ENVIRONMENT prompted her to shoot her mom in the face? Punching someone, swinging a bat during an argument...all those are done in anger. Getting a gun, cocking, aiming and pulling the trigger are premeditated acts that deserve punishment.
Seriously tho, you think that all problems can be solved by therapy? I am a firm believer that executing all those guilty of premeditated murder would do a lot in preventing it...
Oh, gun laws are important too. But I have yet to see a gun kill someone on its own. Someone HAS to pull the trigger...

[frozenstar]

You're saying her ENVIRONMENT prompted her to shoot her mom in the face? Punching someone, swinging a bat during an argument...all those are done in anger. Getting a gun, cocking, aiming and pulling the trigger are premeditated acts that deserve punishment.
Seriously tho, you think that all problems can be solved by therapy? I am a firm believer that executing all those guilty of premeditated murder would do a lot in preventing it...

Why does a premeditated crime necessarily deserve punishment? You say because it deters potential offenders. But there is very little data to support that claim. In fact, just about everything we know about human psychology strongly suggests that rewarding people for good deeds is considerably more effective than punishing people for bad ones. The real reason that a premeditated crime necessarily deserves punishment is because it fuels the innate human desire for vengeance. The inclination to retaliate is an attribute that evolved out of necessity. It's no longer useful as we've abandoned modes of living that involved individual competition for food, land, mates, etc... But we're still stuck with it.
That's what I think, anyway.

[sushi]

You're saying her ENVIRONMENT prompted her to shoot her mom in the face? Punching someone, swinging a bat during an argument...all those are done in anger. Getting a gun, cocking, aiming and pulling the trigger are premeditated acts that deserve punishment.
Bottom line, is people need to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of age. Humans have a device located between their ears which allows for judgement to be interjected in any situation. So many times it is much easier to blame someone or something else for our actions.

Sushi

[sushi]

Why does a premeditated crime necessarily deserve punishment? You say because it deters potential offenders. But there is very little data to support that claim. In fact, just about everything we know about human psychology strongly suggests that rewarding people for good deeds is considerably more effective than punishing people for bad ones.
Okay, no sweat. Understand.

So when your 12 year old, or some other teenager blows you or a close family member away, we'll just say that's fine. No reason to punish them. Besides you would not want them punished anyway. :D

Sushi

[sushi]

I would be surprised if a 12 year old girl could bypass a good gun lock (unless you mean finding the key). But I agree, a gun safe would be the better option. I'm glad that California requires a gun lock be purchased with new firearms. I think it's a step in the right direction at least...
There are many types of gun locks.

My favorite is free. You just remove the bolt mechanism. That is what I do with assault weapons. This part of the weapon is stored in a different location.

As for the typical key trigger guard, they are easy to overcome. While it is a step in the right direction, it does not necessarily prevent the gun from being used.

Just like a car anti-theft device will not prevent a thief from stealing a car. It just slows them down for the most part. Sure there are exceptions.

The reason that I like a safe or vault is that the whole gun is protected vice just the trigger assembly with a trigger guard. BTW, I have been able to fire a pistol with a trigger guard installed. Most of the time, trigger guard key locks are easily opened/broken.

Anyway, maybe because of my background and military experience I am a bit different than the average person when it comes to guns.

BTW, on a side note, it is a blast to fire a 7.62 minigun or 20mm cannon via a head mounted site while you are flying. Just look at the target and press the trigger. Although, the 20mm will kick the Cobra around a bit when you fire especially off axis firing.

Sushi

[sushi]

There are many types of gun locks.
Here is an example of a trigger lock:

http://www.triggerlock.com/triggerlocks.asp

Here is an example of a gun lock:

http://www.triggerlock.com/106gunlock.htm

As you can see, there is a big difference. Anyhow, anything is better than nothing I guess. One thing is for sure, anybody who stores a weapon that is ready to fire, deserves to be removed from the gene pool. This is plain stupid.

That is why I am a firm believer that anyone who desires to legally own a handgun, rifle, assault weapon, etc., must attend and pass a rigorious weapons safety and qualification course.

When you have been around live weapons shooting real bullets, you tend to not tolerate those who don't have a clue about gun safety, let alone knowing how to properly use one.

Sushi

[frozenstar]

Okay, no sweat. Understand.

So when your 12 year old, or some other teenager blows you or a close family member away, we'll just say that's fine. No reason to punish them. Besides you would not want them punished anyway. :D

Sushi

I never said or even implied that it's just "fine" to commit murder. I was making a point that punishment doesn't necessarily solve the problem; rather, it satisfies a human desire. And believe it or not, I don't need that desire satisfied. Punishment is not the answer.

Under most circumstances, I can't see why I'd want my child (if I ever have one) punished for committing murder. That's not to say I wouldn't want him detained, psychoanalyzed, and given the treatment necessary to assist in suppressing the aggressive behavior.

[frozenstar]

Bottom line, is people need to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of age. Humans have a device located between their ears which allows for judgement to be interjected in any situation. So many times it is much easier to blame someone or something else for our actions.

Sushi

With all due respect, I think that's a really narrow-minded approach. Let me give you an extreme example to help illustrate my point. Suppose I have a child and I beat him with a baton on a daily basis from the age of 5 until 15. Eventually he'll commit a violent act towards another human being. When that happens, according to you, he should be held fully responsible and punished accordingly, regardless of the fact that it was me who instilled the violent tendencies in him. You see my point? Frankly, I think your view is rather barbaric and reminiscent of the some of the more misanthropic civilizations in history. I don't mean to offend; I'm just being honest.

As always, of course, I could be completely wrong.

[James L]

With all due respect, I think that's a really narrow-minded approach. Let me give you an extreme example to help illustrate my point. Suppose I have a child and I beat him with a baton on a daily basis from the age of 5 until 15. Eventually he'll commit a violent act towards another human being. When that happens, according to you, he should be held fully responsible and punished accordingly, regardless of the fact that it was me who instilled the violent tendencies in him. You see my point? Frankly, I think your view is rather barbaric and reminiscent of the some of the more misanthropic civilizations in history. I don't mean to offend; I'm just being honest.

