Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
from the tragedy dept
Like many people, I’ve been horrified all weekend reading story of the Utøya massacre in Norway. Although it’s difficult to use such a fresh tragedy to prove a point, a post by Rick Falkvinge looks at why security theater in Norway was ineffective in preventing this tragedy, and how no further ratcheting up of security theater is likely to do much until it reaches ridiculous levels (random, frequent police raids of farms). The key point is the one Falkvinge concludes with:
Benjamin Franklin famously said, that ?a people who gives up its freedom to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither?. But now that it has been shown in the most gruesome, in-your-face way that we don?t even gain a little security by giving up these freedoms, then why are we doing so?
Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg is absolutely right when he says we must fight antidemocratic lunacy with more democracy and more humanity. His quote from one of the young on Utøya, “if one man can show so much hate, imagine how much love we all can show together“, is one of the most statemanworthy I have seen in my entire life. Both when it came from the young surviving lady right off the island, and from Stoltenberg on repeating it in his official capacity.
It brings me to tears, and to something more important: hope.
As with past tragedies such as this one, we’re already seeing some evidence that some people are using this tragedy as an excuse to ratchet up security theater. Editorials bemoaning the openness in Norway quickly appeared, and officials in other countries, such as the Philippines and Australia, have already used the tragedy to talk about changing security laws and even how such laws could prevent similar incidents from happening there. Of course, some of the laws they’re talking about were already in place in Norway.
Thankfully, as Falkvinge noted at the end of his story, Norwegian politicians (so far) appear to be going in the other direction, noting how the response to such a cowardly (and yes, such a massacre is cowardly) and fear-inducing act is not more cowardice and fear, but openness and love. Hopefully those views continue to predominate in Norway. Giving in to such acts by increasing the culture of fear is actually what killers like Anders Breivik want.
Filed Under: norway, security, security theater, tragedy
Comments on “Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre”
Mike, first I have to say it’s pretty gruesome to not even let the bodied get cold before you start with the rhetoric. It’s pretty disappointing, makes me think you are desperate to make some sort of point.
As for “security theater”, there is none really in play here. The biggest failing that I can see is any culture that allows sales of the weapons that can do this sort of thing. Having a machine gun capable of taking out nearly 100 people in short order makes me wonder.
I know you have an axe to grind with any efforts to stop your unlimited, unedited, and undiluted freedom, but perhaps you should wait until after the funerals to start the sermons?
Re: Re:
Mike, first I have to say it’s pretty gruesome to not even let the bodied get cold before you start with the rhetoric. It’s pretty disappointing, makes me think you are desperate to make some sort of point.
If you hadn’t noticed, I was doing the exact opposite. I was criticizing those who were doing that.
As for “security theater”, there is none really in play here. The biggest failing that I can see is any culture that allows sales of the weapons that can do this sort of thing.
As noted in the article, Norway has some of the strictest such gun controls on the planet. Which is the very point that was being made. The point you missed.
I know you have an axe to grind with any efforts to stop your unlimited, unedited, and undiluted freedom, but perhaps you should wait until after the funerals to start the sermons?
Again. The whole point was to note that others were already making this argument. I know your desire is to disagree with every single post I write. But you look foolish when you state positions that are so easily debunked.
Re: Re: Re:
By posting it Mike, you are working with it. Like it or not, your blog’s top story is about security theater, and fresh kills. You may feel you are criticizing, but really you are just working with it.
It doesn’t matter that Norway has strict gun control laws if their neighbors next door don’t. It’s a similar problem between the US and Canada or the US and Mexico. The lax gun laws in the US mean that even in the most controlling states, guns are rampant.
Again, my whole point is that this thread could have waited a week without anyone missing it. It stays very much in line with your desire to grind away at “security theater”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you aren’t?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not in the slightest. I am only pointing out how incredibly heartless it is to try to make political points and to drag out the rhetorical terms so early in the deal.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Tell that to the people who want to ratchet up the security theater. (Like Denmark looking to forbidding the sale of, or making it harder to buy, large amounts of manure)
Tell that to the media conglomerates that were so quick to label this tragedy as a “Jihadist terrorist”, even before any news came out as to what the identity of the attacker was.
Sometimes it’s necessary to draw the line, even in the face of hardship and bad timings.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Would it really make a difference if he waited a week to post this? By not posting it no lives would have been saved.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Also you can guarantee that this AC would be making the exact same complaints (or some other complaints) whether this was posted a week from now, a month from now, or on the wall of a bathroom stall. The only person with an agenda here is him: he will find a way to whine about Techdirt no matter what.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s how you excuse the sheer tonnage of bullshit posted on this site every week, isn’t it Marcus?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Er… what?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Wait what? I dont even.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
That’s how you excuse the sheer tonnage of bullshit posted on this site every week, isn’t it Marcus?
No need. People coming here know that AC’s like yourself are allowed to post this sheer tonnage of bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You don’t like it? Don’t read it then.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Not in the slightest Marcus.
I object to the term “security theater”, because we have already shown a number of times here that without airport security, example, the number of hijackings was insane. It isn’t theater, it’s just not what Mike wishes it was.
I don’t whine about Techdirt, I debate issues. You debate me as a person, which is your problem, not mine. If you want to talk issues, we can talk, otherwise you are just another fool dumping troll bait and kissing the boss’s ass.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Say what you will, but I have a hard time believing that you wouldn’t have made the exact same complaints a week from now.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I have a hard time believing that you wouldn’t post up that comment either. Can you actually try adding something to the discussion, rather than just trying to deflect?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Considering your argument is over the timing I’d say the observation that you’d say the same thing regardless of the timing is more contributory than deflective.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
And, once simple, effective security measures (like metal detectors and X-ray of luggage) were implemented, there were almost no hijackings, so everything else (shoe removal, naked scanners, groping, etc.) is all security theater, as they do nothing to increase security.
In addition, airlines such as El Al do not use such theater, but instead use much more effective and less annoying techniques. These techniques unfortunately don’t meet the US political requirements in that they require fewer but more highly trained screening personnel (which means fewer jobs to the sort of people who enjoy groping strangers) and they require profiling, which despite being the most effective method of determining possible evildoers, it is not “politically correct”.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
THIS! This! 1000 times this…
How many times does it have to be said before somebody listens?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I object to the term “security theater”, because we have already shown a number of times here that without airport security, example, the number of hijackings was insane. It isn’t theater, it’s just not what Mike wishes it was.
Yup, security theater doesn’t work. That’s why in the early 70s before airport security we have hijackings every month, and now they are rarer than Mike admitting a mistake.
You are simply being absurd. Please show where Mike has argued to do away completely away with all the security. Or show where anyone claims that ALL security is security theater. You’ve got nothing real to say here, so you battle the straw men you valiantly put up yourself.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
How can I explain this simply so you guys can understand?
30 years ago, a metal detector or an x-ray of luggage would have been considered invasive. It would have been called, perhaps “hippie security” or “space age intrusion systems”, and people would have bitched about line ups, delays, and having people waving those dangerous ray emitting wands near their bodies. They would whine that they were being violated, that they couldn’t put anything in their luggage anymore, and how the purves in security were probably fondling their undergarments and checking for sex toys.
For their time, it was security theater. Now we would consider it the bare minimum for us to want to get on a plane. In fact, any country that doesn’t do this is generally considered unsafe to fly in.
30 years from now, what will we consider the current system as? You know, when the system is doing a rapid DNA scan to verify your identity, and is perhaps using star trek style teleporter technology to separate you from your clothes and put you back in instantly, less the explosive devices that were in your anal cavity. Perhaps then we will look back on the good old days when all they wanted was a body scan.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
a metal detector or an x-ray of luggage would have been considered invasive
…
For their time, it was security theater.
That’s you saying it now. Please show evidence of this being considered security theater 30 years ago.
While you angrily tear out hair because you can’t find any proof to your non-factual statements, feel free to actually define what you understand “security theater” to mean.
So far, it appears that you conflated the meaning of working security with “security theater” and are now pretending that when someone is against “security theater” they are actually against working security. That is obviously false. Also, a bit of a low level of trolling for you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Would it really make a difference if he waited a week to post this?
No, the victims would still be dead.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
By posting it Mike, you are working with it. Like it or not, your blog’s top story is about security theater, and fresh kills. You may feel you are criticizing, but really you are just working with it.
In your own words. So you’re lying.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Not in the slightest. I am only pointing out how incredibly heartless it is to try to make political points and to drag out the rhetorical terms so early in the deal.
What kind of political point is it that you object to?
Is it this one?
“if one man can show so much hate, imagine how much love we all can show together”
Because that was the point that struck me most from this post – and I am grateful to Mike for bringing it to my attention.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hear, hear. I had not heard of this statement anywhere until today, this very moment. It needs to be said more and right now, not less and later.
Thanks, Mike.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Not in the slightest. I am only pointing out how incredibly heartless it is to try to make political points and to drag out the rhetorical terms so early in the deal.
and if he had waited an ‘appropriate’ amount of time (whatever the hell that is) to write about this, you would have said something to the effect of “That’s old news now, nothing to see here”
I’m pretty sure you don’t give a rat’s ass about decorum, as long as you can find any reason to blast Mike.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oh, I see. So if Mike points out that people are making political points and dragging out the rhetorical terms so early in the deal he’s ‘working with it’ but when you do the same thing to Mike you’re ‘No [working with it] in the slightest.’
