Kid arrested for drawing

TwoShedsJackson

http://www.sptimes.com/News/051101/TampaBay/Student_removed_from_.shtml

Yes, a kid was arrested, handcuffed and basically suspended for the rest of the year for drawing guns in class.

I particularly like the quote from the principal:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"The children were in no danger at all. It involved no real weapons."
</font>

That is basically mad - I'd have been hung long ago if what I drew as an 11 year old kid was anything to go by

Canaboid

Speechless....

gandalf

Yep the good old Facist States of America !!!

Makes you wonder about all the huffing and puffing they do about freedom of speech when they do stuff like this.

Gandalf.

Megatron

wow !!! talk about ott !!!

It makes me sick persoanly. now jids pretending to paly guns and them getting expeled is very extreme but this ... wha'ts next a kid getting sued because he drew a bad picture of the teacher ( gave here goofy teeth ???)

ahh have the country ... lets all cut it from the earth and then put a big rocket booster under it and fire it into space !!!!

Of course i'd have to save Minne Driver !!! mmmmmmm

---

No !!!!! I will crush you with my Bare hands.
P.S. Avator fromerly know as Gamblor !!

Magwitch

Dammit...This persky kids should be lined up against a wall and SHOT with paper bullets!

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

RopeDrink

Thats just plain sick...

I used to spend a lot of time drawing pictures of death in general, along with corpses, zombies and some children of my imagination (Mainly horrifying monsters and creatures to be used in my upcoming novel...)

Maybe they would arrest me as a "Devil-Worshipper" or a Cultist...

Heck, if I threw in a nice sketch of a 12 guage Bennelli M3 Combat Shotgun, I'd possibly get life imprisonment...

Seriously, that is plain pathetic... Considering that Guns, violence, sex and strong obscenities are on Television every day, why dont they try arresting Television Companies, rather than scare the living poo-brick's out of a poor kid who "DREW" a gun... Jesus Mary and Saint Anthony... No Offence but the American's are truly a strange race...

SHADOW

that is ridiculous....

Evil Phil

They elect a war monger and then arrest kids for drawing guns. WTF?!

When I was in school I drew little animations of planes and spaceships getting blown up on the pages of my books.

Belisarius

I am speechless . Truly words escape me

---

Shrewgar!

frood4t2

I hate my country it is ****. Anyone wanna let me move in over there?

Anyway... In fifth grade we drew torture chambers and no one cared less. Today I could draw it and get sent to a mental ward. Wow my country is silly.

frood4t2

---

frood4t2
3stooges@mags.net

Karl Hungus

I am just sickened...

I used to draw guns all the time when I was younger...

Went through a fase of Action Movies, and I always used to draw them out.
Aliens being one in particular.
Or Terminator.

Used to draw all that stuff...

Rope saw my Mortal Kombat drawings.
And I never got expeled for them, I actualy showed them to my teachers, and they liked them, and that was that...

RopeDrink

Hah - I remember that day - We both brought our drawings into school, because they requested to see them... Angel brought his Mortal Kombat piccies, and I brought in my big red folder full of skull's, skeletons, monsters and gore infested pics... Funny thing was, it was the religion class that wanted to see it - see really loved my pictures

boddah

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The boy was handcuffed by campus police for his safety and not because the student was violent or out of control, said school district spokesman Ron Stone.
</font>

i fail to see the logic in this... he wasn't being violent... how can handcuffs protect you?
could someone please explain?

azezil

OMG!! handcuff's on an 11 yr old for drawin pictures!

thats takein it too far, hell if they ever seen the stuff i used to draw! tanks guns knives headless corpses etc... i woulda got the chair!

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

Hobbes

They were probably upset because he was able to sneak his gun past the metal detectors.

Catch_22

"We just need to get it through kids' heads that there are certain things you don't say and there are certain things you don't draw,"

Now what was that first amendment thing again ?

btw: anyone whats the syntax for the quotes others are using here ??

Megatron

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hobbes:
They were probably upset because he was able to sneak his gun past the metal detectors. </font>

LHAO !!!!!! he he .... that was brilliant !!

---

No !!!!! I will crush you with my Bare hands.
P.S. Avator fromerly know as Gamblor !!

smoke.me.a.kipper

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Canaboid:
Speechless....</font>

thats it.

---

- Ciaran

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"
-Nietzsche</font>

Paranoid Android

I made a gun out of clay in art class when i was really young, no one thought any thing of it. In fact the teacher was somewhat impressed that I had managed to make a trigger for it as well.