As always, of course, I could be completely wrong.


Frozen,

You are not wrong. You speak of environmental product, and learned behaviour... both well proven theories.

But, it does not take away from the basic tenant that a person who knows right from wrong must be held responsible for their actions regardless of upbringing, and that society must be protected from that person.

What form that punishment takes is always open to debate though!

[LethalWolfe]

I wouldn't have a clue where to get one from, and I think the same would go for the vast majority of people over here.

Considering the gun crime rate over there has been rising steadily since the late '90's (about the same time the "anti-gun" laws really cracked down) I think a fair number of Brits know where to buy firearms illegally.


What's the more important issue here, the fact that a daughter killed her mom or how she did it? Would this thread have gone the same direction if she stabbed her to death? Forest for the trees, people. You need to address the cause and not just the symptom.


-Lethal

[wdlove]

That is why I am a firm believer that anyone who desires to legally own a handgun, rifle, assault weapon, etc., must attend and pass a rigorious weapons safety and qualification course.

When you have been around live weapons shooting real bullets, you tend to not tolerate those who don't have a clue about gun safety, let alone knowing how to properly use one.

Sushi

I also think there should be a rigorious training course prior to a person legally owning a gun. Also strict prosecuition of our current gun laws.

Sadly criminals can still get guns. The underground economy thrives.

Sadly because of all the child abuse today, something needs to be done. There should also be a rigorious course to become a parent. They should have to have to pass a test before the child goes home.

[boz2004]

A few months ago, I read an article where a teen (can't remember where, but I keep thinking it was somewhere in SE Asia) took a butcher knife to his mother. She'd busted him for something and disciplined him by taking away his PS2 or XBox (one of those systems) for a couple weeks... I think I read that one in a Yahoo! News of the odd...

but, my point is...

it doesn't take a gun for someone... ummm... "out of sorts" shall we say... to inflict harm for no good reason...

when I was growing up, neither my sister nor I would have even considered looking cross-eyed at our mother if we didn't agree with a punishment... let alone contemplate murder...

makes me wonder about ever having kids - I'm strict with my sister's kids, I *know* I'd be moreso with my own...

[Brize]

Considering the gun crime rate over there has been rising steadily since the late '90's (about the same time the "anti-gun" laws really cracked down) I think a fair number of Brits know where to buy firearms illegally.

That's true to a certain extent. Crime involving shotguns has varied slightly year on year over the past 20 years, but remains pretty much constant. Crime involving handguns has increased over the past five years as a whole, but not year on year. Handgun crime actually decreased by 6% between 2002 and 2003. The most consistent increase in gun related crime can be attributed to air and imitation weapons.

I know the UK is often cited as an example of how gun control might benefit the US, and I was therefore curious as to the relative homicide and gun-related homicide statistics of the two countries. With this in mind, I had a look at information available from the UK Home Office (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/) and the US Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/), from which I collated the following stats:

Average of years 1998-2002; homicides per 100,000 of the population.


England and Wales: 1.51, of which 9.1% were gun related

United States of America: 5.74, of which 65.1% were gun related

N.B. If you're not convinced by these stats, Google 'worldwide homicide rates' or something similar.

I'm too tired to pass comment on these figures right now, but I'm curious as to what you guys think could explain a 380% difference in homicide rates between two countries that are supposedly similar in many ways.

[t300]

Ages 10 to 200, if there is murder, they should be punished accordingly. Your right, maybe this 12 year old shouldn't be given the death penalty, but there are PLENTY of other cases where young people should.

Like the 15 or so year old girl, who with her friend, killed her grandparents...Lethal injection, please.

Or those 10-11 year old kids who stole from and raped a very old woman...Life sentence with no parole for all of them.

And now...This 12 year old girl who commited murder...1,000 life sentences.

[frozenstar]

Ages 10 to 200, if there is murder, they should be punished accordingly. Your right, maybe this 12 year old shouldn't be given the death penalty, but there are PLENTY of other cases where young people should.

Like the 15 or so year old girl, who with her friend, killed her grandparents...Lethal injection, please.

Or those 10-11 year old kids who stole from and raped a very old woman...Life sentence with no parole for all of them.

And now...This 12 year old girl who commited murder...1,000 life sentences.

Yes, yes, you've made your stance clear. But you haven't said WHY you take that position. You keep saying we should do this and we should do that, BUT WHY??? Why does a 15-year-old NECESSARILY deserve the death penalty for killing her grandparents? What exactly does it accomplish other than serving to satisfy the innate human desire for retribution?
I'm not trying to single you out. Others in this thread have said similar things, yet no one has actually supported their assertions with facts or even speculation of sort (except maybe James L). People just keep saying things like "they deserve it; case closed". Unfortunately, that's not good enough. In the real world, people have to prove their claims.

As I always say, I could be dead wrong, so don't take me too seriously. :D

[5300cs]

... here in Japan, it is easy to get a gun. Illegal yes. But easy. All it takes is the right connections and some scratch...

I live in Japan. Where to get one? Do I have to be living in Tokyo?

I do feel a little safer living over here (from the US originally) though Japan isn't as safe as it once was. Don't even get me started on how useless Japanese police are...

Hard for me to make a judgement call about the girl without more info on the mother and child.

[Stelliform]

....

[homerjward]

Ages 10 to 200, if there is murder, they should be punished accordingly. Your right, maybe this 12 year old shouldn't be given the death penalty, but there are PLENTY of other cases where young people should.

Like the 15 or so year old girl, who with her friend, killed her grandparents...Lethal injection, please.

Or those 10-11 year old kids who stole from and raped a very old woman...Life sentence with no parole for all of them.

And now...This 12 year old girl who commited murder...1,000 life sentences.
as a 14 year old i agree with that to a certain extent. however, i feel the age should be 13. if a person is 13 and can be proven competent to stand trial by adult standards and has no mental disabilities they should be tried as an adult, including the death penalty. as a teenager i know right from wrong and i know the consequences of murder and other similar crimes. if my best friend was killed by another 15 year old i dont think the 15 year old should be able to use age as an excuse for taking an innocent life. they conciously killed a person, knowing it was wrong.

