ANOTHER American College Shooting...

AircraftTechie

Oh great.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1305546,00.html

Breaking News

Gunman Opens Fire In US Classroom
Updated:22:25, Thursday February 14, 2008

At least 18 people have reportedly been shot after a gunman opened fire at Northern Illinois University.
It was unclear how serious the injuries were and whether any of the people had died at the college in DeKalb, about 65 miles west of downtown Chicago.

A local newspaper said the gunman was armed with a shotgun and a pistol.

It added that police radio traffic indicated that the man was "down".

Another local media report said police had the gunman in custody.

One student told a radio station that roughly 140 students were in a geology classroom when the man opened fire.

Other witnesses said bloodied victims were hit by buckshot.

A woman outside the classroom said students fled in terror.

More to follow...

Petey2006

So teaching is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous professions in the US so.

Toots

Horrible. Glad I don't live in the states.

Terry

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

Toots

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

Probably a sticky solely for scumbags, they seem to get people's goat everywhere, Luas, bus, outside the shop .....etc etc:rolleyes:

FunkZ

That's fcuking terrible.

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

After Hours should just be a sticky at the top of Boards!

Ruu_Old

I know someone who turned down a place at the university a few days ago. Crazy stuff. They were talking about a bill to allow students to carry concealed weapons around campus, already has passed in a few university campus as far as I know.

Healio

St. Valentines Day Massacre???

Dave!

Healio wrote: »

St. Valentines Day Massacre???

Do you work for the Sun?

Rb

Well at least they have him in custody and it didn't get out of it the easy way.

Now lets hope he lives long enough to be sentenced and hopefully imprisoned for the rest of his life, with constant suicide watch obviously as the little bastard shouldn't get such a chance.

EDIT: Just read he's dead, f*cker.
RE-EDIT: Gay, a load of conflicting stuff about it atm. One saying he's dead, the a few paragraphs down saying he'd been caught etc etc.

buckfast4me

rb_ie wrote: »

Well at least they have him in custody and it didn't get out of it the easy way.

Now lets hope he lives long enough to be sentenced and hopefully imprisoned for the rest of his life, with constant suicide watch obviously as the little bastard shouldn't get such a chance.

errr hes dead mate

Manic Moran

Ruu wrote: »

They were talking about a bill to allow students to carry concealed weapons around campus, already has passed in a few university campus as far as I know.

Illinois is one of the two States in the Union which still has a flat prohibition on concealed carry anywhere in the State. There actually is a workaround, but it's a bit inconvenient. The laws in other States vary greatly. Some, such as Utah, have a general "If the State allows you to carry, you can carry anywhere". Virginia had a "The schools can choose to make their own prohibitions if they want, otherwise it's legal". Others have a "Not valid in places of education" caveat on their permits. Checking local rules in advance is adviseable.

Latest reports are that the only killed person was the gunman. Not sure what happened him yet.

[Edit: I see this is incorrect. Now four plus himself]

NTM

Hanley

Hold up... So in certain states, it is perfectly legal to carry firearms onto the school's premises??

Xavi6

Hanley wrote: »

Hold up... So in certain states, it is perfectly legal to carry firearms onto the school's premises??

Good choice of words

Manic Moran

Hanley wrote: »

Hold up... So in certain states, it is perfectly legal to carry firearms onto the school's premises??

Sure. Just happens that these shootings never seem to happen in places where the students/teachers are armed. 12 states have no 'place of education' prohibitions at all, 38 do. (Though as is pointed out, some States are reviewing this policy)

See, for example, this CNN article on University of Utah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpSUBE3lMPM
It's about the size of UCD, and some 500 students are armed. No trouble yet.

Virginia Tech was a particularly weird case. Virginia law allowed colleges to decide whether or not its students may be armed. VT chose to prohibit it, but the prohibition has no effect on non-students. (And in the case of Cho, he ignored the prohibition anyway).

The common ground is to note that no school policy allows those who are otherwise prohibited from local law from carrying. If the State does not permit you to be armed off school grounds, you may not carry on. If the State does allow you to be armed off school grounds, you're probably no more dangerous on.

NTM

Senna

How do the NRA respond to these killing??
Surely they have to admit that more control is needed??

Black Swan

Petey2006 wrote: »

So teaching is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous professions in the US so.

This is tragic indeed, but Google "school shootings" and you will find out that several countries have this problem, although some blackout the news reporting (e.g., PRC).

Manic Moran

Just saw a posting on another board: "It's a good thing Illinois doesn't permit people to carry weapons. Someone might have gotten hurt"

Senna wrote: »

How do the NRA respond to these killing??
Surely they have to admit that more control is needed??

Gun control is using both hands.

The NRA's position (I am not a member, I should add) is that there are already over 20,000 firearms laws on the books, and suggests that perhaps enforcing a few of them instead of trying to draw up new ones might be a better course of action. They have no issue with reasonable legislation, such as that which prevents convicted felons or mentally deficient persons from owning firearms, or the current process for the issuance of permits for machineguns or destructive devices such as bazookas. They point to rising firearms crime rates in the UK and Australia as examples where draconian legislation has done nothing but to take firearms out of the hands of those who generally obey the law anyway. Other groups, to include myself, believe that sitting helplessly whilst waiting for the police to show up is not a course of action most likely to result in one's own survival.

If you have a few hours to kill, the most balanced set of arguments you can find right now is in the US Supreme Court.

Washington D.C. has a total handgun ban, and an effective ban on the use of firearms for defense. This is now under review in the US Supreme Court after the District Court threw out the ban.

This was the ruling in question.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

The deadline for filings was last week. The case is setting records, it has the largest amount of Congressmen signing briefs ever, it is the first time in Supreme Court history that a sitting Vice President has filed a brief in opposition to a sitting President, and is the first 'new ground' case on the Bill of Rights in decades.

You can read all the arguments, for and against, which have been filed in the court here. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

To read them, you want to read the Petitioner's Brief first (That's DC), then the Amici for the Petitioner, then the Respondent's Brief, then the Amici for the Respondent. (Otherwise a lot of the Respondent's arguments won't make much sense). Just focus on the Supreme Court Merits stage at the top.

