Stopping Murders in the USA ?

[andyb]

sensational media coverage, which encourages copy-cat crimes.

That is just not true, it "might possibly" encourage mad, psycopathic arseholes to actually carry out an act that they have been thinking about for a while simply because they have just seen on TV how easy it is for someone with a bunch of guns to wander into their local college and kill a bunch of students.

Media of any kind can and often will affect people who read/watch/hear it, but only the psycopathic killers actually do anything about it, and as the would be psycopathic killers often have guns or easy access to them they go on a murdering rampage.

The simple answer is to restrict nutcases ability to get hold of guns, and the simplest way to do that is to ban the sales of all guns to anyone and everyone who does not actually have a need for that weapon, re-write the second amendment to stop (some) people complaining that it's their right and then take guns out of circulation.

Within minutes of these sorts of crimes, almost everyone knows about it. It was not that way in the past. The criminal/murderer instantly becomes a hero of sorts.....at least in his own mind. Tone down the media coverage? Tell me how.....local media never publish news about solo suicides, attempting to avoid a copy-cat situation. Maybe such a thing could be applied to murderers...but I can suggest no way to bring that off.

Like China Their wonderful government restrict news (and Google) do you propose something like this.??? How exactly would this be better than dis-arming the populous. Potentially stopping a copy-cat murder via the media is a weak solution compared to relieving the would be murderer of their killing machines.

100% agree with you on that one, however applied to Germany. The punishments are laughable here. 15 years prison for 11 counts of manslaughter?
Juveniles getting 5 years for murder?
3 Years of Probation for juvenile attempted manslaughter?
3 foreigners mugging innocent senior citizens in the metro and not getting any prison time, or deported.
And then people wonder why all the german idiots become neo-nazis?
Not to encourage violence or antisemitism or anything, but there is a reason why there is much anti-foreign-immigrant sentiment in Europe.

Same situation over here in the UK, unfortunatley the "Human Rights" people are really screwing us up on this one, although they mean well (like the 2nd ammendment did) it has been taken far too far.

People's punishment should fit the crime, and people human rights should be thrown out of the window (applicable to the crime). Murderers have NO human rights, rapists have no physical and mental human rights, fraudsters and burgulars have no financial human rights (i.e. they get the dumbest government appointed laywers that can be found and are not allowed to employ their own), muggers have no human rights either, but of course they have a much lower punishment than rapists and murderers.

I would put a murderer in a small concrete cell and feed them bread and water, they will not be allowed to see a doctor, friends or family for 40 years.... no buts.

Muggers would serve 1 years in the same situation if they were unarmed, an aditional 2 years if they had a knife or a blunt instrument, and a further 4 years if they had a gun. As most muggers repeat their crimes, each additional offence would double the standard penaly i.e. a mugger caught for a second offence would get 2 years if not armed and 10 years if they had a gun. If the mugger was caught and was found to have mugged 3 people they would be in jail for 1 year + 2 years + 3 years and a whole lot more if they were armed - concrete cell with no visitors or medical attention for several years would really put someone off of the crime.

Seem reasonable

Currently they have Sky TV (more channels than I do), game consoles, books, magazines and visitors, this is more of a reward for these people than a punishment.


Andy

[klankymen]

Same situation over here in the UK, unfortunatley the "Human Rights" people are really screwing us up on this one, although they mean well (like the 2nd ammendment did) it has been taken far too far.

People's punishment should fit the crime, and people human rights should be thrown out of the window (applicable to the crime). Murderers have NO human rights, rapists have no physical and mental human rights, fraudsters and burgulars have no financial human rights (i.e. they get the dumbest government appointed laywers that can be found and are not allowed to employ their own), muggers have no human rights either, but of course they have a much lower punishment than rapists and murderers.

I would put a murderer in a small concrete cell and feed them bread and water, they will not be allowed to see a doctor, friends or family for 40 years.... no buts.

Muggers would serve 1 years in the same situation if they were unarmed, an aditional 2 years if they had a knife or a blunt instrument, and a further 4 years if they had a gun.

Seem reasonable


Andy

Yeah, you know what's funny - here on spcr we are the "euro liberals", but in our country we (or at least I) am a right winger pissed off by the socialist "human right"/"criminal's right" government.