[takao]

hmm my younger brother is 12..so at that age somebody is definatly old enough to know that you don't shot/kill somebody 'just cause' ..no normal kids are _that_ stupid..
if it were something like hurt somebody or stealing a car i would say 'give the kid therapy and when he's at legal age punishment" (here that would be 14) but shooting somebody while asleep isn't the same category.period.
find a fitting place ..perhaps there are special prisons for such young teenagers in the US i don't know...

PS: i wouldn't have an idea where to get a firearm illegal and i'm 21... (i'm sure i didn't knew it at 12 as well ;) )

[edesignuk]

Considering the gun crime rate over there has been rising steadily since the late '90's (about the same time the "anti-gun" laws really cracked down) I think a fair number of Brits know where to buy firearms illegally.Gun crime may have been rising, but it is still NO WHERE near the level of the US. Every home doesn't have a gun, and so accidents, or people just loosing their temper and going nuts doesn't happen.

[Brize]

I don't have any numbers handy, but from what I understand, the U.K.'s murder rate was significantly lower than the U.S.'s murder rate before the gun control laws. So you can't simply say it is lower because of the gun control laws.

Edit: Oh, I also found this article from 2002 that says England has the highest crime rate in the world among industrialized countries.

It would be too simplistic to correlate high levels of violent crime with a lack of gun control, despite the temptation to do so. Switzerland is a good example of a nation with high gun ownership and an extremely low rate of crime involving firearms. In any event, I made no such comment. I was simply curious as to what might explain the high murder rate in the US.

Yes, the UK is generally considered to have a higher overall crime rate than the US, but much of this is to do with fraud, burglary, and locking up single mothers for refusing to buy a TV licence. Violent crime – homicide, rape, and assault – are significantly higher in the US. Check out this report (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf) from the United Nations for comparable data.

This notion that the UK has only recently introduced gun control is a fallacy. Controls have been in place since 1903, and have been progressively tightened since. For example, it's been illegal for a UK citizen to carry a gun since the 1950s. As I understand it, the legislation introduced following the Dunblane massacre amounted to an outright ban on handguns. As a result, British pistol teams now have to practice their sport abroad.

[MOFS]

It would be too simplistic to correlate high levels of violent crime with a lack of gun control, despite the temptation to do so. Switzerland is a good example of a nation with high gun ownership and an extremely low rate of crime involving firearms. In any event, I made no such comment. I was simply curious as to what might explain the high murder rate in the US.

Yes, the UK is generally considered to have a higher overall crime rate than the US, but much of this is to do with fraud, burglary, and locking up single mothers for refusing to buy a TV licence. Violent crime – homicide, rape, and assault – are significantly higher in the US. Check out this report (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf) from the United Nations for comparable data.

This notion that the UK has only recently introduced gun control is a fallacy. Controls have been in place since 1903, and have been progressively tightened since. For example, it's been illegal for a UK citizen to carry a gun since the 1950s. As I understand it, the legislation introduced following the Dunblane massacre amounted to an outright ban on handguns. As a result, British pistol teams now have to practice their sport abroad.

To be honest, I believe the point edesignuk (and my other fellow brits -hehe!) have been trying to make about guns in our fair isles (and other countries where gun ownership is practically ilegal) is that if you want to get a gun to shoot someone, actually getting the gun is for the vast majority of people a crime. Now, without wishing to generalise, but kids don't tend to get a liscence and/or nick a gun to do a spontaneous shooting. :rolleyes: Similarly, having that second legal loop for would-be criminals (so the criminal would have to illegally obtain a gun and then shoot someone) makes it more likely that the criminal could be either put off completely doing the crime or get caught trying to steal the gun. I would stay they're pretty strong deterrents.

[MOFS]

I don't have any numbers handy, but from what I understand, the U.K.'s murder rate was significantly lower than the U.S.'s murder rate before the gun control laws. So you can't simply say it is lower because of the gun control laws.

Edit: Oh, I also found this article from 2002 that says England has the highest crime rate in the world among industrialized countries.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml)

I fail to see the link between overall crime rates and gun crime rates. The breakdown from the full version of this abridged headline (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=543388) was that the majority of these crimes were minor ie shoplifting and other such petty fines. I don't happen to have the full article in front of me, but feel free to pay the £1 to peruse the article in your free time.

Anyway, choose the article you refer to better this time. The "Torygraph" - so called because of its unfailing allegiance to the Conservative Party, the opposition party in the UK - is one of an (unfortuant) plethora of right wing papers in our country. Only the Independent (centre) and the Guardian (left of centre) of the proper papers aren't - both reccomended reads...

Sorry to sound so curt!

mofs

[aloofman]

That's not to say that I don't think what is currently happening in this country RE: gun usage is appalling - rather, I don't think the problem can be legislated away. Too many people are imprisoned in this country as it is. Education would be far more effective (in solving this problem and many others). Something is wrong in this country when 12 year old children are killing their parents, but to me it doesn't follow that is simply because there is 'easy access to guns'. You don't need a gun to kill someone - trying to ban guns, for example, is like treating the symptom and not the disease. It would be better to figure out why so many people think that this kind of violence is an acceptable way to 'solve' problems, and fix that instead.

I agree. One of the great points that Moore brought up in Bowling for Columbine (in spite of his penchant for distortions and conspiracies) is that many Americans think they need to own guns for protection, when they really don't. There are a lot of paranoid people out there, and they are probably the last people that should have a gun in the house. How often does a gun make a difference for the potential victim of a crime? The gun would have to be loaded and within reach at that exact moment. That's far less likely to happen than that same gun accidentally being fired with tragic results.

On the other hand, people who think gun control actually reduces violent crime are delusional. It never has. There are too many guns out there already and too many ways for criminals to get them. Every time there's a mass shooting everyone clamors for more gun control laws, even though the perpetrators already broke a dozen existing ones.