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, we can all go to funerals and read at the same time.
Why, oh Why do people continue demonstrating their over-sensitiveness and Extreme Politically Correctness as signs of civility or humanity? It is exactly like those who correlate exemption from sex with moral correctness.
Mike is talking about an attack, and the SOCIAL connotations. He is not making any comments on the victims.
Offer a prayer for them, or whatever you deem appropriate, but please refrain from censoring other based on your moral compass, or you will risk receiving responses like this, from people who haven’t tune their moral compass to the same north you have tuned yours.
Re: Re:
As if the bodies aren’t cold yet. Also the only reason you are even saying something like that is you HAVE to disagree with him on any level and if you can’t disagree logically you’ll pull out any base accusation. Pathetic. Not selling guns to citizens is noy going to stop criminals from getting them. Just like invoking a police state wouldn’t have prevented it.
Re: Re:
Are you an American?
If so, the level of hypocrisy there is astounding.
Moreover, the quotes are from the country directly involved and are quoted from one of the survivors. Remember, terrorism comes in all shapes and sizes, including actions by governments. Perhaps the Norwegians have seen what happened to America in the wake of 9/11, and have learned from that.
It also gives a better perspective as to the cultural aspects of justice, givent hat the Nowegian system is actually pretty open, even by European standards.
Re: Re: Re:
Brilliant, and just so well said. Good Job!! 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
Brilliant, and just so well said. Good Job!! 🙂
Re: Re:
“that allows sales of the weapons that can do this sort of thing.”
This type of thinking is what makes these types of tragedies possible. The only person on that island that had a gun/was prepared to use a gun, was the perp…. how/where/what kind of gun he had was not as important as the fact that only the criminal had one. He walked around bold as he could be shooting at will, could he have done that if half the adults were carrying?
I, like thousands of other law abiding Americans, carry a legally purchased and licensed gun on me at all times. I sincerely hope I never have to use it, but it’s one of those things that you would rather have and not need, than need it and not have it….
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”
-Robert A. Heinlein
Re: Re: Re:
“I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler.”
-John Stewart.
There will always be those who decide to break the law. The larger question is not, ‘How can we stop this from ever happening again?’ but rather, ‘What options do we have to minimize the chances of this happening?’ To paraphrase Stephen King, “Eliminate all riaks possible. Minimize those that remain.”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“‘What options do we have to minimize the chances of this happening”
Exactly my point. If the gun laws allowed law abiding citizens to carry arms, the criminals would think twice before doing something like this.
If the criminal is prepared to give his life, then the only thing you can do is speed that giving along. But like this guy, if he just surrenders as soon as someone else in the fight has a gun, he probably wouldn’t have done this to begin with if he feared that the people he was trying to kill were armed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You idiot! The attacker WAS a “law-abiding” citizen up to the moment he started to point a legally purchased gun at a kid. AFAIK a pistol – not a rifle or machine gun.
There even was a police man with a gun – but he was killed. Or are you trying to suggest the kids should have had guns? You must be kidding!
And how is this supposed to save you from a car bomb? A car bomb built with fertilizer legally purchased by a “law-abiding” farmer? Do you want to go there and compare the amount of fertilizer in the ground of his field with the purchased amount? This is non-sense!
The media said he had 6 tons of fertilizer – obviously this was even okay given the size of his fields. With that much he didn’t even need the gun. He could have used another bomb – or two.
He could have walked right into a cinema during a children’s movie with a bomb hidden at his body, push it under his seat and walk off to the toilet. Or buy a Truck and just crash it into a school yard – same effect.
That’s the problem: nothing can save you from an insane killer. He doesn’t need reason, he doesn’t need to be stupid enough for mistakes, he doesn’t need accomplices, he won’t necessarily tell anybody beforehand and his options to cause mayhem are many.
The only thing guns are good for is kill even more people. If you allow idiots to carry guns it’s getting worse! I’ve been in the military – can’t even count the idiots who accidentally killed themselves with a gun or explosives. Like the infamous: “Stop kidding! It’s a tank mine: it won’t explode if I jump on it!”. Not to mention the officer who accidentally almost triggered WW3 by making a practical joke about calling a young Private pretending an attack on NATO – and giving him the correct code.
Don’t give guns to idiots unless you are American. In which case you shouldn’t give guns to anybody.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
/S
Re: Re: Re:
Mr Heinlein never considered the idea of suicide bombers and people who are willing to die for their cause. When your life isn’t valuable, it is much easier to take the lives of others. When everyone has the gun, the person with the least morals and least to lose always wins.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re making the mistake of believing that all people are rational actors; they aren’t. For example, have a look at the debt debate over in the Houses of Congress. Wven everyone has a gun, as you so eloquently put it, “the person with the least morals and least to lose always wins.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wrong. In fact, you have it exactly backwards. When few people have guns, the person with the least morals and least to lose will get some sort of weapon anyway, and will be able to do much more damage than he would if moral people were similarly armed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“When everyone has the gun, the person with the least morals and least to lose always wins.”
We all have guns, in one way or another: we all have the capacity to harm and kill other ‘things’. In fact, the entire history of humanity revolves around conflict and death. Humans are the only “being” in the world that have the capacity to destroy all life in the planet.
We probably have more weapons than people in this world (and by weapons, I mean “tools” designed to be weapons, like pistols, rifles, swords…). This almost guarantees there the carnage will continue: either as state sanctioned “war” on “enemy” states or as individual or group “terrorist/criminal” actions.
The way I see it, we only have two definite solutions:
– Annihilate every human being, thus solving the problem definetely. This is easy: just press the big red “nuclear annihilation” button. Problem solved.
– We enlighten those who have less morals to become good “humans” and provide them ways to obtain things that make life worth living. This means ending hunger and poverty. This means building schools and colleges. This means giving them a place to live. This means to stop creating new ways to destroy and oppress humans and to divert the TRILLIONS that are spend in “national security” (also known as “Bomb countries that have oil”) to those causes. Maybe when everyone has food, water, a house to live and good knowledge of the world, MAYBE then we will be closer to the fabled concept of “world peace”. Until then, we must keep trying.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“the person with the least morals and least to lose always wins”
I disagree….The person that keeps calm, and attacks the problem first with their brain, then their gun, has a better chance to win. This is usually not the guy walking around killing innocent people with an assault rifle.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Unless he’s the best marksman, right?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Marksman or not, shit changes when the people you are shooting at start shooting back. He’s obviously a coward, as he surrendered as soon as he was engaged, that leads me to believe that he was NOT prepared to give his life. If one adult on that island had a gun, we may have had a different outcome altogether…
I’m not advocating the wild west here, not everyone is responsible enough to walk around armed, hence the licensing. But when only the criminals are armed, you better have a policeman at every corner….
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And how would you be able to judge with licensing which people are fit to carry firearms? No matter how much paper work you put between a man and a gun, it will never be 100% effective. And a lot can change in a person over time to make a once perfectly responsible person become completely unstable.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Well.. i had to submit fingerprints, have a background check, and fill out plenty of forms… then I was issued a license to carry for 5 years. I considered that reasonable. What i don’t consider reasonable is having a criminal kick down my front door and robbing me blind at gunpoint or worse, killing my family. This type of thing happens all the time where I live.. these guys don’t give a damn about licensing…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You do realize that any competent criminal would never allow you to reach your firearm, yes?
I certainly wouldn’t. If it were my intent to do you and your family harm, I would make certain that you had no opportunity to grab anything that even remotely resembled a weapon. You could have an entire closet full of loaded guns: you would never reach it.
Now, I’m an entirely peaceful person who despises violence and avoids it. But I can figure this out. So can others who have different inclinations.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“You do realize that any competent criminal would never allow you to reach your firearm, yes?”
“competent criminal”
I don’t know for sure that those two words go well together. A truly “competent” person would be able to make it in the world without being a criminal in the first place.
But in the event your still not convinced…and I know these are old stats…but……
Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.
I would rather have a small chance opposed to no chance….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Self-protection
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You would need to know the layout of the house pretty good.
I can reach my bedside table in the dark, no lights required.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You do realize that any competent criminal would never allow you to reach your firearm, yes?
There are two problems with this…first, a criminal who is interested in killing you personally will do so from a position that you will likely not know they are attacking you from. It is called an ambush, and something that the military and law enforcement training covers a lot on. You cannot prevent that, regardless to what training you receive, and the training we get is based on reducing or eliminating the “flat-foot” problem, by planning ahead and learning to react subconsciously to threats.
Second, even if I am in a room when the attacker enters and begins shooting, unless they specifically target me, I have plenty of time to react and engage the threat. There are issues with recognizing threat, but you better believe I am going to be moving for cover and preparing myself to engage the threat the moment I hear gunfire…that is what we spend a lot of time training, and we are probably better at it than most criminals, competent or otherwise. The criminal has to worry about everyone in the room…for the most part I only have to worry about the threats. And Hollywood lies to you if you believe that every shot = kill. Unless you take a head shot (and even then) or a major vessel/heart shot, you aren’t likely going to die instantly and will be able to continue engaging…so every second I have until I bleed out, I am going to be striving to eliminate the threat. You only die when you bleed out or give up…
If a criminal isn’t specifically out to kill you, then this doesn’t make sense because it is you, not the criminal, that dictates your approach and handling of the threat. In an active shooter situation, the police are going to go in prepared to end the threat and are ready to battle. And usually, unlike the criminal, they aren’t giving their position away. There is some risk in this situation that if you have a gun and are engaged with the criminal in this case that police may engage you, but that is a risk and in an active shooter situation (as with any highly dangerous situation…) the risk is quite high. But if given the choice between being a sheep and being slaughtered, and going out defending my right and the right of others to live in peace, I’d take the second one any day.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only makes it easier for the criminals…period.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Sometimes I wish we could vote up more than once.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Well – according to what I read in the media: he didn’t stop when being assaulted. He killed a police man and didn’t even give up when a helicopter was hovering over his head. And he obviously was prepared to die. He had sent his “manifest” to the media before he left, expecting that he wouldn’t be able to do it afterwards. He was attacking a children’s camp on an island in the middle of nowhere, knowing that even if the whole country was armed, it would take them half an hour to get there.