The briefs are filed by almost every group you can think of. There are briefs by 36 States between the two sides. Over 300 Congresscritters have put their oars in. There are doctors groups, racial equality groups, criminologist, sociologists, statisticians, a gay and lesbian group, the NRA, the Brady Campaign, Linguistics professors, historians and city mayors, police and military. They argue the history of firearms ownership back to the English Magna Carta and the statistical effects of bans. They argue the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment, and the racist roots of American gun control. They argue emotionally and scientifically. They cry 'It's for the Children' and 'Armed Gays don't get Bashed'.

Basically, this is your one-stop-shop for most every argument for and against you can think of.

NTM

Ross_Mahon

Counter Strike will get blamed for this once again

Kiith

I give it a day before someone blames it one computer games, and antisocial music/movies/books. Will once again be used as a poster for Jack Thompson and co, while the real issues (how ****ing easy it is for any nutjob to get weapons) is overlooked.

Manic Moran

Just want to say, excellent post Manic Moran. I look forward to going through the links you provided later.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just saw a posting on another board: "It's a good thing Illinois doesn't permit people to carry weapons. Someone might have gotten hurt"



Gun control is using both hands.

The NRA's position (I am not a member, I should add) is that there are already over 20,000 firearms laws on the books, and suggests that perhaps enforcing a few of them instead of trying to draw up new ones might be a better course of action. They have no issue with reasonable legislation, such as that which prevents convicted felons or mentally deficient persons from owning firearms, or the current process for the issuance of permits for machineguns or destructive devices such as bazookas. They point to rising firearms crime rates in the UK and Australia as examples where draconian legislation has done nothing but to take firearms out of the hands of those who generally obey the law anyway. Other groups, to include myself, believe that sitting helplessly whilst waiting for the police to show up is not a course of action most likely to result in one's own survival.

If you have a few hours to kill, the most balanced set of arguments you can find right now is in the US Supreme Court.

Washington D.C. has a total handgun ban, and an effective ban on the use of firearms for defense. This is now under review in the US Supreme Court after the District Court threw out the ban.

This was the ruling in question.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

The deadline for filings was last week. The case is setting records, it has the largest amount of Congressmen signing briefs ever, it is the first time in Supreme Court history that a sitting Vice President has filed a brief in opposition to a sitting President, and is the first 'new ground' case on the Bill of Rights in decades.

You can read all the arguments, for and against, which have been filed in the court here. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

To read them, you want to read the Petitioner's Brief first (That's DC), then the Amici for the Petitioner, then the Respondent's Brief, then the Amici for the Respondent. (Otherwise a lot of the Respondent's arguments won't make much sense). Just focus on the Supreme Court Merits stage at the top.

The briefs are filed by almost every group you can think of. There are briefs by 36 States between the two sides. Over 300 Congresscritters have put their oars in. There are doctors groups, racial equality groups, criminologist, sociologists, statisticians, a gay and lesbian group, the NRA, the Brady Campaign, Linguistics professors, historians and city mayors, police and military. They argue the history of firearms ownership back to the English Magna Carta and the statistical effects of bans. They argue the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment, and the racist roots of American gun control. They argue emotionally and scientifically. They cry 'It's for the Children' and 'Armed Gays don't get Bashed'.

Basically, this is your one-stop-shop for most every argument for and against you can think of.

NTM

kevmy

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

I mean having a law which states you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon outside an educational institution but not inside isn't going to work. I personally don't agree with everyone being allowed to carry weapons either because IMO the more easily guns are available the more readily they get into the wrong hands.

I mean who needs a massive machine gun or a bazooka? Surely no one, you can't hunt with it or do anything sane with one. The only reason they're made are to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

You say other countries have school shootings and they do. But I would argue that the US has the most and that more school shootings take place in countries with more liberal gun laws.

Also a lot of the people who do go on these gun rampages are, up until that point, completely normal people on the outside and undetectable by any background checks. Also most are young kids, usually decently educated and from fairly well off backgrounds. If they can't get guns legally then they would find it a lot more difficult to obtain weapons. These people usually aren't gangbangers who deal drugs and shoot people on a regular basis over business dealings.

Stercus Accidit

kevmy wrote: »

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

Bam how the hell is that going to work?

There isnt any gps in guns, only licensed ones have a licence, illegal ones which would be used in a crime, aren't likely to have an address on record.

The proliferation of illegal guns and the gangstaz in this country would indicate that bang and the dirt is gone, sorry, bam isnt going to work.

Guns exist and criminals will get them, a dedicated loser will get one too.

I'm all for gun control through proper licencing, but the outright banning rarely works.

Cunny-Funt

People can say what they like but I find it incredibly retarded that there's actually people walking around in the US with fecking guns on them constantly like its the ****ing wild west.

And Americas supposed to be a modern society :rolleyes:

If I was in a University in the US and found out half the students were packing I'd be outa there in a flash. Its just utter utter insanity.

Dragan

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

It is pretty sad when they all have roughly the same number of threads started about them.

*loves living in Ireland*

whiskeyman

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

Sometime in the future....

/AIB installs first ATM onboard luas trams.

//Dark clothed gunman shoots Roma stealing scumbags money from ATM on Luas....

/// popular irish web forum crashes

RuailleBuaille

FFS how many people have to die before the fcuking Americans start to twig that there is a problem with having guns so readily available? Guarantee you if it was someone who walked into Congress (I know it's not likely) and shot 16 or 17 people there'd be laws enacted in minutes. And I mean laws that work, not the 20,000 laws they have to cover their asses. Or just do as Chris rock suggested and charge 5,000 dollars a bullet...

faceman

ItchyInside wrote: »

FFS how many people have to die before the fcuking Americans start to twig that there is a problem with having guns so readily available? Guarantee you if it was someone who walked into Congress (I know it's not likely) and shot 16 or 17 people there'd be laws enacted in minutes. And I mean laws that work, not the 20,000 laws they have to cover their asses. Or just do as Chris rock suggested and charge 5,000 dollars a bullet...

its no different in the US than it is here.

How many people have to die or suffer as the result of a poor health system in ireland before the irish twig there is a problem with the HSE?

kevmy

Motosam wrote: »

Bam how the hell is that going to work?

There isnt any gps in guns, only licensed ones have a licence, illegal ones which would be used in a crime, aren't likely to have an address on record.

The proliferation of illegal guns and the gangstaz in this country would indicate that bang and the dirt is gone, sorry, bam isnt going to work.

Guns exist and criminals will get them, a dedicated loser will get one too.

I'm all for gun control through proper licencing, but the outright banning rarely works.