The simple answer is to restrict nutcases ability to get hold of guns, and the simplest way to do that is to ban the sales of all guns to anyone and everyone who does not actually have a need for that weapon, re-write the second amendment to stop (some) people complaining that it's their right and then take guns out of circulation.

Good point, but I think a good start for America, instead of disarming everyone, would be to simply increase the qualifications for getting guns. more proof of responsibility, intelligence, and social "skills" maybe.

[andyb]

Good point, but I think a good start for America, instead of disarming everyone, would be to simply increase the qualifications for getting guns. more proof of responsibility, intelligence, and social "skills" maybe.

It would be a great start to fixing their problem, then a few years down the line restrict gun ownership even further like it is in the UK, no-one owns a gun unless they actually need it for their job. Hunters, and farmers........ who else needs guns.?


Andy

[klankymen]

Good point, but I think a good start for America, instead of disarming everyone, would be to simply increase the qualifications for getting guns. more proof of responsibility, intelligence, and social "skills" maybe.

It would be a great start to fixing their problem, then a few years down the line restrict gun ownership even further like it is in the UK, no-one owns a gun unless they actually need it for their job. Hunters, and farmers........ who else needs guns.?


Andy

Policemen, soldiers, the queen's bodyguards, double-oh-agents, etc

[aristide1]

Yeah, you know what's funny - here on spcr we are the "euro liberals", but in our country we (or at least I) am a right winger pissed off by the socialist "human right"/"criminal's right" government.

What about the rights of the victim of the crime?

[klankymen]

Yeah, you know what's funny - here on spcr we are the "euro liberals", but in our country we (or at least I) am a right winger pissed off by the socialist "human right"/"criminal's right" government.

What about the rights of the victim of the crime?

That's what I'm saying - the victim should have more human rights than the criminal - not less.

Here in germany it is possible to get tried if you injure your attacker in self defense - ridiculous!

[Trip]

Well many of us who wish for gun rights in America don't much like guns, but we view the current US government as extremely dangerous. With McCain or Obama on the horizon, I'm terrified. I'm either going to move to the hills or out of the country.

I see you've edited your post - earlier you were claiming that Obama wanted to get rid of people like you, and that if he got elected you were going to get yourself a hunting rifle.

It would be laughable if it weren't tragic - in any case, if the US government actually wanted you dead, do you seriously think that holing up in them thar hills with your peashooter would do you the slightest good?

No disrespect, but you sound not just paranoid, but completely, barking mad, and make the case against widespread gun ownership far more convincingly than I ever could.

Yes I did say that, but I figured it'd lead to conversations like this of my being paranoid (and thus fitting certain stereotypes which I don't entirely fit into) so I changed it. I almost always edit posts immediately after writing, for better or worse - that way people can see my rough drafts.

I'm not paranoid; I just think for myself. And folks who do that often sound unusual on various issues.

If you talk with older folks, they'll almost always take unusual stances. However, college educated under 30 seem more like drones repeating the same mantras... I'm a Southern white guy who kept his view of the world despite college; we're an endangered species

---

EDIT: well I suppose I am paranoid in the sense that I don't trust people I don't know, including governments and big businesses. It seems to me that it's in their nature to want to exploit other strangers, which is what humans have done throughout history, and so, of course, I don't trust them. Men can be guided by greed, lust, desire for power, ideology, religion, sense of ethics, social pressures, and ethnicity; there's no way for me to know which are guiding those in power at a given time in Washington.

Obama seems to be a black nationalist (considering his church which recently gave an award to a black separatist who has called for the killing of men, women, and children of South Africa's white population) or at best a Marxist like his mother. Either way, Southern whites, being the most conservative within the US and traditionally the most blamed for everything under the sun, would most certainly be disliked.

[Bluefront]

klankymen...... that's hard to believe. But it looks like that is exactly what the bleeding-heart Liberals over here, are striving for.

Believe it or not.....we had several month episode of random shootings between cars on the St Louis highways. The local Liberal give-away newspaper in the city, ran an article entitled "Sniper Rights". That was after a few snipers got themselves killed.