You should know better than insulting the dead with your stupid demands for guns! Do you even know what this camp was built for? Tolerance, against racism and aggression! If you wish to respect the dead: try to hold up the values that they have been killed for instead of laughing in their face and taking the point of the attacker by calling for more fear and aggression.
Learn to show some respect!
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, I mean look how well that?s worked out for the US so far. No-one ever shoots anyone in the States, because you just never know who might start shooting back. It?s practically a crime-free country, and all because everyone is potentially armed to the teeth.
Take the gun homicide figures from 2005, for example. They speak for themselves:
USA – 10,158
Norway – 5
The evidence is clear. The more guns we have, the safer we are.
—
Figures from http://www.gunpolicy.org
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm… I can put up numbers, too. Let’s try these:
Populations:
USA: 307,006,550
Norway: 4,827,038
Wow, who would have thought it? The US has more people, too!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Ratios:
US: 1 in 30223
Norway: 1 in 965407
US for the win!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
More people die in Automobile crashes than by guns in the United States. Do we need better gun control or better car control?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Both, in reality. There’s no doubt cars and roads could be a lot safer too. The important difference is that the primary and correct use of a vehicle is not maiming and killing.
On top of that, if you include accidental and other deaths due to firearms the difference is not really that pronounced. The most complete figures I could find, while somewhat out of date (2002), suggest that total gun deaths comprise around 1.2% of the US’ annual total deaths, while vehicle deaths make up about 1.8%.
We could easily decrease that 1.2% by making it much more difficult to get hold of a gun. The side effects would be fairly negligible outside the gun industry/lobby.
Taking over 250 million passenger vehicles off the road might have slightly more of an impact.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wrong. You’d only make it more difficult to legally obtain a gun. All those ‘guns on the streets’? Yeah, those will still be there. And the people who use them don’t care that you just added another crime on the list that they’d be guilty of breaking.
So the ‘side effect’ of me not being able to legally have a gun to defend myself against someone who illegally has a gun and who doesn’t care about that little distinction is going to be that I now either illegally own a gun for self-defense or I’m going to be dead/robbed/injured… not that there’s one less gun out there.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Would the guns on the streets be there?
I live up in Canada, and in my province, if you wanted any kind of gun outside those useful for hunting, you’d either have to steal from the police/military or go out of province.
If I REALLY wanted a gun, yes, I could get it, but it
s much more likely I’d be caught along the way, or I wouldn’t have the resources available in the first place.
I have no doubt that there exist people who can and will go on gun rampages in the future up here, but the grand majority of those who would, cannot.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
B.S.
I know a guy in Brampton, Ontario, who makes guns in his garage. As a hobby.
When all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I can make a gun as well. It only takes some chemistry knowledge.
But you can already legally obtain a hunting rifle for a fair cost, (less so than the equipment needed to make any quality gun), and those really aren’t suitable for weapons. Nor are ones that blow up in your face as soon as you try to use them.
If 99% of criminals are unable to make suitable guns, or will injure themselves greatly in the process, that suits me fine.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
actually, it takes a bit more than basic chemistry
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“I live up in Canada, and in my province, if you wanted any kind of gun outside those useful for hunting, you’d either have to steal from the police/military or go out of province.”
Do you really believe that there is no black market in your Province?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Economically measurably, yes, there is no significant black market.
Unless you happen to believe that guns are bought and sold in sub-$50 transactions, traded in clubs or on the street.
That doesn’t rule out a black market, though. But then, what percentage of people exist who even know about the black market?
If 99% of possible criminals never have access to guns, that suits me fine.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I don?t buy that argument at all. Nothing about the current state of gun crime in the US suggests that wide availability of firearms reduces gun crime.
If anything it just makes it much more likely that a confrontation will end in serious injury or death.
People who carry guns (usually mistakenly) feel safer than people who don?t and this misplaced confidence often leads to bad decisions. This is why gun-owners are more likely to get shot than non-gun-owners.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Didn’t read up on prohibition in school? Think about where the term bathtub gin comes from. People made moonshine in there tub, sold it to bootleggers and rumrunners. Seemingly law-abiding citizens decided to take a chance and engage in illegal activity and become criminals for a profit. You don’t think that won’t happen with guns? What do you think is happening with this War on Drugs?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“You don’t think that won’t happen with guns?”
It already has. In many places in the US it easier, faster, and cheaper to purchase a firearm by illegal means than it is to go to a gun store.
Oddly enough, these places are usually where there are the most strict gun control laws (Chicago comes to mind. I don’t live there anymore, but IIRC handguns are banned in Cook County).
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Fascinatingly though, I believe that a prohibition-era scenario with regards to guns could only happen in the US. Even then I doubt it would be very likely.
Elsewhere in the world we have strict gun control. As a result, we have a significantly smaller number (1/2000 in Norway, compared to the US) of gun related crimes.
Gun control is demonstrably effective at reducing gun crime. You are either dishonest or ignorant to claim otherwise. You don?t run with scissors, do you?
To touch on your other points, alcohol and drugs are impossible to eliminate for many of the same reasons as copyright infringement is impossible to police; primarily that there is little sense of societal wrongdoing involved in their use. If I smoke a joint or drink a beer in my own home, in a responsible fashion, the only person who could conceivably be harmed by my actions is me.
That changes if I go out driving afterwards or start making a nuisance of myself, but we have other laws for that, and there is a societal stigma attached to being an asshole.
In Europe, we attach a pretty strong stigma to anyone not in law enforcement carrying a concealed weapon. That?s missing in the US, and you have hundreds of times more gun related deaths as a result.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“You don?t run with scissors, do you?”
Nor with a loaded rifle, whats your point?
That a criminal can kill you with scissors if there are no guns handy?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
More people die of the flu than die of cancer.
So we should stop cancer research?
I actually have a bit of an axe to grind on medical research; so many diseases effecting so many people are ignored for ‘hot topic’ diseases, like cancer and AIDS. Most of the problem is with the grants, which come from companies which want to say they’re helping [hot-topic] research . . .
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You’re not suggesting that the population of the US is 2000 times that of Norway, are you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
But at that ratio, we should only have 62 gun-related deaths, not 10K+.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
thank god. Im so sick of my friends lambasting the numbers on gun violence in this country, when…
A. We have an enormous population, of course we have higher numbers… of EVERYTHING.
B. I am not even gonna hunt down a link (wawawawa i know), but id be willing to bet less then ten percent of gun violence in this country is from a licensed, concealed carrier, and that most, is from illegally possessed fire arms.
C. Not everyone can count on the police for help, as was evidenced in Norway. Sometimes your location is too remote, and you must be prepared to defend yourself.
D. Even banning guns in this country wouldnt make everyone safe. You would simply see only criminals armed, with nice, law abiding citizens simply forced to be spectators next time something goes down.
Criminals will find ways to do harm. Pyschopaths will find ways to harm. Yes, a firearm is an easier tool to do this with, but it is certianly not the only.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taking population into account, from your numbers, you statistically have a 1/100k per capita chance of being killed by a gun in Norway. In the U.S. you have a 3.2/100k per capita chance of being murdered by a gun. Sure, it is over 3 times more in the U.S. but statistically not that much different.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oops, I missed a zero. Okay 33/100k! I will now become a gun control advocate.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
beat me to it 🙂
I’m also a gun control advocate, but remember, this one number and this one fact don’t make the total situation . . . there are a lot of other factors in Norway that make it a safe place.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I thought about trotting out some population density stats (US is about 3-4 times more densely populated…I know it surprised me) since you have higher crime rates where people are packed closer together. By the way, I think you missed the sarcasm in my statement about becoming a gun control advocate.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Funny… at the same time, what was funny also is you saying 3.2 times more is not that much more… wow.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
3.2 times?
Well, depends how large the sample is . . . when it’s 1/100k and 3/100k, after we account for deviation and all that statistical jazz, the bounds of error oftentimes end up being several times larger than the number.
Tracking 300 million people and the variance across each year, nevermind our measurement imprecision, is hard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Um . . . check your numbers?
It’s not 3 times more likely, it’s 30. Well, 32.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
How!? How can you screw up using a calculator?
US: 3.3/100K
Norway: 0.1/100K
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Apparently we both know how to use a calculator. Neither of us is good at moving the decimal over, though.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow.. i like to play with numbers as well… let’s see…
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.” Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
? 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
? 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”
? 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”[22]
? 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”[22]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Were all those armed vicitms legal gun owners? Not picking, just curious. The lack of specifics jumped out at me.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Good question, I don’t know for sure.. but I’m thinking no.. not all were legal… you probably have some percentage of both that, and error in the stats. Even if the margin is 10 percent, it’s still a convincing argument.. IMO
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I don’t find it very convincing:
The 69% might know the same 1 criminal.