I see the point you're making but what I was trying to saw (badly and unclearly) is that under an outright ban anyone who is found with a gun is arrested. I'm not saying everyone with a gun will be caught unfortunately.

As for outright bans not working well maybe not but IMO they work better than the poorly licensed, poorly enforced gun laws that are almost always enacted in the US. Of course could be the point made that in an ideal world all countries would ban guns making it a lot more difficult for anyone to get there hands on one. Most gangster guns here are imported from places where they are legal.

As for dedicated losers always getting there hands on one I'm not sure but we should definitely make it as difficult as possible for them to get there hands on them.

faceman wrote: »

its no different in the US than it is here.

How many people have to die or suffer as the result of a poor health system in ireland before the irish twig there is a problem with the HSE?

Both are wrong but at least the Irish population in general know the HSE is fcuked the American population is still relatively supportive of the gun laws as they stand.

Dr_Teeth

kevmy wrote: »

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

Bazookas and Machineguns are already banned, they're not an issue. Handguns require a licence. The fact that licences are available to people who pass the background checks doesn't make a difference to the police.. if they stopped you and you had a handgun without a licence, you'd be arrested.

kevmy wrote: »

I mean having a law which states you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon outside an educational institution but not inside isn't going to work.

What do you mean? A criminal will carry wherever he wants and not bother with the licence. A law-abiding person would only carry where it's allowed or risk arrest, imprisonment and loss of licence & firearm. Makes sense to me..

kevmy wrote: »

I personally don't agree with everyone being allowed to carry weapons either because IMO the more easily guns are available the more readily they get into the wrong hands.

Whether or not they are carried is irrelevant. If weapons exist, criminals will get their hands on them somehow.

kevmy wrote: »

I mean who needs a massive machine gun or a bazooka? Surely no one, you can't hunt with it or do anything sane with one. The only reason they're made are to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

Those things aren't legal in the states.

kevmy wrote: »

You say other countries have school shootings and they do. But I would argue that the US has the most and that more school shootings take place in countries with more liberal gun laws.

That's a bit simplistic. I think you have to take into account the cultural problems they have over there.. places like Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Canada etc. have loads of guns but low levels of gun crime because they have (imo) healthier/better societies.

kevmy wrote: »

Also a lot of the people who do go on these gun rampages are, up until that point, completely normal people on the outside and undetectable by any background checks. Also most are young kids, usually decently educated and from fairly well off backgrounds. If they can't get guns legally then they would find it a lot more difficult to obtain weapons. These people usually aren't gangbangers who deal drugs and shoot people on a regular basis over business dealings.

Well the idea here is that you're saying that law-abiding people should be banned from having them because of the 0.000001 (or whatever) percentage of them that use them to shoot people in schools, and because since they are law-abiding they will comply. Whereas the criminals will just ignore the ban and keep shooting each other, and normal people too. I have a lot of problems with this kind of thinking..

1) Collective punishment - taking away the rights/property of 60+ million Americans just because some kids go nuts.. that's unjust.

2) Making law-abiding people more vulnerable to those who ignore the law and keep their guns.

3) The amount of guns in circulation in the US is something like 200 million! No government would be able to collect even a small percentage of them.

4) The demand for guns would not go away, after a ban they would be available to buy from criminals with no background checks or records. No government can stop criminals selling drugs - and they have to be shipped thousands of miles over oceans - what makes you think they could stop criminals selling guns?

The only way to reduce the harm criminals (and nutters) do using guns, in a society that is already full of them, is to allow the law-abiding people carry guns to defend themselves. In parallel with this would be efforts to build a most just/healthy society.

No gun ban is possible given the history of the US and the demand there is for them. Any administration foolish enough to try a "War on Guns" would fair even worse than the "War on Drugs".

Manic Moran

kevmy wrote: »

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

Cue big press conference. "We, Congress, declare all firearms to be illegal...(OK, now what?)"

It's utterly unenforceable. Not only is not every weapon going to be turned in, the experience of other countries or even certain States in the US is ample evidence of this, but there is no way of checking. Even if you had the manpower, which you don't, to go house-to-house to check every single residence in the US, and to search every single person, it's utterly illegal. USians are kindof fond of their 4th Ammendment rights against police harassment and unlawful search and seizure.

I see the point you're making but what I was trying to saw (badly and unclearly) is that under an outright ban anyone who is found with a gun is arrested. I'm not saying everyone with a gun will be caught unfortunately.

In which case, you're suggesting a half-assed policy. What's the point?

I mean having a law which states you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon outside an educational institution but not inside isn't going to work.

I agree. The fact that the majority (if not every) of mass shootings in the US that I can think of in the last decade or so has occurred in places which are 'gun free zones' is ample proof of this. It defies all logic. Some States are looking to change this, MS has a bill in its legislature right now for example.

I mean who needs a massive machine gun or a bazooka? Surely no one, you can't hunt with it or do anything sane with one. The only reason they're made are to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

If you believe in the concept of protecting against the tyranny of government, they could be quite useful. Several of the court briefs make mention of this, and give examples where disarmament has pre-saged oppression.

People can say what they like but I find it incredibly retarded that there's actually people walking around in the US with fecking guns on them constantly like its the ****ing wild west.

Ok, there's the emotional argument. Now find me any statistic which says that the issuance of carry laws has had any measureable negative effect. (Feel free to browse the various pro-ban briefs I linked to earlier). Indeed, the criminal conviction rates of persons who are licensed to carry is far less than that of police officers. They have, however, had a positive effect on an individual basis for people who have exercised their ability to defend themselves.

Bazookas and Machineguns are already banned, they're not an issue. Handguns require a licence. The fact that licences are available to people who pass the background checks doesn't make a difference to the police.. if they stopped you and you had a handgun without a licence, you'd be arrested.

Technically not true. Machineguns and bazookas are covered under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and there is a vetting and permitting process one goes through after which one can be owned. I am unaware of a single incident of a crime involved a legally-held machinegun or destructive device (eg bazooka, hand grenade) in the last, oh, thirty years or so. (I can't think of any before then either but I'm willing to concede that there may be one or two). Handguns rarely require a license to own. The laws regarding carrying vary greatly by State and municipality. For example, in Virginia you must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but openly carrying one on your hip is legal without one.

What do you mean? A criminal will carry wherever he wants and not bother with the licence. A law-abiding person would only carry where it's allowed or risk arrest, imprisonment and loss of licence & firearm. Makes sense to me..