The one wild card here is that many people on both sides assume that the Constitution allows private ownership of guns. The Supreme Court has never ruled that to be true. The few times the Supreme Court has ruled on Second Amendment cases, it was related to the "well-organized militia" clause instead of the "right to bear arms" clause. Both sides wish the Court would rule on it, but the high court has not heard a Second Amendment case in decades. It'd be nice for some clarification, even if it just fueled disagreement.

[Brize]

To be honest, I believe the point edesignuk (and my other fellow brits -hehe!) have been trying to make about guns in our fair isles (and other countries where gun ownership is practically ilegal) is that if you want to get a gun to shoot someone, actually getting the gun is for the vast majority of people a crime.

I think you perhaps misunderstood the purpose of my response to Stelliform. I wasn't disagreeing with either yourself or edesignuk. To my mind, the UK has far superior firearms legislation than the US, and this is perhaps reflected in a significantly lower violent crime rate. I say perhaps, because there are clearly other factors at play here. The notion that "guns don't kill; people do" is a meaningless statement, and one that belies a failure to engage with the issue at hand. However, comparing the US to nations such as the UK and Canada as a means by which to extol the virtues of strict gun control is easily countered with the example of Switzerland and other nations that enjoy a low homicide rate, despite the prevelance of firearms.

Given that there are no easy answers in respect of US gun control, I was curious as to what the folks on this forum believe to be the underlying reasons for the consistently high level of violent crime in the US, whether involving firearms or otherwise. That an average of 3.74 people per 100k of the US population die every year from firearms related violence is shocking enough, but even when we take guns out of the equation, we still find that 2 people per 100k are murdered every year in the US, compared with 1.37 in England and Wales. All things considered, that's a significant difference, and indicates that the problem of violence is not adequately explained by the prevelance of guns. Firearms are doubtless a contributory factor, but there have to be various other factors in addition.

[boz2004]

On the other hand, people who think gun control actually reduces violent crime are delusional. It never has. There are too many guns out there already and too many ways for criminals to get them.

Just last week, a 14 yr old was found with a gun on the school bus... he'd bought it from an 11 year old who'd found it in a park playground area...
http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/184244-2739-127.html

gun control laws don't matter when the weapon already exists and is out there... nor do I think any law can stop someone determined enough to inflict harm on another... No, not saying there shouldn't be laws on the books, as without them we're likely worse off... just saying we had best be prepared for the likelihood of having to react instead of pre-act...

[Wyvernspirit]

Gun crime may have been rising, but it is still NO WHERE near the level of the US. Every home doesn't have a gun, and so accidents, or people just loosing their temper and going nuts doesn't happen.

I am sure you do realize this, although your post seems to refute that, every home does not have a gun over here. I would actually say that the mojority do not have guns. Those that do however usually have many.

[aloofman]

To be honest, I believe the point edesignuk (and my other fellow brits -hehe!) have been trying to make about guns in our fair isles (and other countries where gun ownership is practically ilegal) is that if you want to get a gun to shoot someone, actually getting the gun is for the vast majority of people a crime. Now, without wishing to generalise, but kids don't tend to get a liscence and/or nick a gun to do a spontaneous shooting. :rolleyes: Similarly, having that second legal loop for would-be criminals (so the criminal would have to illegally obtain a gun and then shoot someone) makes it more likely that the criminal could be either put off completely doing the crime or get caught trying to steal the gun. I would stay they're pretty strong deterrents.

That's true, but the difference isn't nearly as stark as you say because, although it varies within the US, it's a crime to use a gun for almost anything except for controlled conditions like target practice, or in those fairly rare self-defense situations. Even places that have concealed weapons laws don't let you do much with that gun if you can walk around with it. You can't brandish it and point it at people. You can't give it to minors or other people who don't have a license. In most circumstances, you can't fire it at anything without breaking some other law.

I think the fact that there are a lot more guns around is a bigger factor in crime than whether it's legal to own one, if only because it means that criminals have more chances to steal a gun.

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times last week about a tiny town in western Alaska where almost every resident has a gun, but the police aren't allowed to have them. This suited everyone just fine, except for the police officers, who rightfully worried that they could be shot without a way of shooting back.

[wdlove]

Another very sad incident involving children. :(

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/3819789/detail.html

[takao]

Another very sad incident involving children. :(

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/3819789/detail.html

i know somebody who was offered a kid in Haiti...but Milwaukee ?...

[cslewis]

Gun crime may have been rising, but it is still NO WHERE near the level of the US. Every home doesn't have a gun, and so accidents, or people just loosing their temper and going nuts doesn't happen.

What's all this about a 'gun culture'? I personally don't know anyone who owns a gun. It's far from every home having a gun. You make it sound as though every single american is carrying a handgun at all times, and that we'll start shooting anyone with no notice when we 'go nuts'...

EDIT Sorry. I'm done now. edesignuk's comments just upset me.

[sushi]

I live in Japan. Where to get one? Do I have to be living in Tokyo?
Just go to your local 7/11 (full service version) between 1AM and 2AM and ask for a Lifle. They will reply to your comment with long or short.

You reply short for a pistol or long for a rifle.

The last that I checked, the cost for a cheap model was between 80,000-90,000 yen.

Ammo is another issue.

Seriously, all of the above is total BS! :D

Sorry, but if you have to ask, forget about it. :eek:

Sushi

[Stelliform]

....

[Mechcozmo]

Way too sad.

Personally, guns are perfectly fine. Ammunition is the killer. People say that a person firing the gun kills people...but honestly, it is the bullet going MACH 2 that kills them! So, according to Dogbert:
"Guns are for everybody. Bazookas too. But I am the only person with ammunition..."

This 12 year old did not just, one night, freak out and kill her mom. There had to have been signs for weeks, even months, that she wasn't doing well. And when was it "normal" for a 12 year old to be ditching school? That isn't right, you are supposed to go to school!

People these days should be able to be tried for stupidity...unfortunately, very few people believe that they are a member of the stupid grouping...sigh...

"American history is nothing but a bunch of farmers with pitchforks burning things."
My friend in 8th grad US history...only thing I remember about that class...but it is oddly true.