The 40% that decided not to commit a crime, are all arrested felons in jail, so they just chose a different target, eh?
I’m also curious about the exact nature of disagreement between the gun use to deter crime at the top. A factor of 2 might not be very significant, though. How many incidents of crime are there in the US, total?
I’m finding a figure of 12,000,000, in which case 1/12 & 1/24 are very significant differences.
Is the difference simply that Americans use guns at home as much as they do at other places? (The 3rd study specifies “at home”, the other 2 do not)
I’ll keep these in mind though.
And uh, although I’m a gun control advocate, the same solutions don’t work everywhere. I don’t really know (or care) enough about America to have a hard and fast opinion on what degree of gun control you guys should have.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your sarcasm merely points out the real issue in the US is that it is far too easy for a criminal to acquire a firearm while the law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops. This is most notable in the places with the most prohibition on legal ownership, like Washington, DC, and Chicago, IL, where the crime rate involving illegal firearms is far higher than places that permit easier access (like Arizona and Florida).
In addition, despite the fact that carrying an illegal firearm is by itself a felony in every jurisdiction, it is almost never prosecuted unless there is another crime. And, when it is prosecuted, rarely is the sentence anywhere near the “strict” end of the range.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To make this a more meaningful statistic, would you please scale this by population?
Re: Re: Re:
More guns will lead to more tragedies.
The fact that this was one of the first gun-related tragedies in peace-time in Norway since the second world war, means that their gun laws are working.
How many gun-related deaths are there in the US per year?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The aggregate numbers provide an inaccurate view, since a great many of the gun-related deaths in the US come from areas where it is either technically or functionally illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry yet the law-breaking citizens still have guns.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
http://www.fark.com/comments/6415470
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“More guns will lead to more tragedies.”
Is that an assertion? An axiom? An article of faith? You’re very quick to give credit for the low rate of “gun-related tragedies” (not tragedies in general?) to Norwegian gun laws. Then you ask about “gun-related deaths” (not violent death? not gun-related tragedy?) in the U.S., a much larger nation on another continent. Not Sweden? Not Switzerland?
There are many shootings here in the U.S., most frequently in the places where the gun laws are the strongest. What’s your point?
Re: Re: Re:
I, like thousands of other law abiding Americans, carry a legally purchased and licensed gun on me at all times. I sincerely hope I never have to use it, but it’s one of those things that you would rather have and not need, than need it and not have it….
Unfortunately the statistics are against you here. The net result of more Americans carrying guns is more violent death.
You are 4th on the table of gun death rate – behind only a few well known lawless places.
You have nearly 4 times as much gun death per person as Norway and more than THIRTY TIMES as many as England/Wales.
IN the Norway case the ratio would be much bigger if you looked only at homicide.
But don’t let a few awkward facts get in the way of your narrative…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to point out here that correlation does not imply causation. Look at those numbers of violent firearm death and tell me how many of them were carrying legally and how many of them were carrying illegally. No, I don’t have the numbers in front of me, and you’ll probably be able to find as many reports showing one direction as you will the other.
My point is that just because we have a high gun violence ration, it’s not right to imply it’s because of those of us who have gone through the processes to carry one legally.
In fact, I can tell you, because I keep up with them, that (to the best of my knowledge) every SINGLE gun-related death in my city this year (Jacksonville, FL… which has a ridiculously high per-capita rating for violent crime… yay us…) involved illegal firearms carried by convicted criminals, or legally owned firearms being carried illegally.
I think I remember one or two stories in the last few YEARS here where there was a shooting involving a legally licensed concealed weapon… the most recent of which was the shooter being found not-guilty of the shooting he was involved in.
So, the statistics are only ?against us? when people mis-imply what the numbers mean.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well said!
LOL, what a coincidence… I was referencing the time I lived in Jacksonville (Freakville) when talking about violent crime.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have to point out here that correlation does not imply causation.
And often you would be right – but when the correleation is so overwhelming I think you can’t just trot that argument out and expect not to be laughed at.
Looking down the list you can see alternative explanations in some cases (Northern Ireland for example – the figures on the Wikipedia page being pre- peace process).
What is your alternative thesis?
Americans are a bunch of murdering criminals?
(That’s the only one I could think of)
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Laughed at by who? You? You’re the one making broad generalizations based off unclear numbers. Laugh all you want. I’ll be content over here with my intellectual integrity untarnished by baseless accusations.
case-in-point.
And ‘overwhelming correlation’? Much like how overwhelmingly similar the numbers are between the decline of pirates and the increase in global warming? Hmm… I guess I should accept that one too. After all, it would be silly to resort to logic in the face of such overwhelming correlation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming
The ‘correlation does not imply causation’ fallacy is not subject to the degree of correlation. It’s subject to the simple fact that statistics in-and-of themselves do not encompass all of the relevant facts surrounding the numbers they put forth. To say “well, they’re close enough in this situation” is lazy and dishonest.
Exactly what I stated… that there’s a large amount of violent crime being committed by people who own guns illegally. Sorry, didn’t think I was that ambiguous there. In fact, I thought my mention of the recent violent crime in my area might help illustrate my alternative thesis.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Much like how overwhelmingly similar the numbers are between the decline of pirates and the increase in global warming? Hmm… I guess I should accept that one too.
Well – in the gun case there is a correlation backed by an obvious mechanism – in your case there is no obvious mechanism.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Laughed at by who?
Most of the UK and large parts of W. Europe – frankly your arguments make about as much sense as creation science to us.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
as if anyone else in the world cares what those people think lol
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In fact, I can tell you, because I keep up with them, that (to the best of my knowledge) every SINGLE gun-related death in my city this year (Jacksonville, FL… which has a ridiculously high per-capita rating for violent crime… yay us…) involved illegal firearms carried by convicted criminals, or legally owned firearms being carried illegally.
Although I never said, or even implied that legal gun holders were responsible for murders that was the case in two mass killings in the UK that resulted in our laws being tightened. Certainly in these cases it is pretty clear that better gun control would have saved lives.
Legally held guns will tend to leak into the criminal community.
However legal or illegal the more guns there are the more gun death there will be. It’s a no brainer…..
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Better gun control means being able to hit your target.
After correctly identifying it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Or, perhaps the problem was that not enough people had firearms with which to defend themselves against the attacker. This is obviously the case in Norway, where the culture is to not carry firearms, yet if just one or two of the several hundred targets had carried one, the outcome would likely have been very different.
In countries like Switzerland and Israel, there is very little firearm violence among the citizens despite most of the citizens possessing firearms (some of which are quite powerful). Israel does, of course, have terrorist issues, but it’s rare for a firearm-only (i.e., no bombs) event to cause many injuries, as the response from the citizenry is quite lethal.
One of the reasons that violence in Northern Ireland continued for so long is that none of the true “civilians” (used in the way that cops, criminals, and the military use the term) had easy access to firearms.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Unfortunately the statistics are against you here. The net result of more Americans carrying guns is more violent death.”
You are abusing statistics. 1) you are confusing violent death with gun death and throwing in homicide at the end (think about that one for a minute), 2) you are asserting a causal conclusion without supporting statistics, and 3) you are cherry-picking shamelessly.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The page I quoted was for gun related death – it further splits into homicide, suicide and accidental. All of the categories support my argument – you would have done well to actually read the page before replying.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
btw it also shows that the US has a higher rate of accidental gun death than Norway of England/Wales/Scotland have for gun murders. So at the very least you could save those lives by tighter gun control.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ignoring the illogic of “could have saved lives if only…”, I’ll join you for a moment.
What about better safety education. That ‘could have saved lives’ too. All without the removal of our right to own a gun. Wow. Imagine that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And you relate that to “violent death” (your phrase, and a much larger category) how exactly? And how do these numbers support your assertion of a “net result of more Americans carrying guns”?
It’s your methodology I’m criticizing, not the numbers. You are abusing statistics.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My guess is that the gun death rate in Norway just jumped significantly…quite the hockey stick. Alarm! Alarm!
Re: Re: Re:
I am still glad I live in a country where we are not so afraid that we carry guns “at all times”. Thats not a society I would like to be a part of.
Norwegian
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are many Americans that feel the same. I’m just one American, but I know exactly zero folks who carry a gun at all times (even though my spouse would be permitted to as a business owner); have never seen anyone but a police/sercurity/military officer openly carrying a gun in my wee part of the States in my whole 45 years on earth…
Scratch that – it happened once, over a decade ago: I was in line at a fast food place behind a plainly dressed guy who had a small handgun in a hip holster…he wasn’t threatening or doing anything but ordering his food, but that wasn’t something I wanted to be anywhere near. It scared me. I don’t know who this guy is! I went out to my car until he left.
There are other parts of the States that are very different, I know this. The USA is huge. I feel generally safe where I am, but things still happen. A woman was carjacked in her driveway across the highway from my home. A bank up the street was held up. A woman was murdered by her estranged spouse in her store (ironically, located right next to the bank that was held up).
Those are anomolies here, shocking. Widely spaced in time.
We didn’t all run out and buy guns, but if it were different, more common…I don’t know.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It scared me. I don’t know who this guy is! I went out to my car until he left.
What you don’t see is all the people you’re around everyday that carry concealed, like me. 🙂 In fact, more people carry concealed than openly, so if you haven’t been in the middle of a shootout yet, I think it’s safe to say your fear of guns is rather unfounded.