On the off-chance that you're not being sarcastic, I fail to see the benefit here. This is exactly the situation which resulted in the Luby restaurant shooting: One of the patrons, a Ms Hupp, to comply with the 'no guns' law, left her firearm in the car. A Mr Hennard did not comply with this law. As a result Ms Hupp was unable to prevent Mr Hennard from shooting her parents (and 21 other people). Ms Hupp subsequently drove a carry law through the Texas legislature.

Those things aren't legal in the states.

See above. The rules, again, vary State by State. California is generally a no-machinegun-State. Across the border in Nevada, they are legal, subject to the 1934 NFA requirements.

NTM

kevmy

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

Whether or not they are carried is irrelevant. If weapons exist, criminals will get their hands on them somehow.

As I said above thats probably true but IMO if you make more illegal especially more of the high power ones then there is less chance the criminals will get there hands on one.

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

That's a bit simplistic. I think you have to take into account the cultural problems they have over there.. places like Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Canada etc. have loads of guns but low levels of gun crime because they have (imo) healthier/better societies.

I understand that it's simplistic and idealistic but as I said in an ideal world. If the culture of a country encourages murder then your first option is change the culture. If the culture won't change then sometimes you have to legislate to change for the good of the country or the world. We have seen this already in environmental legislation.

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

Well the idea here is that you're saying that law-abiding people should be banned from having them because of the 0.000001 (or whatever) percentage of them that use them to shoot people in schools, and because since they are law-abiding they will comply. Whereas the criminals will just ignore the ban and keep shooting each other, and normal people too. I have a lot of problems with this kind of thinking..

1) Collective punishment - taking away the rights/property of 60+ million Americans just because some kids go nuts.. that's unjust.

2) Making law-abiding people more vulnerable to those who ignore the law and keep their guns.

3) The amount of guns in circulation in the US is something like 200 million! No government would be able to collect even a small percentage of them.

4) The demand for guns would not go away, after a ban they would be available to buy from criminals with no background checks or records. No government can stop criminals selling drugs - and they have to be shipped thousands of miles over oceans - what makes you think they could stop criminals selling guns?

The only way to reduce the harm criminals (and nutters) do using guns, in a society that is already full of them, is to allow the law-abiding people carry guns to defend themselves. In parallel with this would be efforts to build a most just/healthy society.

No gun ban is possible given the history of the US and the demand there is for them. Any administration foolish enough to try a "War on Guns" would fair even worse than the "War on Drugs".

As for hurting the the many to penalise the few, you have to weigh up the pros and cons. If you are taking away some rights to put away criminals and prevent widescale murder. Is it a good thing overall?

Also the US has ran roughshod over laws and rights since 9/11 and most IMO in a backhanded way and of rights much more important than the right to bear arms (privacy, free speech etc.)

Manic Moran wrote: »

Cue big press conference. "We, Congress, declare all firearms to be illegal...(OK, now what?)"

It's utterly unenforceable. Not only is not every weapon going to be turned in, the experience of other countries or even certain States in the US is ample evidence of this, but there is no way of checking. Even if you had the manpower, which you don't, to go house-to-house to check every single residence in the US, and to search every single person, it's utterly illegal. USians are kindof fond of their 4th Ammendment rights against police harassment and unlawful search and seizure.NTM

Obviously it's not easy and obviously it couldn't brought in in one go but in a gradual fashion starting with the most dangerous weapons. First step should be the handing over of gun laws to federal government instead of state legislations.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you believe in the concept of protecting against the tyranny of government, they could be quite useful. Several of the court briefs make mention of this, and give examples where disarmament has pre-saged oppression.
NTM

Thats a fair if slightly obscure argument. If you think your country is going to launch a coup against you your probably living in the wrong country.

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the off-chance that you're not being sarcastic, I fail to see the benefit here. This is exactly the situation which resulted in the Luby restaurant shooting: One of the patrons, a Ms Hupp, to comply with the 'no guns' law, left her firearm in the car. A Mr Hennard did not comply with this law. As a result Ms Hupp was unable to prevent Mr Hennard from shooting her parents (and 21 other people). Ms Hupp subsequently drove a carry law through the Texas legislature.
NTM

In the end of the day this argument comes down to 2 things: fear and trust. Do you live in fear, waiting for something to diabolical to happen to you to justify carrying a gun?
Do you trust your toddler/kid/teenager to not find the gun and if they do use it properly?
Do you trust your police force to keep you safe or do you fear your neighbours and countrymen enough to carry guns?

Manic Moran

As I said above thats probably true but IMO if you make more illegal especially more of the high power ones

Well, here's the first problem. What high-powered firearm is it currently legal for me to go and buy in the US (Bearing in mind I do not have an NFA permit to buy machineguns) which you think should be banned, and why? So far any attempts to come up with a definition in the US have been misguided, based purely on perception and not fact, and have had as near to zero effect on criminal activity as makes no difference.

If you are taking away some rights to put away criminals and prevent widescale murder. Is it a good thing overall?

Go here. http://www.nbc5.com/news/15018666/detail.html

Click on the audio link to the recording of the 911 call released earlier this year. This is the right you are suggesting taking away. What do you think she did wrong? Did she call the police? Yes. Did she hide herself away and describe to the police as the intruder broke down the doors to get to her? Yes. Did those two acts make a difference to the outcome? No. Three rounds from a 9mm made the difference.

Can you explain to me how leaving her to scream on the telephone whilst the police are trying to get there is a good thing overall?

There is a lot more to it than simply calculating how many unlawfu or tragic uses of firearms there have been.

If you think your country is going to launch a coup against you your probably living in the wrong country

It could well be that this was the thinking behind other nations' populations at the time as well. Nothing wrong with keeping a backup plan. Witness the Battle of Athens, TN (1946), where a corrupt sheriff wouldn't stand down, and the Federal agencies refused to get involved.

Do you live in fear, waiting for something to diabolical to happen to you to justify carrying a gun?
Do you trust your toddler/kid/teenager to not find the gun and if they do use it properly?
Do you trust your police force to keep you safe or do you fear your neighbours and countrymen enough to carry guns?

No, no/no/yes, and no.