[Rocksaurus]

To hell with guns, BAN THEM COMPLETELY.

[homerjward]

"American history is nothing but a bunch of farmers with pitchforks burning things."
My friend in 8th grad US history...only thing I remember about that class...but it is oddly true.
ugh...i just had that class last year and it drove me up the freakin wall! it wasn't necessarily the class (i rather like history) it was the teacher...

[Mechcozmo]

My teacher was great. She couldn't draw (actually got class confused between a potato and the US of A!) and she described herself as "naturally intoxicated." One of the best teachers at the school, IMO and in everyone else's too.

[Colonel Marksma]

First off, does anyone believe the story in the first place? I couldn't find it. (Used google)

Second off, if it was true, there's got to be a whole lot more to the story.

Third off, handling a weapon isn't possible for any ol' blow joe. It takes at least careful observation or a TEACHER, anyone who's handled a gun or research.

Fourth off, yes, your correct the bullet does the killing, but if a weapon is treated as always loaded, you avoid a lot of danger.

Fifth off, 44% death rate is related to car crashes (43,000 people), SEVETEEN% are falls (16,200 people), 3.5% deaths are due to choking (3,400 people), 4% due to drowning (3,900 people) but 0.6% of death accidents in this country are gun related (600) in one year *National Safety Council Injury Facts*. A family owning a gun with a child (who would have to know how to handle it, or a parent already has it ready to fire) is 71 times more likely to die in a car crash than by a fatal gun shooting.

Sixth off, most of those who are illegal shooters (homocidal and gang related) illegally use those weapons. The government puts strict gun laws on people who are getting killed by people illegally using firearms anyway.

Guess what crime rate is in Texas compared to California? You can say "Oh, gee, crime rate went up in the past year after gun laws become lienant!" Ever think that crime rate goes up by 3%?

" Bruce Elfant, a constable in Travis County, believes more handguns on the street endangers innocent lives.
"My concern is not so much about what will happen with criminals, but I worry about the children and I'm concerned that there are going to be irresponsible acts. With more guns, there will be more shootings." -- Bruce Elfant.

If prisons are a cure for crime, Texas should have mightily outperformed New York during the 1990s, from a crime-control standpoint. But the Lone Star State's crime drops were much less impressive than what occurred in the Empire State. From 1990 to 1998, the decline in New York's crime rate exceeded the decline in Texas' crime rate by 26 percent.
(http://www.commondreams.org/views/091500-106.htm)

Well, what this site doesn't know is that crime in Texas used to be and still is a lot less lower in New York.

Think about it. A burgler wants to rob a family. What's he going to do? Rob gun-hard warhawk Texans, or wimpy gayed out Californians where he can get an uzzi for a good price anyway?

[thedude110]

How on earth did you dig up this thread for your first post? :p

[savar]

Sad story.

I am not an advocate of gun locks. Too easy to bypass.

I prefer a gun vault/safe.

Sushi

Not to mention, if you're going to have a gun in the house, you should teach kids how to use, maintain, and respect them. If your kids learn about guns from TV and movies and then you leave one lying around the house (or "cleverly" hidden as the case may be), of course something bad is going to happen.

[sushi]

Not to mention, if you're going to have a gun in the house, you should teach kids how to use, maintain, and respect them.
That's a given.

Guns, knives, swords, etc. are all weapons and need to be handled appropriately.

If your kids learn about guns from TV and movies and then you leave one lying around the house (or "cleverly" hidden as the case may be), of course something bad is going to happen.
So true. Hollywood is for entertainment!

So much of what they show is pure crap when it comes to authenticity. There are noted exceptions but they are few and far between. Anyhow, my guess is that most folks go to the movies to be entertained and not to be trained. Unfortunately, some cannot separate fact from fiction.

On a side note, I still cringe at Pearl Harbor when the planes fly between the ships on Battleship Row. Looks great in the movie but is completely inaccurate based on reality.

I started with "guns" around age 8 and have been shooting since. My instructor was the very best and taught me well.

That is why I know that guns can be safe when handled correctly and in the appropriate manner.

[sushi]

Third off, handling a weapon isn't possible for any ol' blow joe. It takes at least careful observation or a TEACHER, anyone who's handled a gun or research.
Very naive words.

Anybody can pick up a "gun" and handle it be it a pistol, rifle, shotgun, BB/Pellet gun and of course accidentally fire it.

To handle a "gun" responibly, is another matter and that is what I think you meant in your post.

[munkees]

Maybe, but just the fact that they are there presents a greater danger than if they were not.
I wouldn't have a clue where to get one from, and I think the same would go for the vast majority of people over here.

The is now one illegal gun in the UK for every six people, Guns like drugs are easy to find, I found them when I lived there. Know I live in the USA and own guns, I understand a different story, History needs guns, If there were no guns, freedom could not be.

I see in Europe freedom of speach is very limited now, freedom to vote a politcal party is also restricted. Germany /austria being the best example. If you where a swastika then you WILL be arrested and imprisions. This threat has been mad also against the british for doing the hitler salute in the up coming world cup.

there is a ban on far right parties, but not on the left. It is not a true free place.

As for gun control, I think who ever left a firearm accessable to minors, and a crime is commited should be puninshed very servrely. I think it make sense to require by law guns safe, there are some good safe for about $100.

The whole trial of kids as adults is so wrong. It has to be one fair law, trial for all kds as adults or not. One standard for all. Freedom is based on Fairness, equality and equal rights.

I Think the UK now is a very dangerous place. Crime is very high in Cities and in the country. It sadden me, all my family still lives there and to see the crap they put up with.

I so glade to be an American, with the constitution. I now have real freedoms, which are based arround the core of being human.

The meaning of government is this "If a group of people appoint a person to defend and represent them, this is a government. The representative has no more power than the people, he enforces just the same rights. Therefore govenments shoudl have no more power than any one person has". This is not the case today, govenments have stolen the power from the people, taking more and more control. Even local govenments in most countries are losing power to the big evil central govenment. It will come a day when the US and euopen govenments take to much power. Then will come a time of forced uphappy life for the people. READ 1984, it not talking about communisum, it talking about where the free world is heading.

