[chator]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

He's different because he's a different category. He's not a terrorist, he's a mass murderer. They are not the same thing. He's more like the columbine shooters, or Virginia Tech.

Well, his goals were not political or religious. Maybe he was out for fame. I don't exactly get your distinction, aren't terrorists mass murderers also? And didn't he hold that group of theater goers in terror? Doesn't that make him a terrorist?

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Even the Giffords thing was just a nutjob. That guy turned out to be a schizophrenic, it wasn't political.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Terrorism is the systemic use of violence to further a goal or ideology.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

This guy is a rampage killer.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

However, even if you could outlaw guns (and we in the US can't even try to pass a fair tax code without congressmen on both sides holding the measure hostage), there would be no way to get rid of the ones we already have.

The proper saying is:
"The day guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by martok2112

The proper saying is:
"The day guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

And I believe it. They will never stop finding a way to get them in.

However I think I'm just as safe facing a mugger without a gun as with one. Chances are nine-and-a-half out of ten my own gun would be used against me. Not to mention used out of mere spite for my having even pointed it at him.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

Even the Giffords thing was just a nutjob. That guy turned out to be a schizophrenic, it wasn't political.

I think it was a bit more complex. Of course he didn't commit political violence in the classical sense like Breivik or the 9/11 perpetrators, i.e. you have a clear political position and just kill the enemy, but he targeted the MP out of misogyny and a confused conspiracy theory filled political viewpoint.
One could say that personal madness found its outlet in political madness.

People, even when they have psychological issues, need after all a rationalization to kill, they gotta bullsh*t themselves somehow and politics provides very easy rationalizations. It's like when we imagine for a few second to strangle our boss, at the same time you come up with all kinds of pseudo-reasons.
In this case the trick might have been easing your responsibility and distancing yourself from your own actions via playing a role.

[NCC-73515]

Originally Posted by chator

There is something different about this shooting though, that is, the killer's profile, comic-book movie geek/graduate student. Most terrorists are involved in politics or religion, and come from a background of poverty, and not having higher education. So they are frustrated, don't have much to lose, and have been radicalized by politics or religion. This guy was different!

Grad students can be frustrated as well if they don't find a job and are overqualified for pretty much anything outside science (common problem here in Germany).

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

Chances are nine-and-a-half out of ten my own gun would be used against me. Not to mention used out of mere spite for my having even pointed it at him.

That's why I tell people that if they want to carry a gun or any kind of weapon (lethal or not) for defense, they should get formal training on how to use it. Even in law enforcement there are situations where you don't want to draw your gun because you're more likely to get shot with it. So they teach weapons retention techniques. There are classes available out there for the general public as well as law enforcement and military. Even something like pepper spray is something that people should get some training on. They aren't difficult skills to learn and you don't have to be super athletic, but they are perishable skills.

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

Grad students can be frustrated as well if they don't find a job and are overqualified for pretty much anything outside science (common problem here in Germany).

Also a problem here in the US. I think it's also fair to say that during times of economic turmoil, crime rates tend to go up. I can be a lot worse when people like that turn to crime because the crimes get more sophisticated.

Originally Posted by horatio

Singapore is perhaps the best example, a country with virtually no crime (also little corruption / white collar crime) but also few civil liberties.

Similar to the rule of Vlad Tepes, though I suppose that Vlad was much more severe and heavy handed than Singapore is. None the less crime was nonexistent if the accounts of that time period are to be taken as fact.


************************************************** *********


Overall, I suspect that in the US, an attempt to remove guns from the general public would likely result in an initial spike in gun violence simply because you do have those die hards that you literally would have to take their gun from their cold dead hands. How long that will last is anyone's guess. In the long run, I can see it making massacres like this even more rare than they already are. But overall violent crime in the US, I'm not sure what that will do. These kind of massacres aren't really your typical cases of murder. The main thing being that most criminals are trying to evade the cops. Chances are when a person goes into a public place and starts killing a bunch of people indiscriminately either plans on getting caught or doesn't plan on coming out alive. The only reason he/she would use a gun is because it's the easiest way to get the higher body count in a short amount of time other than a bomb. Most of the time when a person commits some kind of murder, they're looking to get away with it and are not looking for body count. This means they want the easy kill which is usually out of sight and out of earshot and the target has its guard down. So it's not that hard with that kind of mind set to go from using a gun to something else. If you take a look at what prison inmates can make into a weapon, you'll never look at an everyday object like a newspaper as innocuous ever again.

[Enterprise Captain]

I'm surprised no one has used Canada's firearms laws as example of a more balanced system, middle ground. I guess it's because the attitude around firearms is much different here and people don't associate Canada with guns. We have them but no one needs an automatic assault rifle for self defense it's ridiculous and why they are prohibited here.