At 4/24/07 05:05 PM, AzureFenrir wrote:
I haven't seen any statistics on this issue, and while it's not hard to imagine mass murders being committed more frequently with more efficient weapons, there's also individual murders to consider, many of which add up to exceed the damage caused by these mass murders. These individual murders are committed with a lot of things, and equally stopped with a lot of things.
It's also a lot easier to kill a single person than it is a group of people. With a knife, you can sneak up on the person, and by the time they notice you, they're trying to hold their throat together. Trying to walk up to a crowd and stab multiple people to death is a tad trickier.
A lot of individual criminals are deterred by GUNS. When confronting a little old lady, she's just not as scary with a knife as is the 6'5 280lbs guy with a knife. Nor is she as dangerous.
Criminals don't want confrontation. They choose what they think will be weak, easy victims.
Guns are also a reason why many crimes are aborted. As many as 2.5 million crimes a year (probably a tad bloated) are stopped by lawful gun owners every year.
I've also not seen any statistics on people with guns stopping mass shootings exceeding people with other things. In my opinion, when faced with desparation, almost anything can be used as a defensive weapon, even against opponents bearing AK47's. If a person is courageous enough to take out a gun when hard-pressed, wouldn't he also be courageous enough to throw a flower pot at the attacker's face?
Well, your opinion isn't supported by fact. How many incidents of mass shooting have been stopped by people with flower pots? Hockey sticks? Frying pans? Can't find any you say?
The people who take on shooters are generally not desperate. They are cool and collected, because they are prepared to defend themselves. And they have the means. Of course people aren't going to grab a flower pot and rush the killer coming down the hallway. They'd be dead before they got halfway to him.
And, of course, they are a valid argument against gun BAN. Gun control involves lots and lots of other things that has nothing to do with a ban. For example, requiring a drivers license-like permit to carry guns? I never denied that there are evidence against a strict outlawing of firearms, whether in part of in whole.
But what you don't say is how demanding a permit would help. Most street punks break the laws we have in place, so demandign they do ONE MORE THING that they will ignore won't really help.
Perhaps it was also because of Virginia's lax gun laws that Cho was able to get his hands on one so easily. Perhaps even if the student body was armed, they would be too afraid to shoot back, just like they were too afraid to hide behind a desk and collectively throw textbooks at him in an attempt to knock him out. Perhaps if the student body was armed, there would be even more chaos.
Perhaps space monkeys will decend on Cincinatti and kill us all with nickles.
That's stupid. I tell you what. I'm gonna come and start shooting at you, but I'll be nice, I'll let you throw a book first. Doesn't sound too attractive does it. At best, you're going to piss me off before I kill you. You're certainly not going to knock out a killer with a text book. Heck, in the time it takes to expose yourself, cock your arm and aim, you've been shot 6 times.
It wasn't Virginia's lax laws, because they made Cho wait two months to do his crime. He ordered clips and ammo online from Iowa. Cho was going to get his guns.
There are no examples of shootings going WORSE because the victims are armed. None. All there are is examples of the shooter being shot by an armed citizen.
As I said before, the Virginia Tech shooting has too many factors that could support both sides of the argument. Besides, gun control, once again, does not mean gun ban, NOR does it mean incremental gun ban, which is the same thing as a gun ban.
There was one factor in VA Tech: Cho was armed, his victims weren't. The results: 32 dead, 29 (maybe more) injured. You can speculate all you want, but if VA Tech was not a gun free zone, we wouldn't have the massive body count that we do.
Thank you for not reading my posts, and thanks for that ad-hominem attack.
Ad hominim means personal attack. I was attacking your argument. (And yes, I didn't read through multiple pages, but then again, they weren't terribly relevant.) When I mentioned that the multitude of examples support my claim, and by proxy cellardoors, you called it "card stacking" and said it meant nothing.
No ad hominim.
But if we're not allowed to look at the general trend of events, the thousands and thousands of actual events that happen in real life...we're just arguing theory.
I give you this one. I need to do more research on Cho himself before I can say anything about it.
He'd been planning this for quite sometime. The media likes to peddle the idea that he came up with this idea the night before, ran out and bought all his stuff and did the crime. But Virginia's "lax laws" made it to where he had to wait two months to get the guns he wanted. The "one gun a month" law didn't work here. The background check didn't work. The gun free zone didn't work. These are three laws that while not quite bans, are gun control. None worked.
Surely one should also be brave enough to realize that they can throw stuff at the shooter to distract them. Books work pretty well, and so do chairs, since all you need to do is inflict enough pain so that Cho drops his weapon. There's other what-if debates there, but there's nothing conclusive that would show that the massacre would be stopped if the students were allowed to bring guns. Every argument that we could make is nothing more than speculative.
That's not a debate tho. You're not going to make a shooter drop his weapon with a book. Dude kicks in the door and starts shooting, and you're gonna grab a copy of Harry Potter? Either you don't have much real world experience with guns, or you care more about theory than reality. Gun beats book every time. Read above on why this silly argument fails. I can shoot you from much farther away than you can throw a chair or book.
It's not speculation here bud. Cho knew he had defenseless victims (he gloats about it on his tape) and he took advantage of it. He was a coward. The very arming of VA Tech students might've been enough to dissuade him. If not, one of them would've shot him dead or injured him. We never see a mass shooting where all the victims are armed. It just doesn't happen. Ever.