There's nothing wrong with insurance. The police do the best they can, but they are not always going to be there when you need them. If the police were a perfect solution, there would be no crime. Well, we know how close to reality that is. Look at the Korean shopowners defending their property in the 1991 Los Angeles riots, when the police thought it was too dangerous to step in. Similarly after Katrina, neighbourhood groups came together to protect their neighbourhoods from looting when there simply weren't enough police to go around. The police have no responsibility to me, the individual. Ultimately, the only person responsible for my safety is me. Are you willing to bet your life on the fact that the police will always protect you?

NTM

Overheal

Gun laws in the States are stupid for one - I've gone into a range half a dozen times now and havent even been ID'd. I imagine purchasing a gun is similarly easy.

I don't really have the energy to argue this one.

How many shootings will happen before they piece them all together and find a real cause for it - not just the Counterstrike Scapegoat?

One more reason I sleep better colleging in Ireland.

Cunny-Funt

I’m sorry but its just incredibly pathetic that in 2008 in a supposedly modern society people feel the need walk around with guns on them.
Having guns in the house is one thing (that I still think is pretty messed up) but people walking around their daily lives armed is pure madness.
It’s like something from the dark ages. Why don’t we all go around with katanas strapped to our backs, you know, for next time some scummer mouths off on the luis.

Manic Moran

for next time some scummer mouths off on the luis.

I'll bet you a lot fewer people will mouth off at you, though!

I imagine purchasing a gun is similarly easy.

I've been asked for ID any time I've purchased a firearm. Maybe I just don't look honest, though.

I’m sorry but its just incredibly pathetic that in 2008 in a supposedly modern society people feel the need walk around with guns on them.

Thank you for the moral pontification. Now, would you care to address the matter rationally with the aid of facts or statistics? Again, I refer you to the plethora of information available in the briefs by the pro-DC parties linked to above to allow you to support your statements. The US has a problem with violence and a lack of general respect for the laws of society. Firearms aren't it.

If I was in a University in the US and found out half the students were packing I'd be outa there in a flash.

What if you didn't know? Are you suddenly in greater danger because you now know the horrid truth?

NTM

utick

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

People can say what they like but I find it incredibly retarded that there's actually people walking around in the US with fecking guns on them constantly like its the ****ing wild west.

And Americas supposed to be a modern society :rolleyes:

If I was in a University in the US and found out half the students were packing I'd be outa there in a flash. Its just utter utter insanity.

so do u think switzerland is a retarded non modern country too? they have a much higher gun ownership rate than america but has one of the lowest murder rates in the world

Neamhshuntasach

utick wrote: »

so do u think switzerland is a retarded non modern country too? they have a much higher gun ownership rate than america but has one of the lowest murder rates in the world

That's because Switzerland's army is militia based and all males are required to attend mandatory shooting practice once a year and also go through militia training, kind of like conscription. so everyone who does this is entitled to own a gun. A lot of the general public may own guns but they don't walk around with them. Unless they are members of the militia or work in a job where their security may be threatened. The guns are owned for their country's protection, not their own. So maybe that has an effect on why they don't go shooting each other.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

^^^
That's a link to all recent school shootings in the world. It looks like around 80% is in the US. Who cares about other countries. It obvious that American's can't live in a society with such liberal gun laws without seeing a mass shooting every 2nd or 3rd month

Manic Moran

Look up the http://www.knabenschiessen.ch/
Five and a half thousand teenagers (13-17) at a shooting festival, shooting the Army's current service assault rifle. The use of firearms in Swiss society is not solely related to those who have been through military training. (At least, if the Schützenkönig in the top right corner has been through the military, the Swiss have different issues!)

The guns are owned for their country's protection, not their own

One of the respondent Amici briefs is by a bunch of military types, and they focus purely on the 'defense of the country' argument. They even reference Switzerland.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacretiredmilitary.pdf

The important factor is that the Swiss have the firearms available to them. That they (usually) choose not to use them in mass shootings is a societal factor, not one related to the firearms themselves.

There's also the 'rifle behind every blade of grass' argument, which is really a misquotation from

"Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. "Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. " 'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' "

NTM

astraboy

I've lived in the states, and while their attitude to firearms might seem strange to us, Irelands firearms laws are far behind the states, our licensing system is way out of date and needs an overhaul. I've been to ranges in the states, talked to gun owners, and I believe if a person shows a genuine reason to own a gun and they are of sound mind, they should be allowed. Common sense needs to apply basically. I'm not for everyone getting guns over the counter whenever they like, but if a person is in a gun club and has completed safety courses and goes to the handgun range once a week he has a right to own a handgun. The personal protection issue also applies. Most people have no need to walk around day to day in a large city with a handgun, but people may feel the need to carry protection in more rural areas of the US to protect against animals etc. The most dangerous part of a firearm is the person holding it remember. People in cities might feel the need to carry a concealed weapon against muggings for instance, I met one person in Boston that did and it seemed to work!

I lived in Massachusetts and the gun laws there are far stricter then many states, yet permits to carry can easily be applied for. What this means is that is only law abiding citizens that license their guns, and people that own a licensed firearm are some of the most law abiding people in the US, as they do not wish to jeperdoise their gun ownership.

Banning guns outright is stupid. and unworkable. Who is left with guns then? Criminals. In Ireland it is very very difficult to license a handgun, yet scummers have a fine supply of handguns and UZI's, shipped in with drugs shipments. These guns were never probably never legally owned.

A final point, in Ireland we cannot even get things like mace to protect ourselves. Granted these could be abused by criminals too but allowing everyone to carry a can of mace might put some of the scummers in their place.

iguana

This shooting has been heavily reported on, but there have been a number of similar shootings in the US in the last week.

http://itn.co.uk/news/0602c5c37c3f882d3263931fd7b1cee3.html

ITN wrote:

On February 8, a nursing student shot dead two women and killed herself in front of horrified classmates at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge.

In Memphis, Tennessee, a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and critically wounding a fellow student on Monday during a high school gym class, and the 15-year-old victim of a shooting at an Oxnard, California, junior high school has been declared brain dead.

Also, on February 7, a man opened fire on a city council meeting in the St Louis suburb of Kirkwood, killing five people before he was shot dead by police.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sure. Just happens that these shootings never seem to happen in places where the students/teachers are armed. 12 states have no 'place of education' prohibitions at all, 38 do. (Though as is pointed out, some States are reviewing this policy).

An unsupported generalisation? "never seem to happen," with "seem" being anecdotal and not supported by rigourous research?

These campus tragedies are troubling, but I have yet to find someone with "The Answer" to the problem, without rigourous research and practice conducted (and then there will still be problems, but hopefully fewer).