Hmm perhaps I was onto some thing, ceramic guns. They can make it past metal detectors.

I'll turn myself in.

Junior

From the article

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"All I can tell you is it was a threat . . . against students," he said. "Nobody in particular, but students in general."
</font>

emm how .. what he was going to batter them over the head with an A4 pad ??

Stephen

Utter insanity.
I've drawn far worse stuff than that on my schoolbooks over the years and never been in any trouble...

Even recently, someone in my art class (leaving cert) did a full A2 charicature of "Mister D1ckFace Ar$eHead" - You can imagine the content yourself. The teacher couldn't stop herself from laughing at it as she "confiscated" it

---

- Munch

[IAR]Nevermind

yeh but with all the shootings and stuff in schools in america i think there gettin mad strict but thats bull

Victor

I think the point was (and believe me they did not get it across very well, in one of the worst bit of sound-bite reporting I have ever seen) that the picture was part of a threat to others students (with a gun - not the picture).

Stupid journalists!

---

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

[This message has been edited by Victor (edited 17-05-2001).]

Magwitch

I think what has been missed is something which is going to become increasingly common.

That is the status and still growing popularity of psychology that has come with the decline of organised religion. It has almost entirely replaced religion in the minds of many Americans providing absolution form guilt, self confidence and a feeling of belonging (theropy groups). All this except its rules are "flexible" and apparently indiviadual.

However this "new religion" is in fact a thought police enforcing correct behaviour when applied to the greater public and in itself being both the method of crimianl thought detection and tool of legal conviction not to mention setting the rules in the first place.

The kid broke the rules and paid the price.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I think we're missing an important point here...and that is that what the kid did (innocently or not, we'll never know) is very much against the law. If I happened to pen a threatening note to someone, announcing my intention to murder them in cold blood, and drew a picture of a gun (however cartoony), I would be arrested for affray and battery (and rightly so).

Whether a child should be subjected to adult law is ultimately open to debate. The Bulgin murderers are a perfect example- the CPS thought they should be tried as adults and they were convicted as such- the ECHR then overturned the decision (that was the correct decision imo- the facts of the case do NOT warrant a custodial sentence, kid OR adult).

However, in a nation where the possession of firearms is a valid way of life in many states (not mine thank God)- we need to ask ourselves this question. View the same issue with hindsight. If the Columbine perpetrators would have had their favorite website material banned by the host-server, then it is likely they would never have secured the contacts to comit that dastardly act, nor spread the word about its success.

Bearing in mind the problems faced by Florida (and indeed most of the South save Texas) with regard to gun control, I fear what has been done is the only viable solution

Sending a clear and unambiguous statement to the child and the community he lives in by a formal arrest if not charges...will probably save lives in the long run. It's extreme certainly, under any branch of the penal code to apply strict penalties to children- but when children younger than this one have murdered classmates not 2 hours drive away from this school? I understand the authorities' position even if I don't condone it.

It's a mistake to think George W. is pro-guns just because he comes from Texas...his public policy so far indicates a willingness to tackle the situation head-on, even risk isolation from the powerful gun-lobbies. If successful, it might be the first(and possibly last) positive achievement of his as President.

Just to remind us all- none of us have SEEN the drawing in question- until a copy is released for public viewing- we can't make judgments from afar about another communities problems calling them barbaric and unjust (no matter how tempting it is to do so).

That's my 2 cents (/me ducks to avoid the flames surely coming his way)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Errare Humanum Est=

TwoShedsJackson

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
I think we're missing an important point here...and that is that what the kid did (innocently or not, we'll never know) is very much against the law. If I happened to pen a threatening note to someone, announcing my intention to murder them in cold blood, and drew a picture of a gun (however cartoony), I would be arrested for affray and battery (and rightly so).
</font>

I have to totally disagree with you there Bob. Is it actually against the law in the States to draw a picture of gun?

The kid did not write a threatening note, he was messing about as kids do, you know, putting his imagination on paper. The situation you describe in which you as an adult might be arrested does not seem to apply to this child.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If the Columbine perpetrators would have had their favorite website material banned by the host-server, then it is likely they would never have secured the contacts to comit that dastardly act, nor spread the word about its success.
</font>

How could this material have been banned in advance, clearly the Columbine perpetrators wouldn't want it banned, and it's unlikely that anyone else could have forseen what it may or may not have caused them to do.

Based on your previous posts on this board Bob, I must say I'm surprised you take the position you do on this subject.