Do you run to your car and wait whenever you see a police officer with a gun on his hip? Do you personally know every police officer on the force where you live? Why do you assume that your average police officer is any more upstanding than your average citizen?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Do you run to your car and wait whenever you see a police officer with a gun on his hip? Do you personally know every police officer on the force where you live? Why do you assume that your average police officer is any more upstanding than your average citizen?
True – which is why a better not to routinely arm the police either.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
So only the criminals should be armed?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
😀 I didn’t run out to the car, just made a decision to leave. Lol, make it sound like I screamed and fled – it was alarming since that is not the norm around here, open carrying. It gave me a bad vibe despite the fact that the guy was just ordering fries.
Thinking on it further, it was alarming that he was…not particularly protective of the weapon? It was right there on his hip, he had his arms crossed over his chest as he ordered. I was right behind him. If I or someone else nearby was unhinged, could’ve gone for it, made trouble. He wasn’t a big guy.
It was a little too casual, know what I mean? I listened to my gut and took a brief powder. And around here, it’s not the norm, open carrying. I know it’s different elsewhere in the States. Are people carrying concealed? How would I know, they’re concealed! At least the unhinged among us won’t know it either.
I fear the authority cops can wield over me more than their firearms. It’s common knowledge they’re armed. I’ve met a lot of cops over my lifetime but I don’t know any personally.
The woman in the store was slashed to death by her husband with a boxcutter or knife of some sort. Blitzed. I don’t know if she had a gun.
I know guns are out there but the knowledge doesn’t run my life. Whether a gun will be used to kill you or save you will always be a crapshoot. Just like cars, knives, husbands or wives.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If I or someone else nearby was unhinged, could’ve gone for it, made trouble. He wasn’t a big guy.
That’s a fair assessment, and a reason why I don’t open carry (apart from open carry being illegal where I live). However, you have to wonder how likely it is that someone at that very moment would be unhinged enough to really want want to start gunning people down, but just didn’t have an opportunity until Joe Open-Carry sauntered into the building.
Re: Re:
Axe to grind?
Says the guy holding his on axe in the cue awaiting LoL
Re: Re:
You are an idiot.
Mike ‘might’ be an insensitive jerk for bringing this up, but you are a complete retard for BLAMING those victims for being killed by a lunatic.
Quoting you:
“As for “security theater”, there is none really in play here. The biggest failing that I can see is any culture that allows sales of the weapons that can do this sort of thing.”
Re: Re: Re:
You are calling me an idiot? Did I blame the victims? Nope, I blamed the culture (not Norwegian, as those weapons cannot be sold) that allows the sales of these sorts of weapons.
… and Mike says I don’t read well. Damn!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like American culture?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I mean like any culture that produces these sorts of weapons and considers them normal.
Please stop trying to paint me into a corner. It makes you look like an idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Again, my point stands. America has a culture where owning a gun in encouraged and legislated. Therefore, in your own words, American culture is one that considers them normal.
Now, do you consider American culture like that or not?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Welcome to “trying to take the discussion off course”.
Do you or do you not think it rather ghoulish to try to push an anti “security theater” agenda on the backs of dead people?
That was my question. Answer it first with actual reasons, and I might consider answer your pointlessly misleading question.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Security theatre” is a farce – it does not work and that has been proven time and again. Like the example of the FBI pushing someone who was merely disillusioned into attempting a terorist act to keep the fear alive. Fear is good, to a point (odd, that it’s like most things). I find that the fear pbeing pushed is equivalent to pushing cocaine onto people.
So I don’t find it ghoulish that what was being pointed out is that hope is better than fear.
I find that you are pushing an agenda far more then Mike. Now answer my question.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yup, security theater doesn’t work. That’s why in the early 70s before airport security we have hijackings every month, and now they are rarer than Mike admitting a mistake.
Yup, security doesn’t work. You are right eejit.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
At no point did I say that actual security measures were doomed to failure. I said that security theatre is a failure, EXCEPT in trying to spread fear.
Nope, I blamed the culture (not Norwegian, as those weapons cannot be sold) that allows the sales of these sorts of weapons.
Now answer my question: Is the Bolded,like American Culture or not?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Do you or do you not think it rather ghoulish to try to push an anti “security theater” agenda on the backs of dead people?
Many people already tried to push for more security theater, so what you are arguing here is that while they should go on doing so, everyone that disagrees with them should just wait. Riiight. Awesome logic.
And why wait a week? Why not 40 days? That’s culturally relevant too.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re assuming once we outlaw weapon sales these attacks wil end. All I need is a drill press and files to make a firearm. What do you think I can make with my lathe, mill, surface grinder, heat treating oven, mig welder, press and associated toolling? The fact is if someone is bound and determined to do harm he will find a way. If you can reason with lunatics we wouldn’t have to keep an eye on them
Re: Re:
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the original comment. Are you saying that it’s not appropriate for anyone to comment on tragic events? Or that it’s not appropriate to comment on tragic events until some minimum period of time has passed (e.g., “after the funerals”). Or that it’s okay to comment on tragic events as long as you don’t use the event to make a particular point? Or that it’s okay to use the event to make a particular point as long as it’s a point that you personally agree with?
I absolutely agree that anyone who comments publicly about some tragic event should be as sensitive as possible, but it’s not reasonable to suggest that people shouldn’t comment about them at all. Trying to make sense of the events of our lives, even the tragic ones, is what we humans do.
Re: Re: Re:
You said: “Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the original comment. Are you saying that it’s not appropriate for anyone to comment on tragic events?”
Me: You can comment on tragic events any time you like. What isn’t appropriate to me is using such a fresh tragedy to try to advance a point of view, an agenda. Why are we talking “security theater” when we do not yet have any clue what has happened?
Trying to make sense of it all is always a good thing, playing politics with it is terrible and heartless.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like 9/11 and Bush. Like Afghanistan. War is legalised killing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
yes. yes it is.
but of course you had a point there right?
your actual point was not just to point out something that has been known since the dawn of civilization…. right?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Bush played politics with 9/11. Maybe you failed your perception roll for a change. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
im not denying that he did.
what i AM more interested in is the fact that his playing politics with it was one of the major reasons that everyone was so up in arms during the last election and the new administration has done exactly the same thing.
you can attempt to frame it as a con vs lib, red vs blue, bush vs obama all you want but the current facts show that nearly all politicians are playing politics with it and attempting to use it to play partisan politics games is self defeating and serves only to side track the real issue which is, this is not an issue with partisanship, its a problem with politicians.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
interesting….
so the world is required to work by your arbitrary standards and no one else is allowed to have a differing viewpoint than yours.
i find that much more distasteful than taking the time now to discuss these issues while they are still fresh.
Re: Re:
There are other places more deserving of your outrage. Like those who instantly started blaming this on Muslims, only to later discover it was a radical right-wing anti-Muslim Christian extremist. That is sick, disgusting exploitation of the dead in the pursuit of an agenda.
In contrast, Mike is not exploiting this event to pursue his agenda. He is interested in a real solution to this problem. That his proposed solution is somewhat aligned with his previous stance does not mean he can’t propose such a solution again.
Re: Re:
“In Norway gun ownership is common; violence and homicide are not”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-naw-norway-gun-policy-20110724,0,7974761.story?
Re: Re: Re:
Suicide by gun is quite common however, and accidental gun death is also much commoner than in England for example.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is no gun, there are always legal drugs, household cleaners, cars, rope…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“is also much commoner than in England for example”
Do you think perhaps this is because you get told who can own a gun in your country by the government? It’s not your choice.
Re: Re:
And to what culture are you referring? As Mike points out, they have some of the strictest gun laws in place. Ours? Do you have proof the guy got his guns from us? The neighboring country? Look, I could keep going around the globe, but let’s stay at the point here: no matter who lets the guns be sold or NOT be sold, people who want them are going to get them.
Let’s make this clear, since I think it’s the key point:
Period. And you want to know why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T CARE THAT IT’S ILLEGAL! So how the HELL would making these kinds of guns and large quantities of ammo illegal help?
Now, I don’t have the answer to these issues… but I know that huddling down and saying “see!!! We should OUTLAW them!” is a weak and lazy approach to a more serious problem. And it is delusional and misleading since it gives the impression that people are doing something about it.
Same applies to our Security Theater. If we’re closing the barn doors after the horses out, and closing them only part way, and ‘keeping them closed’ with scotch tape… what are we really accomplishing? Especially when viewed against the loss of liberty it entails.
As for this… when the survivors of this horrible event are saying things like “let’s make a better world about this now”, who the hell are you to say how long we should wait before we take action to that end?
Re: Re: Re:
Gabriel, as always, you manage to get off on such wonderful tangents.
IT. DOESNT. MATTER. MAKING. IT. HARDER. IS. KEY.
The ease by which weapons of mass killing are obtained is an issue. Try the same crime with a six shooter, and tell me how many dead people you have. It’s a game changer for 60 or 70 people who would be alive today.
You said: ” who the hell are you to say how long we should wait before we take action to that end?”
Me: I am not telling anyone to wait for anything to take action to that end. I am saying it absolutely sucks ass to be making a “security theater” piece at this point. Deal with real issues, not a freaking agenda. You don’t think that perhaps the tone and the direction of this post would be better without the nasty terms being used? Do we really need to talk about “security theater” right now?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you post that this whole article is wrong… and that we should address such things as changing our society’s views on gun control… and I’m on a tangent when I address those topics? Make up your mind… do you want to talk about Theater or gun control? Or do you just want to throw out a bunch of topics and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of ‘going off on a tangent’ when they choose to discuss them with you?