Allowing university campus populations to arm, and playing "wide west" on campuses, will not improve student, teacher, staff, or visitor safety.

Only qualified, professionally trained campus law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry guns on university campuses, or members of the police in which the university resides. All we need now are generally unqualifed and untrained students, teachers, support staff, and members of the surrounding community carrying guns on campus, and whipping them out on the slightest provocation, some "shooting first and asking questions later," or blasting away in the general direction of a suspect and catching a lot of us students inbetween them, or in the buildings behind them.

We have about 30,000 students enrolled at USC, and I cannot fathom being safer with each being allowed to carry a gun on campus. Up to 30,000 guns! Get real! What about all the increases in shooting accidents with more guns about and unqualified people carrying them? "Hey man, that's a cool piece, can I see it?" BOOM!

I train in two MAs (TKD and sword), and it takes years to become proficient, and no silly week or two self-defense gun seminar for teachers, staff, or students, will make campus populations safer, but quite the contrary, so this is not a realistic alternative.

Manic Moran

An unsupported generalisation? "never seem to happen," with "seem" being anecdotal and not supported by rigourous research?

I know better than to make unequivocal statements of the sort on the Internet, as there's always one which is missed, but no, I cannot think of any mass shootings in areas which encourage firearms ownership. This may partially be because of the deterrent factor, but partially also because people with firearms stop the incident before it gets to the level of massacre.

I'm thinking, for example, of Appalachian School of Law (2002) where the shooter had killed three and was stopped by two students who ran to get firearms from their cars; Pearl High School Missisippi (1997) who killed two, wounded seven before being stopped by the vice principle who had a sidearm in his car, the Tyler Courthouse Shooting (2005) where a man shot two in the courthouse, and was engaged in a battle with police before being shot by a passer-by

The Colorado Springs and Arvado church shootings two months ago are a particular case in point. The gunman shot two and wounded two in the Arvado church, and drove off. He then went to the Co Springs church and shot and killed two in the car park, before going inside. He was then himself shot and by a woman who had a concealed weapon with her in church.

Because of the low(ish) death tolls, these incidents do not tend to make multinational news. For example, http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109 gives absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened had the gentleman in question not been stopped. All we know is that the guy was firing his pistol in the street, and was stopped by two armed citizens before he killed anyone.

Allowing university campus populations to arm, and playing "wide west" on campuses, will not improve student, teacher, staff, or visitor safety

An unsupported allegation. I have just given incidents above where it has helped and, as mentioned, in the 18 States where such carrying activity is legal, it certainly doesn't seem to have caused any harm. Find me incidents of permit holders acting irresponsibly or dangerously. You won't find many.

If you go back a bit, you have the Charles Whitman shootings at University of Texas which are a counter-argument to my position. Firearms were authorised on campus (And indeed, were not prohibitied anywhere, really), and he killed 14 from his clock tower position. On the other hand, he could well have killed more, for after a while, he started receiving return fire from other students who had retrieved their hunting rifles, keeping him pinned down until the police finally climbed up and shot him.

All we need now are generally unqualifed and untrained students, teachers, support staff, and members of the surrounding community carrying guns on campus, and whipping them out on the slightest provocation, some "shooting first and asking questions later," or blasting away in the general direction of a suspect and catching a lot of us students inbetween them, or in the buildings behind them.

A commonly stated fear. Every time a State legislature decides to allow concealed weapons carry, there's predictions of blood on the streets, people shooting each other over traffic accidents, whipping out their pieces because someone looked a them funny. And guess what? It doesn't happen!

We have about 30,000 students enrolled at USC, and I cannot fathom being safer with each being allowed to carry a gun on campus. Up to 30,000 guns!

I strongly doubt that 30,000 students at USC are eligible to carry firearms. Of those who are eligible, I strongly doubt the majority actually would. Again, look at Univ Utah: Over 20,000 students, and an estimated 500 firearms. And these people are the exact same people who, if you were to run into them in the street at the local town, probably are armed.

Oh, incidently, I just checked the fine print at the back of the California Concealed Permit form, which lists the places I can't be armed. Guess what? USC isn't one of them. Feel happy now? Anyone in your university who is 21 might be armed, unless there's a USC policy I don't know about. (and I just checked the USC policies web page). And even then, I'm starting to run into people who have decided that they'll follow the law, even if it means breaking the policy. They may get expelled, but they'll be alive. In the meantime, the viable alternative? I see NIU staff saying "We did what we could, we put our emergency practises into effect!" Yes, set off loudspeakers saying "Run and hide! There's a man with a gun on campus!" This is a piece of information which the people in that lecture hall probably did not need to be told, and probably didn't do them a hell of a lot of good.

What about all the increases in shooting accidents with more guns about and unqualified people carrying them? "Hey man, that's a cool piece, can I see it?" BOOM!

What about them? Please, show me the scores of... heck.. any.. CCW permit holders who have been killed in such a manner. With 48 States permitting CCW, it shouldn't be too hard, no? Probably about as many as have cut themselves with swords.

I train in two MAs (TKD and sword), and it takes years to become proficient, and no silly week or two self-defense seminar for teachers, staff, or students, will make campus populations safer, but quite the contrary, so this is not a realistic alternative.

That's the joy of firearms. Unlike swords or combatives which I acknowledge is quite a skill, and I wouldn't have a hope at, in order to be adequately skilled with firearms does not actually take a hell of a lot of training. Further, however, those who choose to jump through the CCW hoops tend to be people who do spend a lot of time on the range and more often than not will outshoot police officers for whom a sidearm is simply a tool, not an interest. Finally, one of those killed in Illinois has been identified as a 32-year-old Army veteran who had left the army to go to college. You don't think that sort of student might know one end of a pistol from the other?

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote:

A commonly stated fear. Every time a State legislature decides to allow concealed weapons carry, there's predictions of blood on the streets, people shooting each other over traffic accidents, whipping out their pieces because someone looked a them funny. And guess what? It doesn't happen!

Perhaps you should spend more time in Los Angeles, dear.

What you're talking about on a relative scale is a buildup of weapons... whats the point? Strikes too many chords with Mutually Assured Destruction: everyone wants them just because someone else has them and eventually the stage is reached were owning a firearm is unnecessary. It will get to the stage were 1 in 5 people owns a firearm such as a handgun. What happens when the deranged psychopaths start bringing in P-90 Sub Machine Guns and M-4 Carbines? And oh yes, the Pipe-bombs. That will happen for a while before someone gets up and says 'hey I should be able to carry around an assault rifle while I'm in the grocery store or learning Exobiology too!'