This is why gun control issue are a sore point in the US. The right to defends one rights is important. I agree in the 2nd admendment to defend freedom, and bare arms, it power to the people. But I don't see any violation of rights to enforce some safety for firearms storage. Need to keep weapons free, but out of kids hands.

[munkees]

Except that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by Amendment to the Constitution, as part of the Bill of Rights:

AMENDMENT[II.] 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.

Further, it is (by design) difficult to modify the Constitution (or it's Amendments - the Second Amendment can only be stricken by another amendment (like Prohibition was)), as set forth in Article V. of the Constitution. An Amendment must be passed by 2/3 of the votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate - or it can be proposed by 2/3 of the States' Legislatures. It must then be ratified by 3/4 of the States to become an Amendment.

You have to understand some of historical background to know why this Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. A short list:

1) Firearms were very much a necessity in the early history of the US - the country was a frontier, after all. You had to hunt your own food, and the natives could be 'hostile'.

2) The Revolutionary War would obviously not have happened if the people had not had access to arms. In addition, after the war, the Framers of the Constitution were very distrustful of any form of government, and to some extent each other (in the sense that the different States had differing ideas about how things should be run; the Constitution is direct evidence of this - see also the previous 'Articles of Confederation'). An armed populace would keep things in check, in the sense that should an armed conflict become the only resolution to an oppressive government (as had just occurred), the people would have the tools to deal with that.

3) The US had no standing army at the time. The only defense available were the volunteer colonial militias, which could be called up should they be needed. Traditionally, they supplied their own firearms (they already had them as part of frontier life).

--

Modern day concerns about firearms simply didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified. People were well used to firearms safety, it was a fact of life ("common sense" if you will). Part of the current problem is that for a large part of this nation's history, firearms have been a necessity and many people still view them as such (some legitimately, and others less so...). However, the safety aspect is no longer 'common sense' to a good part of the 'gun toting' populace. There isn't anything inherently unsafe with people owning guns, any more than for people who own and drive cars. People are just no longer well equipped by life alone to know about gun safety (it's not like they teach it in school...). I personally don't own a gun, and probably never will - I simply have no reason to own one. However, I understand why the right to bear arms exists in this country, and I'm not really willing to give up a right simply because I don't have a use for it at the present time.

That's not to say that I don't think what is currently happening in this country RE: gun usage is appalling - rather, I don't think the problem can be legislated away. Too many people are imprisoned in this country as it is. Education would be far more effective (in solving this problem and many others). Something is wrong in this country when 12 year old children are killing their parents, but to me it doesn't follow that is simply because there is 'easy access to guns'. You don't need a gun to kill someone - trying to ban guns, for example, is like treating the symptom and not the disease. It would be better to figure out why so many people think that this kind of violence is an acceptable way to 'solve' problems, and fix that instead.


nicely put

[miloblithe]

It's a remarkably bizarre argument that because guns kill fewer people than do cars, if we shouldn't ban cars then we mustn't ban guns.

[munkees]

It's a remarkably bizarre argument that because guns kill fewer people than do cars, if we shouldn't ban cars then we mustn't ban guns.

A very Good point. I add some more input there are more guns in the USA than Cars.

Another interesting fact, Canada has a low gun crime (I am talking before the new laws), and that canada has simular gun culture like the USA, the difference is that Canada does not have the Murder rate. (this is precanada registration laws). If you want some more input, even though I don't like this guy but Micheal more did a documentry trying to identify why the USA has such a high gun death rate, it was not because of gun ownership.

Another point, criminals get guns regardless of law, in the usa the criminal cannot purchase a firearm legally.

It is a proven fact that in the light of Concealed gun laws being introduced in the US over the last 12 years gun crime has drop in those state, well all crime has dropped dew to fact the Joe blogg good be carrying.

I remember watch a debate between two George Town university Professors and a another university (southen USA), the two george town represented gun control and legistration, the one was an avocate. The final out come was that the people to carry guns make the place safer.

Remember Freedom is not free, you pay with life, or lack of it.

[MIDI_EVIL]

I would be surprised if a 12 year old girl could bypass a good gun lock (unless you mean finding the key). But I agree, a gun safe would be the better option. I'm glad that California requires a gun lock be purchased with new firearms. I think it's a step in the right direction at least...


Here in the UK we have a zero tolerance policy.

There is no excuse to have a gun in your home.

Rich.

[jadekitty24]

How many of you anti-guns fanatics have been raped? Or mugged? Or robbed? Or had a loved one murdered? Perhaps if you were you would have a different take on the situation. It's so easy to be sunshine and light when you've never seen the dark.
I will be the first to say that America has a skewed admiration of violence and guns and all that comes with. I'm not saying it's right. And in a perfect world it shouldn't be necessary to arm yourself just to feel safe.
The blame does not lie with the gun but the user. Are we going to bitch and cry for steak knives to be outlawed? Murders get committed with them. Or vehicles? Common pesticides have been used as poison to kill. Hell, let's get rid of every thing that could possibly be used to murder someone. Like that will prevent it. :rolleyes:
Bottom line, murder is committed because some twisted f*ck can't handle their sh*t. There is something wrong in the head of someone who is even close to capable of blasting someone's face off, or taking their life with any other method as well. They can cry "I had a bad childhood" all they want, I had it pretty crappy but I couldn't dream of taking someone's life other than in self defence. I say get rid of THEM, not the tools used.

[MarkCollette]

Yeah, this news is getting old...

Looks like it's time to change the standards about what age qualifies you to be tried as an adult. She IS in Texas, though, so I say, fry her in the chair.

Umm, no. We don't have a distinction between child and adult criminals because of some imagined difference of the severity of their crimes. We differentiate between the two recause it's recognised that a child has less life experience, maturity, and education than an adult, and so they are less at fault.

I would say that, generally, if an adult commits murder, it's their fault, but if a child commits murder, there's a combination of fault between them and whoever is raising them.

[MarkCollette]

Getting a gun, cocking, aiming and pulling the trigger are premeditated acts that deserve punishment.