No, it’s not. How about we spend that time and energy trying to help people learn to respond to those situations? How about we use it to help reduce the amount of ‘poor’ (of whatever form of ‘wealth’ you want to consider) so that this doesn’t happen in an attempt to ‘gain more’?
If you want to look at it as a terrorist action, why not use that time and energy trying to NOT PISS PEOPLE OFF ENOUGH TO WANT TO TERRORIZE YOU!
Oh, that’s right. I must have forgotten that no one ever killed mass numbers of people without high-capacity, high-rate-of-fire guns… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Considering two other countries (at least) are already talking about more Theater laws, I think the answer to that question is “no, it’s not too soon”. Because if reasonable, rational people that agree with sentiments similar to what Mike is posting don’t speak up in counter to those points, then we’ll just keep seeing more useless laws that don’t stop a thing and continue to erode simple liberties we take for granted. Mike isn’t ‘making this a Theater peice’… he’s responding to the Theater peices already being made.
First, what follows is not a tangent… it speaks directly to your statement about this being an untimely piece that you find offensive…
Now, here’s the answer to that…
DON’T FUCKING READ IT. Just like everything out there that pisses you off, DON’T EXPOSE YOURSELF TO IT. Stop trying to force your morals onto someone else. Just like the minister or reverend or whoever it was that sparked off the great radio censorship in the 70?s and 80?s because he heard a song on the radio he didn?t like? just like the people who wanted ?proper warning? on record labels to warn about lyrics instead of actually researching what your children are listening to? just like the people who are worried about being exposed to ANYTHING you don?t like? GO THE FUCK AWAY. Let those of us who want to discuss these things do so in peace without having to ignore you.
/rant
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“IT. DOESNT. MATTER. MAKING. IT. HARDER. IS. KEY.”
Piracy, Guns, whatever… you just don’t get it do you?
Making it harder means making it harder for the people that want to do the right thing. The criminals don’t care that its illegal, nor do they care how hard or long it takes to get/do what they want. They will get the guns eventually, and they will commit the crimes. No one has all the answers, but punishing the people trying to “do it right” is definitely not one of them…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. I can think of a few things that that supposedly applies do that it’s doesn’t work with.
Like, oh, I don’t know….the Holy Trinity of attacks: Child Porn, Piracy and Terrorism.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go ahead, lock up every gun ever made by every manufacturer (which is what the furthest extreme of “making it harder” would be) in a vault and only people who have been monitored since they were born are allowed to have one.
That would mean that only people who are 100% free of criminal history or those who wouldn’t use a gun to commit a crime would have them, right? (and/or insert whatever reason for gun control)
Well, you have conveniently forgotten that people can make guns themselves, make bullets themselves, and they don’t care if they are licensed if people who also don’t care that they are getting a gun illegally will pay perfectly good money for it.
IT. JUST. AIN’T. GONNA. HAPPEN.
This also would only, as stated, make it difficult for people who want to obtain a gun legally. The people who are fine and dandy with having a gun made in a garage or a basement will have no trouble doing so. They may get caught, but if they can commit a crime with it before hand, the laws to make it harder won’t do a damn fucking thing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, the US has such a proud history of enacting security theater instead of effective measures.
In the US, pretty much anyone who does not have a felony conviction and is willing to pay “retail” plus a “transfer tax” can purchase as many fully automatic weapons as they want.
Meanwhile, for 10 years in the US, there were outright bans on weapons “look mean”, but are less dangerous than the average .30-06 hunting rifle. These weapons were banned as reaction to events that in many cases didn’t even involve the weapons, but that didn’t stop the theater from premiering yet another goofy show.
Re: Re:
“Mike, first I have to say it’s pretty gruesome to not even let the bodied get cold before you start with the rhetoric.”
Funny how you do exactly what you accuse Mike of in the same sentence. See rhetoric (specifically: pathos). Pot, meet kettle.
“The biggest failing that I can see is any culture that allows sales of the weapons that can do this sort of thing.”
As others have pointed out, Norway has very strict gun control. Not sure what “culture” you speak of, ’cause it’s not Norway’s “culture” to blame here (at least not as it relates to gun control).
“I know you have an axe to grind with any efforts to stop your unlimited, unedited, and undiluted freedom, but perhaps you should wait until after the funerals to start the sermons?”
Thinly veiled Ad Hominem attack. Perfect way to conclude your amazing argument (in your own little mind, I’m sure).
Re: Re:
I know you have an axe to grind with any efforts to stop your unlimited, unedited, and undiluted freedom,
You say that like it is a bad thing to defend freedom.
Re: Re:
This is the lowest you have slunk yet. Far from being a rebuttal, your comment goes much farther in its self-serving, ugly and outright inhumanity.
You may think you’re clever but this comment reveals you as one of the low, mean-spirited and vicious people I’ve encountered in 25 years on the nets.
You have no shame, no taste, no restraint and no soul. Fuck off.
Re: Re:
makes me think you are desperate to make some sort of point.
Dude, what do you think how your puny attacks at Mike are viewed here?
True
I can’t imagine the kind of security it would take to prevent this kind of tragedy – even a full-fledged police state would have a hard time preventing a truly determined nut from doing something bad. I’m pretty sure that any kind of society worth living in can’t be made safe against a sick, demented criminal of this kind. And I don’t think we should try…
I’ve seen someone argue that if everyone on the island had had guns he would’ve been stopped pretty quick. Yeah, what a nice world that would be. Ten times the casualties annually just from gun accidents, and drunken gunfights in bars, with innocent bystanders being hit left and right, the norm for Friday nights. No thanks. I’ll take the risk of encountering a single nutter once per century any day.
Re: True
You can’t imagine that level of security because it’s impossible. It doesn’t exist.
Even totally repressive societies (i.e., those built around a core of total control, ruthless enforcement, enormous spy/military/police presence, etc.) are susceptible to these kinds of acts.
When they’re carried out against our enemies du jour, we laud them as the work of courageous freedom fighters. When they’re carried out against our allies du jour, we decry them as barbaric terrorists. But no matter what rhetoric we use to describe them, they’re quite, quite impossible to prevent.
Which very few people have the intelligence to comprehend and the wisdom to accept, unfortunately. Certainly most Americans are far too dim to grasp this — look what they’ve done to themselves. (And certainly the cowards who advocate for MORE weapons don’t get that they themselves constitute a far bigger danger to public safety than those they imagine themselves taking on, cowboy-style.)
It takes reflection and courage to realize that these things CANNOT be avoided. They have happened for thousands of years, and they will continue to happen. And the way to decrease them is not to take any of the quick fixes bandied about; the way to decrease them is to undertake the slow, tedious, patient work of building better societies with more justice, more openness, more inclusion, more opportunity…and to realize that this is work that spans generations, and even then, even if successful, it is not a panacea. It is merely progress, slow, measured, steady.
Re: True
Not everyone is responsible enough to own and carry a gun. But there is middle ground between everyone, and no one.
Will they start groping the farmers now?
Any person with serious intent to kill wont be stopped by laws restricting the sale and possession of fire arms or other weapon materials. a machine gun or bomb can be built from scratch in any basic metal shop, with cheap materials available locally.
Re: Re:
Sources:
– Kazuo Nagano
In 1985 2 men get into a room full of reports and said “We were asked to kill this man” and start to stab the man to death, the man was responsible for frauds that let thousands of people without their money.
When people want to really kill someone they will do it no matter what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010
Slavery, serfs, indenture servants are all one form or another of your involutionary providing your labor to another for their profit.
In the past one person could hold thousands in one form of involuntary servitude.
Now does it make any real difference to the labor providers if instead of one person ownership it is multi part being tow person or more ownership?
Ownership that is two part is called a partnership.
Now what if ownership is divided amongst thousands? This could be easily done by means of stock ownership in a corporation. Is the servant class providing their labor in a free exchange or is it still involutionary?
What if ownership is divided amongst millions in the form of a government taking action against the lass privileged members of society by requiring them to provide their labor involutionary to the social privileged?
Is their any difference to the lives of the labor providers due to the different forms of ownership?
What the article discusses are events surrounding two different attacks. The first against the intransigent people in power who command the labor of those not privileged enough to have full freedom and the second against those in training to become members of the first group.
If one has even casually read about the root causes of WW2 one understands the bases was starvation and moral decline brought about WW1.
With the current world economic being in as big a mess as the world was in the 1920s equivalent economic disarray is foreseeable.
Fortunately the world his not in near as big a moral meltdown where killing was considered to be the normal means of adjudication disputes like it was after four years of slaughter from WW1.
As anyone who has read even a smattering of history especially the causes of the American War of Independence and the French and Russian revolutions understands the current economic / moral situation as defined by the liberal left, those proponents of mass slavery, will be resolved by continued assertions of individual freedom until the issue of involutionary labor theft is resolved.
What is the most appalling part is the assertion by forces of evil in the form of the mass media is that the evil of mass ownership of other people labor by a privilege elite is morally ethical and reminds one of the theological discussions of the correctness and moral supremacy of feudalism before the French Revolution.