The whole concept of owning firearms has gotten completely shot to ****.

edit: and oh yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bP_RQIkrOM

Dave!

Manic -- do you think that there would be any need for passers-by to save the day with their concealed guns, if the guns weren't so freely available at the time? I'm just guessing, but I suspect that most of the university shootings were done with guns that were either legally owed by the assailant, or else legally owned by someone else (and taken/stolen by the assailant).

Is that not the case? I'm not familiar with most of the stories you mentioned

qwertplaywert

School shooting? 4chan will have a field day.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, incidently, I just checked the fine print at the back of the California Concealed Permit form, which lists the places I can't be armed. Guess what? USC isn't one of them. Feel happy now? Anyone in your university who is 21 might be armed, unless there's a USC policy I don't know about. (and I just checked the USC policies web page).

You claimed to have "checked the USC policies" regarding firearms on campus? What about Policy "11.00 Behavior Violating University Standards and Appropriate Sanctions," specifically "11.47 Unauthorized use or possession of firearms or replicas, ammunition, explosives, knives, flammable substances or other weapons in the university or at university-sponsored events?" It's easily found online under public safety, including in the e-version of the SCampus Student Guidebook 2007/2008.

As a followup, I called the USC Department of Public Safety (DPS) and asked them what they would do if they found a student with a gun on campus, even one with a permit, and they said if the person was not a recognized member of law enforcement, they would be charged with a violation of Policy 11.47 and subject to appropriate sanctions. If they did not have a permit, they would be arrested (USC-DPS by agreement with LAPD have all Peace Officer Powers), and later turned over to LAPD. When I asked what they thought about arming professors and students, they asked "Why?" When I referred to this board.ies thread about campus shootings, they laughed and commented "Arming students that sometimes drink too much would be a nightmare waiting to happen!" They further offered that, in addition to armed DPS officers trained in rapid response teams, they have 125 unarmed Trojan Student Officers (nicknamed "yellow jackets" because of the yellow jacket they wear), that patrol campus 24/7. So you might want to dig a bit deeper before voicing erroneous conclusions, or making inappropriate comments like "Feel happy now?"

Manic Moran wrote:

That's the joy of firearms. Unlike swords or combatives which I acknowledge is quite a skill, and I wouldn't have a hope at, in order to be adequately skilled with firearms does not actually take a hell of a lot of training.

As an MA/self-defense instructor with a decade of training, I find myself very concerned about people carrying deadly weapons without "a hell of a lot of training" on my campus, or anywhere for that matter.

Manic Moran

When I saw 'unauthorised', I read that as to mean without a permit from the State. USC, after all, is subject to State law.

However, you will note I pointed out in the earlier post the distinction between State law and local policy. The Trolley Square Mall shooter was stopped by an individual who carried his sidearm onto the property in violation of the mall policy, but in accordance with State law. Doubtless TSM will prohibit him from ever shopping there again. How will he possibly live with himself?

Pay close attention to what the lads you spoke to said and didn't say. Call DPS again and ask them as to what section of the student policy code or the California Penal Code would be violated if a non-student with a carry permit brought a sidearm onto campus. Let's say Joe Smith, a 21-year-old from San Diego, decides to visit his sister. Would he be breaking any law or policy? The list of prohibitions on posession in the CPC includes government buildings, courthouses, and public schools. It says nothing about universities. Heck, it's an open campus. What if someone just wanted to check out the university? With or without a permit. Does USC have barbed wire perimeters and metal detectors at every entrance? Their flippant comment about students drinking too much is equally unwarranted: How many drunken shooting rampages have you heard about by CCW holders? The average 21-year-old nationwide probably doesn't drink much more or less than a USC student. (I focus on 21-year-olds because one may not apply for a CCW below that age)

they have 125 unarmed Trojan Student Officers (nicknamed "yellow jackets" because of the yellow jacket they wear), that patrol campus 24/7

Sounds like high-visibilty targets to me. If you can care to explain to me how a bright yellow jacket would have overcome Cho's Glock, I'll be curious to hear it. They would have dazzled him into dropping his pistol, perhaps? NIU claim to have gotten officers on the scene within 30 seconds. That's a pretty damned fast response time, and I tip my hat to them in acknowledging it. Still, it doesn't seem to have done a lot of good, does it?

As an MA/self-defense instructor with a decade of training, I find myself very concerned about people carrying deadly weapons without "a hell of a lot of training" on my campus

As a rifle instructor and military officer with no small amount of experience in the world of firearms including a decade in uniform, I submit your concerns are misplaced and better yet, are not supported by the statistics. This is a nation of 300 million people in 48 states where CCWs are legal. By your parade of horribles, it souldn't be too hard to find a whole bunch of cases where a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon has acted irresponsibly. When you do find a few, start crunching the ratios. You've probably got more chance of getting run over by a car.

Perhaps you should spend more time in Los Angeles, dear.

And how many of those individuals were permit-holders? The figures show that CCW holders are incredibly law abiding people. You've got more chance of finding a police officer convicted of wrongdoing than a CCW holder. (I believe the ratio is 5:1 but I need to check). Between 1987 when Florida started issueing CCW permits to 1994, over a quarter million permits were issued. Total crimes conducted by CCW holders? 18. And only one was violent.

Manic -- do you think that there would be any need for passers-by to save the day with their concealed guns, if the guns weren't so freely available at the time? I'm just guessing, but I suspect that most of the university shootings were done with guns that were either legally owed by the assailant, or else legally owned by someone else (and taken/stolen by the assailant).

This is, indeed, often the case. But just like every other tool ever invented, they can be mis-used.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Pay close attention to what the lads you spoke to said and didn't say. Call DPS again and ask them as to what section of the student policy code or the California Penal Code would be violated if a non-student with a carry permit brought a sidearm onto campus. Let's say Joe Smith, a 21-year-old from San Diego, decides to visit his sister. Would he be breaking any law or policy? The list of prohibitions on posession in the CPC includes government buildings, courthouses, and public schools. It says nothing about universities.

You may wish to check the validity and reliability of your information? I give specific citations for mine.