[Trip]

Bluefront,

the problem isn't so much a group of "liberals" anymore. The problem is that most in the US have become liberals. The colleges and media put out left wing crap, and clueless Americans come to believe in it.

This isn't a political problem but a cultural problem. There are no longer many cultural conservatives in the US. Even the Christian right calls for mass immigration and big government.

"Right wing" in today's US seems defined by a greater desire to bomb Muslims, to oppose abortion and gay rights, and to vote Republican... Paradigms change, and with the internet I think this dominance is changing, but atm this isn't the same US in which a small group of liberals is transforming the US: the US has already been transformed.

[klankymen]

"Right wing" in today's US seems defined by a greater desire to bomb Muslims, to oppose abortion and gay rights, and to vote Republican... Paradigms change, and with the internet I think this dominance is changing, but atm this isn't the same US in which a small group of liberals is transforming the US: the US has already been transformed.

Exactly that is the problem. You can't get foreign policy without domestic policy and vice versa.

[Trip]

Oh, well what I meant really is that even the so called right isn't really right wing at all.

Though what you point is also important, perhaps even more so: that folks who really just want to end abortion find themselves defending a war because it's "conservative" or vice versa with "liberals."

So, rather than individuals thinking for themselves, they find themselves loyal to one group or another (groups that are artificial, i.e. political parties and ideologies.)

[Bluefront]

Trip...that's the basic problem with a two-party system. The person who will win calls himself a democrat or a republican. You have a general idea what that means.....but that's about it. Generally, republicans are more conservative than democrats, but the whole spectrum shifts constantly. So the republican you vote for today, may have been called a democrat a few years ago.

So you vote for the man whose views are closer to your own.... And if you have conservative views for the most part, any man who calls himself a republican is probably going to be a better choice for you. But obviously you will have many differences.....

I am a 100% supporter of abortion rights for every woman, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason. But I still call myself conservative/republican because of other things more important to me. I don't agree the country has degraded totally into a liberal label......but the political spectrum has certainly shifted in that direction. And that shift has caused the crime problem to explode. IMHO, of course.

[Erssa]

The problem is that most in the US have become liberals. The colleges and media put out left wing crap, and clueless Americans come to believe in it.

This isn't a political problem but a cultural problem. There are no longer many cultural conservatives in the US. Even the Christian right calls for mass immigration and big government.

"Right wing" in today's US seems defined by a greater desire to bomb Muslims, to oppose abortion and gay rights, and to vote Republican...

That's why it's no wonder people are turning towards left. If I'd have to choose between the two evils you have to choose from, bible bigots vs. socialists, I'd too choose the lesser evil, socialists.

But it's not just not the US, it's a global phenomen. Our biggest right wing party, the National Coalition Party, supports immigration. That's because they want to import cheap labor for the industry, to keep wages low. Too bad most of the imported people are untalented and uneducated, who end up living on our social security. Small part of them ends up doing unnaturally large proportion of crimes here, sealing the borders would result in 30% drop in crime rates. So our right wing is trading our security and welfare state for industry profits. But at least their motives can be understood, unlike motives of left wing.

For example here's some of the comments made by the leader of Swedish Social Democratic Party, Mona Sahlin:

"I hate everything [that's] genuinely typically Swedish."
"Swedes are so boring, we should get inspiration from the East. Islam could liven Sweden up."
"I think that's what makes many Swedes jealous of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an indentity, a history, something that brings you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer's Eve and such silly things."

That sums up the motives of our left wing as well. At least our neighbours in Sweden are open about it. Our left wing despises our culture and everything that's distinctively Finnish. They fail to recognize how unique it is, because it's not exotic. Mass immigration, especially from Muslim countries, will eventually diversify our culture just as much Mnemiopsis leidyi diversified sea life in Black Sea and Caspian Sea, or as much as rabbits and cane toads diversified Australia's wildlife.

The Second Amendment gives the citizens of the USA some protection against tyranny, protection that citizens of other countries lack.

Guns might help against a dictator, but what good are handguns against tyranny of majority aka democracy? You can't kill'em all...