Magwitch

Though kids are siad to mature earlier these days he was only 11. Arrest is too harsh a penalty. The kid will be scarred for the rest of his life no matter what happens from now on.

Further to that I would also amend that if America is to try juniors as adults in court, what you do as an 11 year old will haunt you for the rest of your life. That is a terrible thing.

Are we to see the creation of yet another under-class in society? Considering that laws today try to level the playing field for the more "dense" in our ranks it is the imaginitive and creative that will suffer. Was the kid for instance excercising an artist talent to, at his young age, articulate something of the gun culture all around him?

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

No Castor it is not illegal for anyone, kid or adult to draw a gun in the US (nor anywhere else as far as I am aware). However, threatening behavior- threats of assault, affray, battery and injury- those are serious issues Castor. You say he is simply messing about- well that's what the close friends of the Columbine perp's and the Serrentville murderer's friends said- "I didn't think he would do it, thought he was just messing around."

If you actually read my post carefully, I do not condone what was done- but given that

a) The school authorities know this kid...and we don't- the principal made the decision to transfer the pupil after a long talk with the school psycologist- that tells me something..., and

b) There is more than enough cause for concern given Tampa Bay's history of illegal gun-running, and other gun-control issues;

I feel in light of this (and the fact that none of us have seen the nature of what was drawn) perhaps we should reserve judgement, that's all. It's a bit premature to claim that the authorities had no cause to do what they did when we don't even know why they did it. Some kids mess around...others are serious- deadly serious.

This is the situation the state governor has to deal with long after we stop posting in this thread Castor. Let's try to see it from his point of view too- from his point of view, a modicum of law and order must be maintained. What would you have him do? Reading the preliminary medical reports published by the state coroner's office, I find that the child is socially and mentally unbalanced- furthermore he seems to have motive (bullying) and means (a .38 in his dad's study- he apparently even drew where it was). Now I haven't seen the drawing...but looking at it from a legal/political point of view? It's a crisis waiting to happen. The authorities acted in a paranoid fashion- no doubt about that...I'm not saying they were right- but can you blame them? It's not enough now that they have to keep an eye out for drug lords, Cuban refugees, street crime and irate tourists- now they have to start watching schools as well?

As far as scarring an 11 year-old kid goes Magwitch...I see where you're coming from- but to the authorities it's all about opportunity cost- they have to see it that way to do their job- better one emotionally scarred kid shocked out of violence, than an enraged child let loose on a school with a semi-automatic. Simplistic, but that's how police officers think- in terms of adult reason and possibility.

On the subject of trying juveniles as adults for adult offenses- the practise takes place all over Europe, mostly in Britain, Ireland and Germany. If premeditation can be demonstrated to the court, I have no problem with juveniles being tried as adults...unfortunately, the standard of proof is far lower than that in this type of case.

In any eventuality- my only point is that if people had been slightly more vigilant- Columbine might never have happened. Forget the web content for a minute- none of the perps' friends came forward with what is now regarded to be vital information. This is majorly ott- but it is understandable even if it can't be condoned. I don't support what they did, but I'm at least asking people to reconsider their extreme views- at least until we actually see in visual detail what it is he drew. Without seeing that, we can only draw guesses from the Forensic examiner and by looking at the school's psych profiles. Until those all become public domain, I think we should moderate the tone of this discussion...is that so much to ask?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=

Karl Hungus

I'd kinda disagree aswell there Bob...

No matter how you look at it, everyone here is speculating.
While you are basicaly speculating on a worst case scenario.

The information given on the site, is enough for me to get a rough idea of total over-reaction.
Which is quite understandable, and totaly probable with Columbine in mind, which is something the teachers had in mind too.
This hints to me over-reaction.

As for the picture, it just says he drew a gun.

This is what the Princable said: "It's nothing unusual and we address them all seriously because, of course, we don't know,"

This to me, still points out over-reaction.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Point taken Angel- there is still a lot we don't know though.

To get it on the record again...I fully agree that they overreacted massively. There's no way of knowing whether a child has the poise or composure to act on a threat he made in a school drawing- but to automatically assume that he will, no matter Columbine et. al that's a MASSIVE overreaction.

But from the point of view of the authorities- they're screwed whatever they do...If they had let it go- liberals all over the country would be screaming about tolerance of gun culture, and the government's failure to keep Florida's gun-happy populace under control. Do what they've done (the only other realistic policy choice) and they STILL get hammered by the liberals (this time bl33ting about the child's rights).