To anyone with the least enlightenment the whole thing is sicking; the training camp for the next generation of slave master elitists, the attack on the elite which resulted in numerous deaths of non-elitists, and the attack on the elitists in training.
And! The most negative aspect of this is that this insanity is only beginning, it is bound to get worse as world economic conditions get worse.
Re: Re:
The intertubes are backed up again… somebody call Roto-Rooter!
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you do not understand.
Consider this.
In the 18th century it was very common for Europeans to obtain passage by ship to a better life in America by indenture servitude.
In 21th century it is very common for Americans to obtain passage to a better life in elitists heaven by a college loans against their future labor – indenture serviture with out the name.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And again… the price of tea in China is???
wrong thread for your blathering
All I have to contribute is in regards to any talk of making laws, there is one that is a fundamental law regarding human nature:
The law is only a protection when everyone agrees to be bound by it.
@ Richard
Ok Richard? I?m interested in continuing this, but our posts are getting all over the place. So here?s a fresh start for this?
@Richard post # 95 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-massacre.shtml#c1336
Um… what?
“I, like thousands of other law abiding Americans, carry a legally purchased and licensed gun on me at all times. I sincerely hope I never have to use it, but it’s one of those things that you would rather have and not need, than need it and not have it….” – AC who started the discussion of legal gun ownership
“Unfortunately the statistics are against you here. The net result of more Americans carrying guns is more violent death.”– You, in response (emphasis added by me)
How is that not saying that legal gun owners are responsible for gun deaths?
Are you saying that he did this because he was legally owning those guns and would not have perpetrated that if he didn’t legally own the guns? Or are you trying to say he would never have been able to do it without legally-owned guns? Either way, you?re assuming to know what this man may or may not have done if he did not have legally-owned firearms. All you know is that he legally owned guns and that he killed people. Those two facts are not causally related.
Then you better just completely rid the world of guns… because guess what… guns are going to leak to the criminal community by any source willing to sell them or unable to completely defend themselves against theft. And you know why criminals will have illegal guns? Because they DON’T CARE that it’s illegal!
@Richard post # 98 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-massacre.shtml#c1383
No, it?s not ?backed? by an obvious mechanism? that?s the fallacy.
@Richard post #100 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-massacre.shtml#c1407
Oh, right? because Creationism is universally American and all Americans believe in it. Never mind the fact that it?s a complete non-sequiter here.
First, I don?t believe in creationism. Second, I would be the last to call it a ?science?. The fact you chose to use that label means that you have an, at best, shaky grasp on what constitute logic and science. I evidence that by the fact that I am making statements about logical fallacies and not making illogical leaps with statistics, and you reply (rather derisively) with your European opinion (which you assume is universally shared) as though it is somehow better than my American opinion. (I assume by your statements that you are European? if I?m wrong, feel free to correct that).
You are trying to take a moral road to gun control in response to my statements on the logical fallacy about correlation/causation. So again, feel free to laugh at that. It simply erodes your credibility in this discussion.
Re: @ Richard
I’ll try to ake the points one by one to avoid an overlong post..
“Unfortunately the statistics are against you here. The net result of more Americans carrying guns is more violent death.”- You, in response (emphasis added by me)
How is that not saying that legal gun owners are responsible for gun deaths?
I just set “the net result ” I made no judgement about who was doing the shooting.
The more legal guns there are the more illegal guns there will be. Our biggest problem with enforcing gun control in the UK is the availability of guns in the US – if legal US guns can leak into illegal UK hands then how much more will that be happening in the US.
Re: Re: @ Richard
If you’re not making a judgement about who did the shooting, then why do you insist that gun control will make any difference? The guns will be there no matter if it’s legal or not.
“Net result” includes those of us legally owning guns… you’re including us in your numbers… hence, assiging blame.
So who’s fault is it? The US and our plethora of guns? The people in your countries acquiring them (do you really think they’d stop if the US suddenly disappeared?)? The social environments in your area that creates the criminals and their need for guns?
You?re pretty quick to assign blame for your problems on us. I think your ?biggest problem with enforcing gun control? is that it doesn?t work. But that?s my opinion. See how I don?t state that as ‘fact’?
Re: Re: @ Richard
“The more legal guns there are the more illegal guns there will be.”
How so?
If they are all legal, there will be no illegal guns.
Re: @ Richard
All you know is that he legally owned guns and that he killed people. Those two facts are not causally related.
I find that statement frankly incredible.
Without the guns he would have had a lot more trouble and it is pretty certain that without semi-automatic weapons he would have been unable to kill so many people (the same is true of the recent case in Norway).
Actually I do think that UK gun control has gone too far – and I would actually support some slight liberalisation of the law here to allow guns to be held for purposes other than self defence.
I’m having trouble knowing how to answer you because the obvious logic and statistics are so overwhelming but you still refuse to accept them. Frankly I would like to know what piece of evidence whould change your mind.
Re: Re: @ Richard
You’re trying to change my mind about the logical fallacy of correlation/causation… that can’t be done because it’s not my opinion… it’s a fact of logic.
What about the mass-murder crimes that happen without guns?
And did you read the Wiki you sent me? He had 4 hand-guns… only two of which were semi-automatic. The ammunition capacity for a semi-auto is double, but subsequent shots in quick succession are increasingly inaccurate as compared to a revolver. So it’s difficult to maintain a stance that the level of violence is the result of what type of weapon was used. Especially “pretty certain”.
Yes, he had more bullets that he could spit out faster, but that only matters if he’s up against opposition. If he?s calmly just strolling the halls with a couple of revolvers, he could accomplish just as much because he’d be in no hurry to rack up the body count between reloads. It?s not like his targets were shooting back. But this is all speculation. It?s no more or less valid than your assumptions.
You’re taking small facts of the situation and making assumptions about it without supporting evidence. And calling those assumptions “pretty certain” is rather dishonest.
As for the crime being harder for him without legally owned firearms… I believe he would have found guns any way he could. It would have only pushed his crime back while he was acquiring the firearms. However, my belief in this, again, is no more a valid ‘fact’ than your assertions.
Re: Re: Re: @ Richard
You’re trying to change my mind about the logical fallacy of correlation/causation… that can’t be done because it’s not my opinion… it’s a fact of logic.
Sorry – but you are wrong –
It IS a logical fallacy that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However if you have a thesis about a mechanism of causation (in this case that the legal holding of a large number of guns in the community increases gun crime because it makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns – I could fill in more details of the mechanism here) that predicts a correlation – and then you find a correlation then you regard the thesis as confirmed (or – more cautiously – not refuted).
That is NOT a logical fallacy – it is the mechanism we call experimental science.
I hope you are not rejecting that.
Re: Re: Re:2 @ Richard
Not to be picky, but I combined out discussion into a single thread so that I wouldn’t have to keep track of multiple sub-thread branches.
Your idea of experimental science is lacking one small thing in this context… experimentation. You are looking at two coincidental facts and assuming they are causally related without performing any experiments to determine that. Until you actually experement, you are just assuming… nothing more.
And your post about my other violent crime and mass murder… when put down there on its own, yes, it sure does seem all kinds of non-sequiter. Nice trick. But in the context of you saying how these gun-based murders would be less without the guns, it raises a very important point. That point being that you have no way of knowing what these killer would have done without such ready -access to guns.
These people did what they did because they wanted people to die (for whatever reason). They did not do it because they had access to guns. Therefore, when you state that changing a factor that has nothing to with the cause, and say “no, it really is related to the cause”, and insist that it will prevent the end result…that strikes me as dishonest. Unless you really do believe that the guns were the cause.
Re: Re: Re:3 @ Richard
You are looking at two coincidental facts and assuming they are causally related without performing any experiments to determine that. Until you actually experement, you are just assuming… nothing more.
Well there is a minor controversy here – because there are some sciences where experimentation in the traditional lab sense is difficult or impossible. Cosmology, economics, archaeology, palaeontology etc have to make do with observation of pre-existing facts – as in the present case. Some people think that this means that they aren’t proper sciences – but personally I think that this is nit-picking.
But in the context of you saying how these gun-based murders would be less without the guns, it raises a very important point. That point being that you have no way of knowing what these killer would have done without such ready -access to guns.
We have no way of knowing exactly – true – but it is not unreasonable to assume that the lack of guns would have cramped their style somewhat.
I admit that it is perfectly possible to commit murder, even mass murder by other means – but the point is that it is harder.
Guns provide a uniquely quick, easy and certain method of killing.
If people (and police) carry guns routinely then there is a risk that all kinds of trivial incidents could be escalated. Remember the case (reported here) a while back where an off duty policeman pulled his gun on a motorcyclist.
Road rage is quite common – and even law abiding citizens can over-react in these circumstances. The presence of guns in these situations is a recipe for disaster – a disaster that happens quite commonly – just google “gun road rage”.
As I said before I don’t agree with the current UK law which bans all private holding of guns except hunting rifles/shotguns but I do agree with the principle enshrined in British law since 1946 that holding a gun for self defence is not a valid justification.
Re: Re: Re:4 @ Richard
Granted, experimentation would be difficult here. Not impossible, but difficult. But that doesn’t change the fact that presenting two fact that cannot be demonstrated as related and saying that they are is dishonest. It’s the same tactic used be sensationalist media and the US’s ridiculous party system to pervert statistics to support their side.