[klankymen]

For example here's some of the comments made by the leader of Swedish Social Democratic Party, Mona Sahlin:

"I hate everything [that's] genuinely typically Swedish."
"Swedes are so boring, we should get inspiration from the East. Islam could liven Sweden up."

Oh yeah, that would be the "bomb"!

Germany is being overrun by turks and russians, and not only is noone doing anything against it on the whole, noone is doing anythings against the criminals either. There are all kind of laws against them being deported and such. I think by committing a serious crime you are forfeiting your right to live in a country. It's simply ridiculous. And no sign of any integration from the majority of them either.

[floffe]

So the republican you vote for today, may have been called a democrat a few years ago.

Or in another part of the country, for that matter. A southern Democrat might be more conservative than a Boston republican, at least on some issues.

[Trip]

That's why it's no wonder people are turning towards left. If I'd have to choose between the two evils you have to choose from, bible bigots vs. socialists, I'd too choose the lesser evil, socialists.

There aren't any more Bible bigots though... maybe 20% lean that way, but they're clueless. That's what I'm whining about

Bush talks of a "New World Order" and wants mass immigration, bigger government, more centralised government, free trade that sends US jobs overseas to build up the rest of the world, NAFTA and the NAFTA superhighway that links Mexico and the Us as well as Canada, wars against those such as the Muslims who reject globalism somewhat, and deficit spending that bankrupts the US forcing it to lose its dominant status (a global power will likely replace it.)

The choice is global socialist v. global socialist. One clone promises one set of lies while the other promises another, but neither differs significantly on what they actually do. It's like selling a product to target markets, and winning over different groups of venture capitalists. America limps along by inertia.

[Trip]

So the republican you vote for today, may have been called a democrat a few years ago.

Or in another part of the country, for that matter. A southern Democrat might be more conservative than a Boston republican, at least on some issues.

The older, real Democrats though are dying out and retiring... South Carolina had a few good ones, but they're gone.

[djkest]

Good point, but I think a good start for America, instead of disarming everyone, would be to simply increase the qualifications for getting guns. more proof of responsibility, intelligence, and social "skills" maybe.

Criminals are the problems, not the guns. Any government type intervention is bound to fail anyway, and the criminals will continue to find ways around them. The US constitution says currently that the 2nd amendment "...shall not be infringed". We do have laws on the books, that prevent guns from being sold to people who are mentally ill, or felons. I think that is a good start. But you think it should be taken further. If you are concerned about accidents, would you support firearms education in school? If the only gun they have even seen is the one Terminator has, how do you think they will treat one if they get their hands on it?

It would be a great start to fixing their problem, then a few years down the line restrict gun ownership even further like it is in the UK, no-one owns a gun unless they actually need it for their job. Hunters, and farmers........ who else needs guns.?


Andy

I guess you would like to say "why do you need that?". I've asked myself that question many times. Why does the idiot next to me need 4 kids? Why does that guy need a big truck? Why does that guy NEED a corvette? Why do all teenagers need cell phones? And then I remember, oh right, we make our own choices and we can do what we want, if it is legal. I guess you do not believe personal protection is a valid reason for owning one? Glad you aren't a politician here.

[klankymen]

Criminals are the problems, not the guns. Any government type intervention is bound to fail anyway, and the criminals will continue to find ways around them. The US constitution says currently that the 2nd amendment "...shall not be infringed". We do have laws on the books, that prevent guns from being sold to people who are mentally ill, or felons. I think that is a good start. But you think it should be taken further. If you are concerned about accidents, would you support firearms education in school? If the only gun they have even seen is the one Terminator has, how do you think they will treat one if they get their hands on it?

I would answer that with yes, and probably yes. I think the restrictions should be tightened, and I think that there should be some mandatory education for all, kind of like drivers's ed here in europe.

[djkest]

For comparisons, here are some other odds of dying from the National Safety Council's 2004 figures :

1 in 6,535 Motor-Vehicle Accidents
1 in 49,139 Pedestrian
1 in 88,772 Accidental drowning
1 in 90,944 Exposure to smoke, fire and flames
1 in 266,476 Exposure to forces of nature
1 in 452,476 Accidental firearm discharge

That last one is interesting. It looks like owning a gun in your good neighborhood is riskier than not owning one because you (or someone in your household) is more likely to die from accidental discharge of your own weapon than by the gun of a murderer.