It's certainly not a topic we can directly discuss with any degree of conviction- not yet. When it goes to a pre-trial hearing ore even a full trial- then I'll have my knives sharpened and ready

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veritas Veritas Veritas=

Shiminay

It's an extreme over-reaction (I don't think anyone is arguing this case), but I'm inclined to agree with Bob here - these folks know this kid and will know if he does have any problems that may lead to dangerous behaviour.

I'm sure it's not a decision they came to lightly. Infact, I'd hate to be the goveror and try to decide the outcome on something like that.

---

All the best!
Dav
@B^)
We were all set for a game of Ice Hockey when Frank Williams says "Sorry lads, I've forgotten my skates!"
[honey i] violated [the kids]
Tribes 2 Goodness
The Dawn of the Beefy King approaches...

Clintons Cat

looks like another case of the school taking precautions against the <potential> victims family of a <potential> shooting suing their ass off when said artist deciedes to act out his illustrated fantasies.After Columbine and recent shootings their has been a media inquiry <read scaremongering> into why these kids behavior was not picked up and <modified> at an earlier stage.Thus school authorities seem to be taking a harder stance against any form of negative expression.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
On the subject of trying juveniles as adults for adult offenses- the practise takes place all over Europe, mostly in Britain, Ireland and Germany. If premeditation can be demonstrated to the court, I have no problem with juveniles being tried as adults...unfortunately, the standard of proof is far lower than that in this type of case.</font>

This is something I don't agree with at all. Why should a juvenile be tried as an adult? Before a certain age, people do not understand the cause-effect nature of actions (within the context of society) as someone else. As far as I know, the State assumes that someone below the age of 18 does not have this understanding. I *know* that when I was 12 I didn't understand that my actions would have any lasting effect on people. I was inconsiderate and selfish, in comparison to me today, at least.

If I had killed someone, I would not have understood that they had died... that they had gone completely. Only later in my development as an individual did I realise that. When I was 12, people didn't die. They just weren't there anymore. It's difficult to explain, but a lot of people weren't real people to me back then. They weren't as substantial as people I knew. They weren't REAL as far as I knew.

This is obviously a completely retarded mental outlook. As an adult I can see that... of COURSE if I do something it has consequences... but back then I lacked that intuitive understanding which is necessary as an adult, and it is that awareness which the courts should look out for. (?)

This is probably the same reason we're not allowed consent to sex until 16.

BTW, what did you mean about the standard of proof?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

To answer your question Justhalf- the reason there is justification for trying juveniles as adults is when the crimes they commit are "adult" crimes. The reason that the State regards juveniles as worthy of seperate trial is the assumption that juveniles are not aware of the consequences of their actions and are as such not as responsible for the crime. The original purpose behind this policy is that juveniles are mostly incapable of depraved crimes.

What I meant about standard of proof(and I know I phrased it poorly in my original post) is this:

1) I have no problem with juveniles being tried as adults and exposed to the harshest penalties of the law as long as premeditated action can be substantiated to the court at a pre-trial hearing. If it can be established that the crime was premeditated- then prosection should petition for trial- and if intent and motive can be shown at that- then the full spread of sentencing measures should be applied.

2) What I meant in the original post was that the standard of proof in pretrial hearings for adults is nowhere near as high as I state in 1). A new set of guidelines needs to be drawn up to ensure a modicum of justice- both for juvenile offenders and victims of their crimes.

As for your argument that juveniles have a different outlook on a person's worth- I disagree entirely. There are many adult criminals who never changed these destructive outlooks from adolescence- and not a small number of them would probably never have reoffended as adults if the juvenile penalties were stricter.

What's so special about the distinction between the ages of offenders anyway? We freely acknowledge in civil law that age is no guarantor of maturity- all that matters is the McNaughton rule. If the McNaughton rule for insanity is extended to include juveniles who cannot comprehend consequence-of-action, then we would have better justice for everyone. It would fall under the same jurisdiction as the insanity defence.

To reiterate though- if a juvenile can be shown to have expressed premeditation and comprehend the consequences of his/her actions- then they must pay their debt to society just as if they had passed their 18th birthday. It may sound cynical- but consider this- if rehabilitation can be achieved in a juvenile criminal's formative years(where changing attitudes is easier psycologically) how much pain would it save potential victims of future crime?