Easier? Maybe. Quicker? Certainly. I’m not sure about mass murder being “harder” without guns. There certainly is a case to be made for other methods being more attractive…
Look at the Oklahoma City bombing… no guns. Higher body count. And it had the added benefit that the perpetrator was not at the crime. Better chance of getting away with it. This guy failed, but he certainly wasn’t caught at the scene with a detonator in his hand. He was actually ‘caught’ because he was stopped for not having a license plate on his car while leaving the city.
The people who are motivated to get up-close and personal with guns are the ones who are going to kill no matter what the method they can find. Removing guns from the equation won’t help. Sorry.
And if you take away cars, it will remove the risk of all kinds of trivial car incidents. That doesn’t mean anything. As has always been the case, a gun is a tool. Simply removing the tool will not remove the more negative uses of that tool… people will just use a different tool to accomplish what they need. Take away my hammer, and I’ll build my house with a rock.
And this is where we’re going to agree to disagree. As I said above, it’s only a tool. If I am responsible enough to train myself both physically and mentally to properly handle a gun in a self-defense situation, and to restrain myself to never use it improperly, why should I be denied that tool to defend myself just because there are others who aren’t as responsible. That mentality of punish everyone because of a few bad apples (and let’s face it, while the number is large, the criminal element is only a small portion of the total population) is not very enlightened.
Re: Re: Re: @ Richard
What about the mass-murder crimes that happen without guns?
What about it? That’s like saying that we should try to prevent theft of cars because people can also steal boats- it’s a non-sequitur.
Re: Re: Re:2 @ Richard
whoops – should read:
What about it? That’s like saying that we shouldn’t try to prevent theft of cars because people can also steal boats- it’s a non-sequitur.
Problem?
“Our biggest problem with enforcing gun control in the UK is the availability of guns in the US – if legal US guns can leak into illegal UK hands then how much more will that be happening in the US.”
WHAT PROBLEM!!?? More people die per year in my city than your entire country!!!??
“There were 80-homicides. That figure is down from 2008 when there were 105-homicides”
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=139946&provider=top
“The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime
IF you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens, then only the criminals will have them… then where would we be?
Re: Problem?
IF you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens, then only the criminals will have them… then where would we be?
Well for a start you would have fewer successful suicides and fewer accidental deaths caused by legally held guns. Also some criminals would stop carrying guns if they weren’t expecting to be challenged by vigilantes with weapons. The result would be fewer deaths.
Your logic is the same logic that created the nuclear arms race – now we realise that reversing that race was a good idea.
Re: Re: Problem?
“Well for a start you would have fewer successful suicides and fewer accidental deaths caused by legally held guns.”
People don’t need a gun to kill themselves.
“Also some criminals would stop carrying guns if they weren’t expecting to be challenged by vigilantes with weapons. “
Or more criminals would be carrying guns because they know they will be the only ones that have them.
“Your logic is the same logic that created the nuclear arms race”
And your logic would get you killed on my street.
Re: Re: Re: Problem?
“And your logic would get you killed on my street.”
FYI … The above was by no means a threat, I was referencing the fact that I live in one of the most dangerous cities in America…
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/report-atlanta-has-2nd-843411.html
Re: Re: Re:2 Problem?
“Your logic is the same logic that created the nuclear arms race”
And your logic would get you killed on my street.
So if the whole world was like your city then the nuclear holocaust would have happened by noww..
Re: Re: Re:3 Problem?
“So if the whole world was like your city then the nuclear holocaust would have happened by noww..”
And if a pig had wings it would be a bird, you are talking in absolutes, and in a very trollish way….
My point was, the police can’t even protect armed citizens, much less unarmed citizens. You take the guns of the people that own the legally, and only the criminals will have them…
You gave up your freedom to own a gun for security in your country and that’s ok…. if that’s what you want to do, but don’t shove your righteousness down our throats because we choose not to do so.
Re: Re: Re:4 Problem?
You take the guns of the people that own the legally, and only the criminals will have them…
You make the assumption that people can be easily categorised into criminals and legal gun owners. Well it can’t be done – to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn “the line between good and evil goes through everyone”. Some legal gun owners are criminals. Almost every gun held by a criminal was at one time held by a legal gun owner (since I don’t believe the criminals have their own gun factories).
By cutting back on legally held guns you also choke off the supply to criminals.
Re: Re: Re:5 Problem?
“By cutting back on legally held guns you also choke off the supply to criminals.”
Cutting off oxygen would prevent wildfires, but you may find it hard to breath….
I think we will keep our freedom, and you can keep your safety… everyone is happy 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Problem?
People don’t need a gun to kill themselves.
But if they have them they tend to use them and end up dead. If they don’t they tend to try other things (like drug overdoses) which are often unsuccessful.
Re: Re: Re: Problem?
Or more criminals would be carrying guns because they know they will be the only ones that have them.
That would be stupid because they would just increase the sentence they would face if caught.
Re: Re: Re:2 Problem?
Again, this is assuming the threat of that penalty is a deterrent. If the current threat of arrest and imprisonment is not a deterrent, adding a few years onto the sentence is not going to suddenly have criminals switch to knives and slingshots.
Look at my sunny home-state of Florida. We have a zero-tolerance law (don’t get me started on ZTs…) of 10-20-Life. If you pull a gun during a crime, you get 10-years… period. No options, no appeals, nothing. 10-years added to whatever else you get. Shoot the gun and it’s 20. Actually shoot someone (fatal or not) and you go to prison for life. No one and nothing can change that sentence… not even the judge. Pretty harsh. And pretty useless as a deterrent. I have read no fewer than three stories this year in my own city alone about shoot-outs between criminals which struck bystanders. One was a disagreement that turned to guns, the other was a drug deal gone bad. Both situations, the guns were being carried ILLEGALLY by people who would never have been given the license to carry. There are at least 3 people right there going to prison for the rest of their life. Do they regret it? I bet the do. Did the threat of 10-20-Life deter them from commit the crime? Nope.
When these people got up in the morning, and put on their socks and shoes, I don’t think they stopped and asked themselves “should I leave my gun at home? It is illegal for me to bring this, after all”.
Now, you’re going to make the argument that those bystanders would not have been hit if not for those guns. But those shooters would have had the guns regardless. I don’t know if they ‘legally’ acquired them or not. But I know that if they really wanted them, they’d have them.
For evidence, look at the drug trade. By your “no legal guns = fewer illegal guns” logic, there should be FAR fewer drugs because there is no legal source for them. But people want them, so people get them.
Re: Re: Re: Problem?
not to mention the nuclear arms race comment is completly irrelevant. no amount of guns is going to blow the whole world up, Richard. they are magnitudes different.
Lets ban swimming pools, cars, bikes, rope, and anything else you could accidently harm or kill yourself with. You think a parent neglectful enough to let a kid accidently get their gun and shoot themselves or a friend is not eventually going to get hurt some other way, from neglect?
accidental shootings are not bad parenting, they are symptoms of it, and if you take away every gun in the world, that symptom will still be there, but in the form of falling down stairs, drowning in the tub, running into traffic, etc.
Re: Problem?
WHAT PROBLEM!!?? More people die per year in my city than your entire country!!!??
Thank you – that was sort of my point…
Re: Re: Problem?
“Thank you – that was sort of my point…”
Smugness is so British but I’ll give it a go…
Tomorrow, when I wake up and walk outside, I’m going to have my pistol in my waist band… this is a freedom that I’ve earned, and one that you will never truly enjoy.
AMERICA FUCK YEAH!
Re: Re: Re: Problem?
and the day after I will still wake up…
Re: Re: Re:2 Problem?
You might, but you will wake up with a little less freedom as well…
I think its sad that you think your government took your guns to protect you. I feel sorry for you in a way… but in case you haven’t figure it out yet allow me to enlighten you… Your government didn’t take your guns to protect you, they took them to protect themselves FROM you.
Have we considered the "crazy freak factor"?
Ok, I skipped ahead a bit here, so if someone else has already raised this point, apologies. 🙂
The problem is not guns, it is people. We live in a world with many, many, many, many people. By and large, we humans are a pretty decent bunch. Sadly, it is inevitable when our population swells into the billions, we will see aberrations among the populace. People who for one reason or another, are just fu#$king nuts.
We seem to fear guns and as such we demonize them as being a social problem. A gun is simply a tool. It does not suddenly decide, “wow, I want to go on a shooting spree today”. A human has to make a decision to pick up the tool, the gun and go out and kill other living creatures.
Perhaps the key is teaching responsible gun ownership from a very, very young age. Sadly, this particular nutjob used the very strict gun control laws in Norway and the myth that police are societies “bodyguards” to his advantage. Law enforcement exists to enforce laws and investigate crime. Hence, cops showing up after something bad has happened, or after a crime has been committed.
We really need to take responsibility for our own safety, and our decisions.
The universe, the world, is a very scary and dangerous place. This does not mean it is awful, or we should despair, it means that we need to recognize that on a beautiful summer day, there exists a .000001% chance some wack-a-doo might decide today is the day for their moment in the spotlight and to prepare accordingly.
Re: Have we considered the "crazy freak factor"?
this.
Why the hell Prime Minister talks about 2 people in particular?
“if one man can show so much hate, imagine how much love we all can show together”
It is an unfortunate fact of life that it is much easier to make a negative statement, through for example violence, than a statement via miscellaneous ‘love’. Why are suicide bombings so effective and so increasingly popular?
I can think of many more ways to efficiently harm my neighbour than to efficiently help them. I do not think that I am unique, such is the way of the world.