This is funny. It makes it look like you are more likely to be struck by lightning than accidental firearm discharge. I do realize this also includes flooding, tornados, and hurricanes. So that puts at at about 620 accidental deaths from firearms accidents a year? I don't believe in "accidental firearm discharge" we like to call them negligent discharges, because you are doing something stupid when they happen.

Here's something else I find interesting. If you don't think it is relevant, please tell me why.

Fireworks discharge,
2 (accidental deaths per year)

146,828,421:1 odds of being killed by fireworks.

So why is it that you are 310 times more likely to die due to an accidental firearms discharge than fireworks, but there are 2 safety guides on that website about fireworks safety, and 0, yes zero, guides to safe use or storage of a firearm. I see this as a problem. We have this mentality: guns are bad and scary, keep the guns away. But people eventually come in contact w/ them and hurt themselves? 650 accidents a year is too many in my opinion.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

Criminals are the problems, not the guns.

The shooter in Illinois was not a criminal -- until he started shooting. If he didn't have the guns (3 handguns and a shotgun, which he got legally) then he could not have become a criminal.

There would be SIX other people still alive, and 15 others unharmed; let alone all the other people who will carry this pain with them the rest of their lives.

How can you defend the shooter's right to own those guns, over his victim's rights to remain alive and unharmed?

[Bluefront]

Neil....that man was a criminal in Illinois the very instant he carried a hidden gun outside his house, not to mention the numerous other laws he broke before he pulled the trigger the first time. Laws of all sorts won't stop murderers who are determined.

Over this weekend a drag-race incident killed at least five people at one time. By your logic we should now outlaw cars....

It's a mistake to blame the instrument of the crime, and let the person essentially go unpunished. Luckily for society, this murderer ended his own life......his final crime. Had he lived he would be in a warm cell somewhere, eating dinner and watching cable TV. Not much incentive to prevent a terrible criminal act.....

[qviri]

People's punishment should fit the crime, and people human rights should be thrown out of the window (applicable to the crime). Murderers have NO human rights, rapists have no physical and mental human rights, fraudsters and burgulars have no financial human rights (i.e. they get the dumbest government appointed laywers that can be found and are not allowed to employ their own)

Small detail: murderers, burglars, and muggers have to be convicted before they are actually considered murderers, burglars, and muggers, and only then can be denied financial support. Or were you suggesting abolishing presumption of innocence?

By denying proper lawyer support after conviction, are you suggesting the judicial system is flawless, and once convicted, a person should not expect a right to rehabilition if wronged?

Germany is being overrun by turks and russians, and not only is noone doing anything against it on the whole, noone is doing anythings against the criminals either. There are all kind of laws against them being deported and such. I think by committing a serious crime you are forfeiting your right to live in a country. It's simply ridiculous. And no sign of any integration from the majority of them either.

"All I wanna do is *bang bang bang bang*
And *kkkaaaa ching*
And take your money"

Hunters, and farmers........ who else needs guns.?

I guess you would like to say "why do you need that?". I've asked myself that question many times. Why does the idiot next to me need 4 kids? Why does that guy need a big truck? Why does that guy NEED a corvette? Why do all teenagers need cell phones? And then I remember, oh right, we make our own choices and we can do what we want, if it is legal. I guess you do not believe personal protection is a valid reason for owning one? Glad you aren't a politician here.

Children aren't designed to destroy. Big trucks aren't designed to destroy (that may be a side effect though). Corvettes aren't designed to destroy. Cell phones aren't designed to destroy.

I would like a bomb. That would be kind of fun. You know, for sport. Sadly, the society has decided that it is designed to destroy a little too much, and made it illegal for me to own one. More items can be added to this collection; law in theory follows societal values, and societal values change.

From the outsider's perspective, it's fairly amusing watching people base entire arguments on a single sentence written over 200 years ago, whose meaning has been time and again discussed in excrutiating length, and a consistent interpretation of which cannot be achieved by the U.S. courts of appeals. It's fine to include it as one of your arguments, but please don't rely on it solely. Circular arguments that essentially boil down to "we can't get rid of guns because of the Second Amendment, and we can't get rid of the Second Amendment because it protects us from guns" are not particularly effective, either.