It has at least, to be considered.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=E Pluribus Unum=

SheroN

State of america....just take the guns away...and get rid of mr bush...problems solved.....let castro rule america....problems solved

Greenbean

Look no matter what way you look at this - you CANNOT defend this reaction to a kid drawing in school. Even telling me its the last straw in a pile of clues and other straws its not even vaguely reasonable. Step back for a second - this in incredible. I don't care if its against a law either, to draw objects which someone may perceive as threatening; arrest - never. Absolutely incredible.

This is one thing I've noticed in the admittedly few Americans I have come to know - theres an inbuilt mental block when it comes to questioning laws. Why should something be a law, its not like its designated by God, its not a-piori, its laws defined by humans. It used to be tied into Religion (and explaining religion is a whole other can of worms), which basically meant laws reflected the moral conciousness of the country. With religion gone, laws are now based on "psychology" (magwitch), they are based on media (ophra-ism), they are based on the interests of the country, they are based on the fallicy of greedy men. Its just shocked me is all - the whole pledge of allegiance to the flag stuff - its an incredibly powerful tool for controlling a country - its indoctrination.

Greenbean

Sheron, it takes people to shoot the guns, the guns don't shoot by themselves. Taking away the guns means those who want them won't get them as easy - but they can always get them. Instead its those conditions that create a gun culture that would need to be changed. Remember its not the accidental cases of death due to the high availability of guns that people are talking about - but instead the premediatated instances of murder.

K!LL!@N

I too found this story incredulous beyond belief.
Occy has mentioned a lot of points of law ( studying law allows you to do that ), but even still i think it was taken way too far.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when i was a kid in primary school, my friends and I spents hours drawing battleships and aircraft, with as many guns and missiles are we could fit on the paper.
And these drawings of ours often depicted our battleships blowing up certain countries. Would this be considered a terrorist threat against that country? Like maybe our army of prepubescent kids were going to invade another country. What if these plans were discovered, could the be considered warplans? I think not.
Now from what i understand, this kid drew a picture of a gun. Right? He didn't draw a picture of this gun aimed at one of his classmates or teachers, did he? So how can it be seen as a threat? I don't get it. I understand the sensitive nature of stuff like this, in the States at the moment, but it's still amazing that something like this could happen.
Did the kid's parents not object to their son being threated like this? He loses his friends and has to go to a new school, just because he drew a gun. If this was happening to my kid, i certainly wouldn't stand for it.

I wonder what'll be next?

Ry

The Website www.dumblaws.com springs to mind lol Priceless!!

---

Citer le Cordeau "JennyRooba"

Paladin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Bearing in mind the problems faced by Florida (and indeed most of the South save Texas) with regard to gun control, I fear what has been done is the only viable solution</font>

Actually no. Banning firearms is a viable solution (or step towards a solution) to the problems of "shootings".
The people who argue otherwise are fuking stupid. There may well be intelligent people arguing against me, but they are still fuking stupid (there is a logic to that).

As for trying juveniles as adults, I think it whould be taken case by case.
Technically 17 is not an adult, but do you rekon that a 17 year old is that much different from an 18 yr old who IS technically an adult?
As you work your way down, 16 yr olds , 15,14,13... they case becomes more and more ambiguous, which is why it should be judged on a case to case basis.

I know plenty of 15+ kids/a$sholes that should be in jail. No question. Some time in jail at that age and they might actually learn a lesson before they become adult scum/murderers/etc.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Paladin- I said gun control- that doesn't equate to a ban on firearms- not necessarily.

Killian m8- the main difference between your drawing missiles blowing up a country and an American kid drawing guns in school is that the American kid has the means(and perhaps the will) to carry out the act. I doubt you guys had access to missile boats in school (shame too ) If a picture showing Russia being nuked leaked from the State Department to the Russians- they would be more than a little offended and alarmed. I realize fully that it's a ludicrous example- but it serves.

Spiral's post on silly laws may seem facetious- but he has a point. Many of the laws currently on the books were written 200 or more years ago- society has changed a fair bit since then. I fully agree with Paladin though- juvenile trial status should be reviewed case-by-case by an independent legal panel of the state or province. As such, a major reworking of national legislation would become a moot point.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veritas Veritas Veritas=

p

I think it's time to post this:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/25/1438249.shtml

We don't know in this case if the person merely just drew a gun, or drew it as a threat to someone so we can't really judge.

However if you read some of the stories at the above link you'll see that after the columbine kill there was a blatent witchhunt that went on.

- Kevin

Greenbean

Its pretty much unsolvable the "what age should someone be trialled as an adult" game. There is a strongly supported theory that the ability to think like an adult and recognise wrong from right... and to generally stop having no sense of self-awareness, happens when the pre-frontal lobe in a child develops. This in usually ties in with puberty and happens at different ages for different people.