I have no idea how that counts a premeditated. If I run into a room, in a blind rage, see a gun, pick it up, and shoot someone, that could take 3 seconds, which definitely does not count as premeditation. Just because someone describing the action types up each step laboriously, does not mean it took a lot of mental effort to do the act.

[sushi]

I would say that, generally, if an adult commits murder, it's their fault, but if a child commits murder, there's a combination of fault between them and whoever is raising them.
This is all fine and dandy in a idealistic world.

Reality is different.

For example, how would you feel if a child killed someone you dearly loved?

Would you have this same perspective?

[raggedjimmi]

Here in the UK we have a zero tolerance policy.

There is no excuse to have a gun in your home.

Rich.

Not true. My mates dad has a shotgun locked up in his attic, he has a licence for it and everything's honkey dory.

thing is the UK hasn't got the same culture as the US, but it is turning that way slowly. I don't know how to put my finger on it but it just seems like gangs play a huge part of US culture. Here you need a license to buy and own a gun. If you don't then you're buggered as you lose all rights (Tony Martin anyone?). Gun shops are as rare as chimps here. From my mass travels all over the UK I have spotted 2 weapons shops. 1 in Mossley; Lock Stock sell weapons but not bullet guns and some Martial Arts shop in the centre of Manchester that sell swords (albeit blunt), nunchucks and the likes. But never a real gun shop.

[raggedjimmi]

How many of you anti-guns fanatics have been raped? Or mugged? Or robbed? Or had a loved one murdered? Perhaps if you were you would have a different take on the situation. It's so easy to be sunshine and light when you've never seen the dark.
I will be the first to say that America has a skewed admiration of violence and guns and all that comes with. I'm not saying it's right. And in a perfect world it shouldn't be necessary to arm yourself just to feel safe.
The blame does not lie with the gun but the user. Are we going to bitch and cry for steak knives to be outlawed? Murders get committed with them. Or vehicles? Common pesticides have been used as poison to kill. Hell, let's get rid of every thing that could possibly be used to murder someone. Like that will prevent it. :rolleyes:
Bottom line, murder is committed because some twisted f*ck can't handle their sh*t. There is something wrong in the head of someone who is even close to capable of blasting someone's face off, or taking their life with any other method as well. They can cry "I had a bad childhood" all they want, I had it pretty crappy but I couldn't dream of taking someone's life other than in self defence. I say get rid of THEM, not the tools used.

Ban these sort of "gangster" knives you get for sure. But I think you're missing the point. Guns were made for 2 reasons, to attack and defend. You don't go making a birthday cake with a gun, you don't quietly disperse an insect infestation problem in the basement with a gun, you don't drive a gun to drop the kids off at school or drive to work on. Guns shoot. Nothing more. To say "ban everything!" is just ridiculous and taking other peoples arguments to the extreme.

Here's one, ban alcohol. Alcohol reduces inhibitions which in turn make you more likely to kill someone. How many drunken attacks take place in the world or rather how many attacks or muggings take place because of some link to drink or drugs?

I agree at the end. Get rid of them. Anyone who uses a gun needs to be put away. The only exceptions I can think of is protecting your family and home from an intruder or if they have a gun too. Anything else is stupid.
But that point can be skewed. About a year ago (maybe?), a girl in London was stabbed in the neck because she stepped on someone elses toes at a dance.

It's all down to attitudes. People with them; get off Earth.

[StarbucksSam]

I really do agree with you, it's just really hard to implement.

Ban these sort of "gangster" knives you get for sure. But I think you're missing the point. Guns were made for 2 reasons, to attack and defend. You don't go making a birthday cake with a gun, you don't quietly disperse an insect infestation problem in the basement with a gun, you don't drive a gun to drop the kids off at school or drive to work on. Guns shoot. Nothing more. To say "ban everything!" is just ridiculous and taking other peoples arguments to the extreme.

Here's one, ban alcohol. Alcohol reduces inhibitions which in turn make you more likely to kill someone. How many drunken attacks take place in the world or rather how many attacks or muggings take place because of some link to drink or drugs?

I agree at the end. Get rid of them. Anyone who uses a gun needs to be put away. The only exceptions I can think of is protecting your family and home from an intruder or if they have a gun too. Anything else is stupid.
But that point can be skewed. About a year ago (maybe?), a girl in London was stabbed in the neck because she stepped on someone elses toes at a dance.

It's all down to attitudes. People with them; get off Earth.

[CanadaRAM]

I perfer both. While I think Americans should have the right to arms, they should be more responsible with them.

I would just like to add that guns are quite safe when handled properly by responsible adults.

And how, pray tell, can anyone ensure or enforce that?

You can't legislate against stupidity and irresponsibility.

You CAN legislate aginst handgun ownership and take the $^@@ng things out of our communities altogether.

(and don't start on the 'criminals will be the only ones with guns'. That's as it should be. Criminals will always break the law - kinda the definition of the term. So throw the book at them. Private gun ownership kills far more innocents than ever were saved by 'protection'. How many drivebys and street or nightclub shootings could have been defended against if the victim had a Colt?)

Here's a thought exercise: Give 2 people the same weapons to 'level the playing field' and provide equal 'protection'. Who is going to lose, the responsible and level minded person or the unstable, criminal or alcohol/drug crazed person? It's not just access, it's willingness to use it to injure or kill another person. The protection argument is a crock of #$^%.