Over this weekend a drag-race incident killed at least five people at one time. By your logic we should now outlaw cars....

Repeat after me: cars are not designed to destroy.

[andyb]

Quote:
It would be a great start to fixing their problem, then a few years down the line restrict gun ownership even further like it is in the UK, no-one owns a gun unless they actually need it for their job. Hunters, and farmers........ who else needs guns.?


Andy

I guess you would like to say "why do you need that?". I've asked myself that question many times. Why does the idiot next to me need 4 kids? Why does that guy need a big truck? Why does that guy NEED a corvette? Why do all teenagers need cell phones? And then I remember, oh right, we make our own choices and we can do what we want, if it is legal. I guess you do not believe personal protection is a valid reason for owning one?

One could argue that a 40mm RPG was needed to protect them from intruders, seems reasonable in your barbaric country.

Glad you aren't a politician here.

Who says I am not a politician.??? Anyway I wouldnt bother coming over to the USA to try and clean up your murder act, it would be like pissing into the wind.

andyb wrote:
People's punishment should fit the crime, and people human rights should be thrown out of the window (applicable to the crime). Murderers have NO human rights, rapists have no physical and mental human rights, fraudsters and burgulars have no financial human rights (i.e. they get the dumbest government appointed laywers that can be found and are not allowed to employ their own)


Small detail: murderers, burglars, and muggers have to be convicted before they are actually considered murderers, burglars, and muggers, and only then can be denied financial support. Or were you suggesting abolishing presumption of innocence?

By denying proper lawyer support after conviction, are you suggesting the judicial system is flawless, and once convicted, a person should not expect a right to rehabilition if wronged?

Maybe I should have said "open and shut cases". My point was essentially to deny people the freedoms that they have denied from others, and in the case of fraudsters and drug lords that have loads of money to spend on a team of Lawyers to get them off of the hook deny them the illegally aquired money to spend on said Lawyers.


Andy

[Bluefront]

qviri.....Guns are designed with many uses in mind, like hunting for food, like protection from dangerous animals, like protection from attack by your neighbor. Cars are designed to haul people and things around.

The fact some people use both objects for criminal activity, is the fault of the person, not the object itself. Cars kill more people than guns.....and they are not protected by a constitutional Amendment. Cars could be completely removed from this society, saving many lives.

Guns are here to stay in the hands of bad people....with no likely solution. We need to protect ourselves from crime, and in that our justice system fails, helped along by the bleeding-hearts who refuse to punish criminals to the degree necessary to stop the crimes.

[klankymen]

qviri.....Guns are designed with many uses in mind, like hunting for food (destroying animals), like protection from dangerous animals(destroying animals), like protection from attack by your neighbor (destroying neighbors). Cars are designed to haul people and things around.

You're just circumscribing it - the only purpose remains destruction.

[seraphyn]

Small detail: murderers, burglars, and muggers have to be convicted before they are actually considered murderers, burglars, and muggers, and only then can be denied financial support. Or were you suggesting abolishing presumption of innocence?

No problem really, the way things are going we are all considered guilty unless proven innocent. Basic civil rights are being stripped away a little bit at a time here. All in the name of increasing safety, guarding vs terrorism or in order to solve more cases.

As for the what guns are for.. Guns are for killing, it is their sole purpose. Every use of a gun involves huting or killing someone or something.

[walle]

You're just circumscribing it - the only purpose remains destruction.

A weapon is a tool and civilian or military application decides use and intent. Hunting is valid, protection is valid; every human being on this planet has the right to protect himself/herself against aggression, be that from the government , fellow human beings or wildlife.

[Trip]

I wouldn't go so far as to say a right... Americans only have such a right because we have a government and society in general (that is to say a power) willing to defend it due to the second Amendment. There are no rights outside law and religion, and no religion I know of guarantees a right to bear arms.

[walle]

I wouldn't go so far as to say a right

It was viewed from an American perspective Trip in terms of the right to bear arms; the other mentioned applies for all of us on this beautiful planet of ours.