After that you've still got to look at whether that person is responsible for their actions. The younger a person is the more you can blame the environment; but its got to stop at some stage.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
As for your argument that juveniles have a different outlook on a person's worth- I disagree entirely. There are many adult criminals who never changed these destructive outlooks from adolescence- and not a small number of them would probably never have reoffended as adults if the juvenile penalties were stricter</font>

Ark. Perhaps I didn't phrase my post correctly either.

The state ASSUMES that a child is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions--and from your post it seems that it's assumed until proven otherwise--but in an adult's case it's the reverse. They are assumed to understand the consequences of their actions unless proven otherwise.

Paladin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Bob:
Paladin- I said gun control- that doesn't equate to a ban on firearms- not necessarily</font>

Ack. Whaaa?

Ok, lets clarify this. You said

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Bearing in mind the problems faced by Florida (and indeed most of the South save Texas) with regard to gun control, I fear what has been done (extreme caution i.e. arresting a kid for drawing) is the only viable solution</font>

I think thats what you meant? That arresting people making ANY sort of threatening action is the only viable solution, because of the availability of firearms?

Anyway, what I was saying is that banning ALL firearms is a viable solution to the problem of school killings. Its viable to the extent that it would solve that problem - no firearms = no mass gunings.

There would however be uproar amongst gun clubs, pro-gun lobbyists etc.
I am saying THESE people are stupid for wanting firearms so freely available.

In ireland there are almost no guns (not really anyway) and very few gun murders( relatively).
In America there are lots of guns and lots of gun murders. Take away the guns and you take away the means.
There is absolutely no use for the massive amounts of guns in the US that would justify their availibility.
Guns are for shooting PEOPLE for the most part. What percentage of guns are purely for "sport"? What percentage for "protection"?
If a gun is bought for some kind of personal "protection" its for shooting PEOPLE. (and by protection I am including the drug dealers that have guns for their so called "protection" and the muggers that have them for "protection" and there is a very definate reason for my use of inverted commas:P).

Take away all the guns and draw whatever pictures you like.

(Anyone else notice the pun in "drawing" a gun? Quick on the draw? Bah )

Yossarian

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Paladin:

In ireland there are almost no guns (not really anyway) and very few gun murders( relatively).</font>

There are approx 100,000 legaly held firearms in the irish state, and god knows how many illegaly held firearms. Significantly more than almost no guns.
And yet as you state gun violence is relativly low. This would imply that owning a firearm is not the cause of violence.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Good point Yossarian- there is in fact no causal link. Roughly 80% of South Africans own some sort of firearm- and gun crime per person is far lower there than in the US.

As for banning firearms- that is a morally straight and also a wonderfully naive way of looking at the problem. Without even getting into the legislative barriers (what with the 2nd Amendment, legal precedent, and gun lobbys owning part of Capitol Hill's lawn)...let us consider a few practical issues here.

First of- how in the name of Spud would one enforce such a ban? Just ask people to hand them over? Simply making them illegal won't do- a house-to-house police search is the only fool-proof way. That means distributing search warrants for access to every innocent member of the public's house- gunowner or not. A rather sweeping violation of basic rights in the name of a cause ultimately doomed to failure. Banning firearms will just mean that gun-owners get their fix from black-market weapons. And if you're going to splash out on a black-market piece- it'll be cheaper- and more powerful. Why splash out on that $800 over-priced nickel-plated Colt when you could get an AK-47 for roughly the same price? Because the Colt would be the legal choice.

A gun ban turns the whole issue on its head. I'm not saying it isn't morally laudable- but as an objective it's an idealistic crusade more than anything else.

While we're on the subject of naive crusades- why don't we just ban firearms...worldwide? That wouldn't just stop murders- but ALL wars! Nuclear weapons would be next...we'll get ALL nations to disarm!!! Then we'll (*/me drools at the mouth, eyes fanatically wide*) forge an international free trade pact! And stop world hunger...! And...! (/me slaps himself until he snaps out of it)

Seriously though- it's an interesting point that the notoriously failed League of Nations proposed a unified non-agression pact right before the War...all nations signed, and 9 out of 10 of those nations went to war. Enforcement of such a ban would be far more trouble than it's worth. And we might just see Kalashikov assault rifles creeping their way on to our shores if Congress decided to ban firearms.