[jadekitty24]

Ban these sort of "gangster" knives you get for sure. But I think you're missing the point. Guns were made for 2 reasons, to attack and defend. You don't go making a birthday cake with a gun, you don't quietly disperse an insect infestation problem in the basement with a gun, you don't drive a gun to drop the kids off at school or drive to work on. Guns shoot. Nothing more. To say "ban everything!" is just ridiculous and taking other peoples arguments to the extreme.
:eek: :eek: Umm, apparently you did not detect my sarcasm...banning guns is as stupid as banning everything else. Like you said, guns were made to attack and defend. Attack doesn't necessarily mean murder. I can't believe you really think I was serious about banning anything that could potentially kill. Guns just tend to get more media attention and that gives the whacko groups who have nothing real to do a purpose. I still say banning them would be stupid. People would still get them, only those of us who want to defend ourselves in our own home would be screwed. Drugs aren't legal but I can obtain any one of them easier than I could obtain alcohol. :eek: :eek:

Here's one, ban alcohol. Alcohol reduces inhibitions which in turn make you more likely to kill someone. How many drunken attacks take place in the world or rather how many attacks or muggings take place because of some link to drink or drugs?
I was gonna add this to my list of "things that would as much sense to ban as banning guns" but it was too far fetched.:D

I agree at the end. Get rid of them. Anyone who uses a gun needs to be put away. The only exceptions I can think of is protecting your family and home from an intruder or if they have a gun too. Anything else is stupid.
But that point can be skewed. About a year ago (maybe?), a girl in London was stabbed in the neck because she stepped on someone elses toes at a dance.

It's all down to attitudes. People with them; get off Earth.
Glad you agree :)

[MarkCollette]

This is all fine and dandy in a idealistic world.

Reality is different.

For example, how would you feel if a child killed someone you dearly loved?

Would you have this same perspective?

Saying words like "idealistic" and "realistic" in no way diminishes my explanation. I have no idea what you're hoping to argue. It's a simple fact that someone who is sufficiently older will have gained more experiences, and learned more of our social codes. That older person, committing a horrible crime, will be more at fault, because they better understand what they have done. This is why minors receive different punishment, and why insane people are judged differently as well.

Also, it doesn't matter what the family of a victim thinks. Our justice is based on an impartial application of law, not pandering to the hurt emotional vindictive wishes of victims.

But, since you asked, if an adult killed someone I loved, then I'd want to beat them to death. Not in that sort of stereotypical way that everyone always says that. No, seriously, for real. So, when I imagine doing the same to a 12 year old child, I can't help but feel revulsion and horror at the thought. So, no, I would not treat a child the same as an adult, even if they killed someone I loved. Of course I still feel they should be punished. But at the very least I'd like to take a baseball bat to their parents too. In this particular case, the girl killed her mother, so perhaps some justice has already been metted out.

[princealfie]

I don't care much for guns at all. In fact, the gun culture scares me quite a bit. In movies and everything else we tend to pick up a gat and why?

Instead, let's pick up an apple instead.

By the way, if you want to know more Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is awesome. Good commentary on the problems caused by American's glamorization of guns.

To be honest, the NRA is to blame. I think that they are the evildoers of the modern society.

[princealfie]

Artist: Boogie Down Productions
Album: By Any Means Necessary
Song: Stop the Violence

Worldwide BDP are the freshest!
Worldwide! Worldwide! Worldwide!

One two three, the crew is called BDP
and if you want to go to the tip top
stop the violence in hip-hop, Y-O

Time and time again, as I pick up the pen
as my thoughts emerge, these are those words
I glance at the paper to know what's going on
someone's doing wrong, the story goes on
Mary Lue's had a baby someone else decapitated
the drama of the world shouldn't keep us so frustrated
I look, but it doesn't coincide with my books
social studies when I speak upon political crooks
It's just the presidents, and all the money they spent
all the things they invent and how the house is so immaculate
They paid missiles, my family's eating gristle
then they get upset when the press blows the whistle
Of course the main profiles are kept low
you temper with some jobs, now the press is controlled
Not only newspapers, but every single station
you only get to hear the president is on vacation
But ehrm, stay calm, there's no need for alarm
You say "go back" to your mom, and you're off to Vietnam
You shoot to kill, come back and you're a veteran
but how many veterans are out there pedaling?
There's no telling, 'cause they continue selling
As quiet as it's kept, I won't go into depth
You can talk about Nigeria, people used to laugh at ya.
Now I take a look, I say "USA for Africa?!"

Huh.
What's the solution, to stop all this confusion?
Rewrite the constitution, change the drug which you're using
Rewrite the constitution or the emancipation proclamation
we fight inflation, yet the president's still on vacation

BDP posse!
I say: one two three, the crew is called BDP
And if you wanna go to the tip top
stop the violence in the hip-hop, Y-O

This might sound a little strange to you
well here's the reason I came to you
We gotta put our heads together, and stop the violence
Cause real bad boys move in silence
When you're in a club, you come to chill out
not watch someones blood just spill out
That's what these other people want to see
another race fight endlessly
You know we're being watched, you know we're being seen
Some wish to destroy this scene called hip-hop
But I won't drop
not I or Scott LaRock
Now here is the message that we bring today:
hip-hop will surely decay
if we as a people don't stand up and say:
"Stop the violence!"
"Stop the violence!"
"Stop the violence!"
"Stop the violence!"
"Stop the violence!"

I say: one two three, the crew is called BDP
And if you wanna go to the tip top
stop the violence in the hip-hop, Y-O

BDP and me
we step into the party top celebrity
Say when we're coming to dance, we never have to pay a fee
Cause that's where we got R-E-S-P-E-C-T
I have this one wife, her name is Miss Melody
I know I'm from the Bronx, she from the Brooklyn posse
I tell ya look a little like this, then I tell you some that I
Sometimes I got my gear on, sometimes I wear a hat
Sometimes I'm in a Mercedes and sometimes I'm in a plain
Sometimes I find myself upon the number two train
Some people look at me and see negativity
some people look at me and see positivity
But when I see myself I see creativity
So if I can create, well then I make some money
Sha man, just put your hands up if you're out here gettin' paid
Sha man, just put your hands up if you're out here gettin' paid
One two three, the crew is called BDP
And if you wanna go to the tip top
stop the violence in the hip-hop, Y-O

[Platform]

Maybe, but just the fact that they are there presents a greater danger than if they were not.
I wouldn't have a clue where to get one from, and I think the same would go for the vast majority of people over here.


If you wanted a gun, you would be able to get one anywhere in the world. If you are willing to pay others are willing to sell, will only take you a few of the right people to ask. (Not that I buy illegal guns)

And to say, this seems to be happening a little too much, young people killing others :(