Once again you are in error when you say "nothing about universities" as applies to Calif. Penal Code. I guess you have never heard of the California Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 as amended by the passage of AB 2609, and codified into California Penal Code 626.9(h)? "Any person who brings or possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of... a public or private university or college... unless it is with the written permission of the university or college president... shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years."

At the federal law level, I guess you have not heard of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, Public Law 103-382, 20 USC8921, Section 14601, which requires all schools in the United States that receive federal funds to prohibit firearms on campuses (which was reiterated and affirmed by the No Child Left Behind Act passed under the Bush administration)? So California was acting in compliance with federal law when they passed their California Gun Free School Zone Act a year after the federal law was passed?

The USC policy was in compliance with both California and Federal laws (cited above)?

Further, just like USC (a private university), all the Universities of California, and all the California State Universities are "open" campuses and are covered by the "Zone" (should you wish to read the California Penal Code or Act cited above). These laws apply to everyone, students, faculty, staff, and visitors to campuses (only campus and other law enforcement officers are exempt).

Manic Moran

I read the packet I received from the Santa Clara Sheriff's Office with my CCW application form. It's on my desk within arm's reach, was easier than going online. If there were a prohibition on universities not mentioned in the packet, it would be a pretty blatant omission. Given the response as stated by DPS, if it were flat illegal, why would they have differentiated between 'with permit' and 'without permit' in the handling of a student?

Perhaps the answer lies in the same legislation you quote, did you check out CPC 626.9. (l)? Compare your

(only campus and other law enforcement officers are exempt).

with the text of the legislation.

This section does not apply to <snip police, military, security guards...>

a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4

12050 is the issuance of CCW permits to Joe Public.

You may ask yourself then, 'Why would they bother with such legislation, if carrying a firearm without a permit is unlawful anyway?" The difference lies with sentencing: Carrying a firearm without a permit is a public nuisance with a (typically) $200 fine and loss of the weapon in California for a first offense (12028(a)) as long as it's your pistol, you're not a gang member, and a few other criteria. (I think nunchuku and throwing stars are felonies. Don't ask me, I didn't write the law). Doing so in contravention of CPC 629 is a prison sentence.

The act referring to school zones refers to.. oddly enough, schools, not third-level education. The Gun Free Schools Act gives "School" the same definition as found in 18 USC 921 (a), namely.

The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

I may be guilty of adding to the confusion as earlier in this thread I was using 'school' in the vernacular, not the legal definition.

NTM

wyk

The issue with America is the combination of it's vastness, it's immigrant and non-homogenous population(with it's varying traditions and culture), and the ready availability of firearms since it's inception. Add in the fact it is a highly capitalist and greed-driven civilization, with it's children being groomed to be selfish from a young age, and learning to have to fight for everything, and fend for themselves as much as possible, and contention is seeded. With such a large immigrant population, there is no single thread that binds Americans(regardless of how nationalist they may seem). No one group identity truly exists other than being capitalists and 'freedom-loving'. Even the laws and Constitution are constantly being fought over by extremist on all sides. An American can be a lot of different things. A lack of cohesion culturally, and a great lack of any responsibility to one another socially unlike you often see in Europe, also leads to the 'every man for themselves' identity. The sheer size alone means you won't have the social cohesion you see in Europe; one of the largest countries in Europe, France, is smaller than Texas is. And ask Manic Moran - Texans are VERY different from Californians. Add in plenty of paranoia, drug gangs, ghetto gangs, lack of any background checks in many states for private gun sales, and the fact there are millions of firearms in America, and the Petrol Stations on every corner, and theres is a vast pool of violence and guns for America to draw from.

No single law, or group of laws would really have any affect on gun violence in the states. You would have to have full confiscation to even start putting a dent in it. But, such a thing is not likely any time soon, and would likely actually escalate gun violence since most citizens would refuse to surrender their guns and NO criminals would give theirs up, nor will it address the serious social issues America has that most european countries do not yet have(though France and England are starting to show similar issues with their poor and gang-involved immigrant populations).

Texas allows anyone with a gun to sell it to any other private individual without any need to check with the local authorities. In fact, I can legally just give anyone a gun whom I see fit while I am in Texas, even if you are not a US citizen. You can legally carry a gun in your car without any sort of permit required in Texas, and hidden on your person in public with an easily acquired gun permit. Far easier than getting your full driver's license in Ireland; it requires one weekend, the equivalent of €100, and the pass ratio is something like 98%. I managed 300 out of a possible 300 on both my renewals, and I am no genius. California requires one go through a registered dealer that holds a Federal Firearms License, does a background check on the buyer or recipient, forces the recipiant to wait a week or so before they can pick up the gun, assuming they have passed the FBI/ATF NICS check, and then register the gun to that person. Very very few can acquire a permit to carry a gun on their person in public, and it is not gauranteed to the population in California after having passed a course like it is in Texas. A refurbished police trade-in Glock 17 9mm handgun sells for about the equivalanet of €250, and I can buy one in Texas and walk out within minutes from any licensed or unlicensed gun dealer.

Who do you think have the worse gun crime? It's California, of course. There is a wider economic disparity and a far far larger gang/ghetto and immigrant population(even considering Texas' huge Mexican population). Texans traditions and culture, even amongst it's immigrants, are mostly homogenous. I had never met a Mexican immigrant in California that called themselvs a Californian, whereas most of the Mexican immigrants I know and have met in Texas considered themselves Texans, with many of the ones not claiming Texas citizenship stating they were Tejanos(a minor difference without going into too much detail, but a difference nonetheless). So the cultural and social cohesion is missing there in most states.

In the states you can shoot someone(s) and flee to Canada, another state, or Mexico relatively easily. The vastness makes it easier to be anonymous and easier to hide or run a gang operation unimpeded. If an Irishman started going crazy with a screwdriver, he basically has to flee to Spain or Poland, as there's few palces to hide in Ireland. And no Irish is gonna really enjoy themselves exiled in Poland. And they occasionally get popped while in Espanola.

My stance? While in Texas, I carry one of my guns on me(http://www.pbase.com/wyk/guns). The chance of being threatened with lethal force is rather high compared to here. I've been in 1 gun fight, and been shot at on 4 occasions. I was doing repos in Texas, so that's to be assumed. In Ireland, I carry my Nikon D2H digital camera. http://www.pbase.com/wyk/images_of_killaloe


I feel a similar safety in both places so armed.

Y'all take care, now,

WYK