The only good thing about a gun-ban is that it would send Charlton Heston into a permanent state of apoplexy if it passed

Other than that- morally sound, but ultimately, wholly infeasible to implement.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

Paladin

Well, actually Bob, since you love nit-picking arguments so much ...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Anyway, what I was saying is that banning ALL firearms is a viable solution to the problem of school killings. Its viable to the extent that it would solve that problem - no firearms = no mass gunings.</font>

That statement is perfectly correct. It is also apparant to anyone half intelligent that what is infered by the use of language is that in practical terms its implementation would not be easily viable

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Its viable to the extent...</font>

If its arguing about the viablility to implement and not its viablility as a "technical" solution, I plead no contest. I know it would be next to impossible for the US government to implement.
Now I just know you are aware that I am not so naive as to think its an easy thing to do, but you liked to make your point anyway.
Although in fairness, it was in response to my sort of nitpicking of your claim about the only "viable solution to etc.".


However, I dont think the actions that you are saying are viable are any more viable than what I said.
Both are incredibly hard to implement.
Arrest anyone who says the word "kill"? Jail any kid with a squirt gun? Incarcerate kids for drawing guns? Is that not infringing more upon people rights than telling them they arent allowed buy guns?


As for Irelands 100,000 guns....
How many are handguns?
How many are army rifles or are they not counted in that number?
How many are in cities in public ownership, because Ive got a strong suspician that most are on farms :-/
Basically what I was saying is that relatively speaking it is a hell of a lot easier to get a gun to go on a rampage in America than it is in Ireland.
Is that not true?

You state that 80% of south Africans own firearms.
Relative to say, Ireland since we have the figures for no. of guns here, does South Africa have a higher incidence of gun related killings?

Bob, you stated there is no casual link between widespread availability of guns and gun related killings -

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Good point Yossarian- there is in fact no causal link</font>

Yet you call me naive?

Bob, no guns = no gun crimes.
Few available guns = few gun crimes.
Lots of available guns = lots of gun crimes.

You telling me that is an incorrect trend? Obviously its not a direct proportion because of other social influences (descrepencies between stats of the US and SA for example), but with human nature being as it is, I think its a generally correct trend.

Paladin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">. And if you're going to splash out on a black-market piece- it'll be cheaper- and more powerful. Why splash out on that $800 over-priced nickel-plated Colt when you could get an AK-47 for roughly the same price? Because the Colt would be the legal choice.</font>

Just in reference to that....

What on earth are you talking about? This isnt a bit of hash we are talking about. People dont get physical pleasure out of owning a gun. The people like your average family man that owns a hand-gun for "protection" is hardly gonna buy an AK-47 just because its cheap.
A lot of current gun owners wouldnt buy illegal fire-arms.
Those that would do, would be a tiny minority, and would keep them well well hidden (which ironically would reduce chance of some psycho teenager finding it an goin on a rampage).

Taking European countries where most types of fire-arms are illegal, are you saying that AK-47's are in widespead public ownership? Or any illegal fire-arms for that matter. They arent really.

This however is a completely moot point since this wont be implemented, although the practicality of it is limited by American law, public opposition and money.

In physical practial terms America wouldnt find it impossible to disarm all their nuclear arsenal either for that matter :P
Im just sayin like.
Its a pity the world isnt simpler.

Also those naive crusades you talked about, are only made impractical by human nature. Perhaps one day society will actually advance to that stage Bob. I wouldnt hold my breath or anything, but given a few millenium we will either obliterate ourselves or we will learn, and learning has to start somewhere, idealistic and impractical as it is.

Yossarian

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Paladin:

Anyway, what I was saying is that banning ALL firearms is a viable solution to the problem of school killings. Its viable to the extent that it would solve that problem - no firearms = no mass gunings.
</font>

Banning all firearms will only remove legally held firearms. Which begs the question, "Why would you wanbt to disarm law abiding citizens?".
Closing all schools would also prevent school shootings, but its another impracticle solution.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
If its arguing about the viablility to implement and not its viablility as a "technical" solution, I plead no contest. I know it would be next to impossible for the US government to implement.
</font>

So you agree its an unworkable and impracticle solution.
What are the other possible solutions?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for Irelands 100,000 guns....
How many are handguns?
How many are army rifles or are they not counted in that number?
How many are in cities in public ownership, because Ive got a strong suspician that most are on farms :-/
Basically what I was saying is that relatively speaking it is a hell of a lot easier to get a gun to go on a rampage in America than it is in Ireland.
Is that not true?
</font>

There was no breakdown of that figure into weapon types. But i would assume a very small number were handguns, the majority being shotguns.
That figure would only include firearms legaly owned by the public, State firarms wuld be excluded. American gun law is complicated by the fact you have Federal and State gun laws.
Some states are have very strict gun laws (California), and some are less strict (Nevada). Most states require some sort of background check to be complete before being able to purchase
a firearm. However there are some states that have gun shows where weapons are traded without and checks being carried out. In amswer to you question, yes it is easier to obtain a firearm
in America.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Bob, you stated there is no casual link between widespread availability of guns and gun related killings -
Yet you call me naive?

Bob, no guns = no gun crimes.
Few available guns = few gun crimes.
Lots of available guns = lots of gun crimes.

</font>

You are assuming that all gun crimes are carried out with legally held firearms. I would disagree.
It is unlikly that a criminal would use a firearm which is registered in his/her own name.
It would seem that social influences play a bigger role in gun crimes than legaly availible firearms. I give the Irish example again.

[This message has been edited by Yossarian (edited 22-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Yossarian (edited 22-05-2001).]

Paladin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Banning all firearms will only remove legally held firearms. Which begs the question, "Why would you wanbt to disarm law abiding citizens?".</font>

If all firearms were illegal than any fire-arm seen is illegal. Otherwise its impossible to know simply from seeing a handgun whether its legal or not.
It obviously wouldnt remove all guns, and because of the reasons already stated it wont be done.

As for disarming law abiding citizens....
Thats cr4p. Gees like, what are you implying, that every law abiding person needs to arm themselves against non-law abiding citizens?
It only takes one pull of a trigger for one of those law abiding citizens to become non-law-abiding citizens.

Why would I want to disarm law-abiding citizens? Same reason I would want to dis-arm non-law-abiding citizens. Same reason I personally would like to disarm the world. Guns are dangerous and in all reality, in 99.9%+ cases, are not truly practical tools.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There was no breakdown of that figure into weapon types. But i would assume a very small number were handguns, the majority being shotguns.</font>

Its a lot harder to conceal a shotgun.
Its a lot less lethal in a drive-by-shooting due to its limited range/ammo.
It would not be carried around casually to be used by muggers.
Basically you get my point here. Even if people were inclined to do things like drive-by-shootings in Ireland they would find it extremely hard to do unless they were well associated with some well armed terrorist group, in which case they would have to get an illegal fire-arm which is more difficult in Ireland than it is for an American to get a legal fire-arm.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You are assuming that all gun crimes are carried out with legally held firearms. I would disagree.
</font>

I never assumed that. However, since you mentioned it ..

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It is unlikly that a criminal would use a firearm which is registered in his/her own name.</font>

This would imply it was probably registered under someones name somewhere along the way, meaning it started out as a legal fire-arm.
This isnt ALWAYS the case I know, but I would bet you that somewhere along the way, the majority of fire-arms used in killings in America were legal. That is, the majority were probably imported/built quite legally. They were probably sold legally. Where do they become illegal? Wherever someone gets a false licence. Whenever a gun is stolen etc. But I would bet they almost all start out quite legal.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It would seem that social influences play a bigger role in gun crimes than legaly availible firearms. I give the Irish example again.</font>

You seem to ignore that fact that social influences are why there ARE no guns in Ireland. As a society we dont WANT guns to be freely available.

For some insane reason millions of Americans do. Self defense seems to be seen as a legitimate reason, but in fact its a self-defeating circle. Legal guns for self defense can just as easily be used for crime. Allowing guns for self defense allows the availibility of guns for crime.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So you agree its an unworkable and impracticle solution.
What are the other possible solutions?</font>

In terms of America, hell yes its impractical. There are too many yobs/criminals/red-necks whatever who WANT guns in the country to make it practical. There are too many laws, there would be centuries of legal action before it even became law.
This is a pity, because a gun free America would be such a better place. A gun free world in fact. Then again who knows. Maybe one day America WILL start those centuries of legal action to make fire-arms illegal.

The other possible solutions? There are no short term solutions, just the very very very long term one of removing guns.
Step by step maybe.
Firstly tighter gun control.
Then maybe tighter calibre restrictions.
Higher taxes on guns to make them incredibly expensive, and very high jail penalties for people who turn to illegal black-market guns.
I dunno, I'm only thinking of these measures from the top of my head, but little by little the only solution is no guns.

A litle too idealistic for your tastes perhaps Bob, but it is long term idealism and not a short term naivity as a quick-fix which is impossible to carry out in America at the moment.