[mikeh]

 blackshoe, on 2010-December-17, 07:57, said:

Guns exist. So long as they exist, some people will have them (legally or not). So long as some people have them, it is folly to deny others that right.

I think this answer epitomizes the cultural differences between the US and most of the rest of the democratic world. In many societies, the (non-universal) consensus would be that as long as some people will have handguns or assault weapons, society should focus on trying to eradicate or limit such ownership (apart from say police officers, security guards etc)in order to save lives. In the US, it seems to me that the idea that people owe society any duty takes a distant back seat to 'rights'. And it is in the interests of those who control the media and the governments to foster that attitude, because it preserves the notion that its ok for the wealthy to become incredibly rich while giving back almost nothing to society. Once you start believing that everyone in a society has a duty to society that is as anywhere near as important as their individual 'rights', matters like universal health care, a proper educational system for everyone, a regressive tax system and gun control become natural rather than alien concepts.

BTW, the notion that the proper response to someone pulling a gun is to pull one's own is rejected by the majority of police officers...their advice is to either run away if possible or to do as told.

Another factor ignored by the gun lobby is that in real life, as opposed to movies and television, the vast majority of even trained gun owners become terrible shots when faced with confrontation. I'm sure most here have heard stories of police shootings where dozens of rounds were fired at close range and few shots hit. I've interviewed and examined in court 'use of force' experts and they all agree on this reality. So the typical result of 'everyone' pulling their guns will be a lot of stray rounds and a lot of bystander casualties.

But, hey why let reality interfere with the myth of the wild west: macho fantasy is so much more rewarding than reality.

[kenberg]

Quote

BTW, the notion that the proper response to someone pulling a gun is to pull one's own is rejected by the majority of police officers...their advice is to either run away if possible or to do as told.

No doubt this is sensible advice. But then I have a long list of really stupid things that I have done.

Some time ago a friend was telling about his daughter. She was maybe twenty or so, working in a jewelry store and a guy came in with a gun. He told me that she did everything wrong. Instead of handing over the cash and jewels she kicked him in the balls and took away his gun. He was quite proud of his daughter's error. A similar thing happened when I was young and had a friend who worked in a gas station. My daughter stopped her car once and came to the aid of someone being assaulted. When I was still in elementary school we rented out the top floor of our house to a divorced woman with kids. Her drunken ex came over to settle things with his former wife. My mother pointed my father's shotgun at the door and explained that he would not be doing that.

Yes, we should all be cautions. As a teenager I once found myself, through actions that are too stupid to explain, under a large wooden structure floating on a lake with no way to get air. After a couple of bounces against wood I picked the direction I thought was right and swam until I was out of breath and then came up, either to wood or to air. That was far stupider and for far less purpose than any of the above.


I'm not a gun nut. I don't own one. I favor far more control.

With regard to this demented soul with the gun, I don't usually watch such things and I don't much draw any conclusions from them. A question came to my mind though. Was this camera being operated by a cameraman and if so, was he phoning for help or trying to keep the camera focused on the gunman so that he would have a really nice YouTube video?

[mikeh]

 kenberg, on 2010-December-17, 14:53, said:

No doubt this is sensible advice. But than I have a long list of really stupid things that I have done.

I suspect most of us do....as a young man, I engaged in some horrifically stupid driving....including, when falling asleep at the wheel returning from a bridge tournament, driving at 2 am through a rural forested area on a 2 lane 'highway', speeding up to 100 mph+ in order to scare myself into staying awake.

I survived, as did the protagonists in your anecdotes. But I wouldn't ever use my survival as an argument that conduct of that kind was a reasonable response to the situation.

Most people who pull a gun in a holdup use it as a threat....it is only in movies or television that robbers routinely shoot unarmed, unresisting people.

Imagine that you are the robber.....you are going to be very nervous....you may be on drugs....in any event, your thought processes are unlikely to be rational. Thinking that all you had to do was to look and sound threatening, all of a sudden you are confronted with your victim pulling a gun.

What reaction do you expect? That he will suddenly rationalize that maybe this wasn't a good idea and he had better give up? Or that he should turn his back on the person drawing the gun?

Or do you think that there will be a tendency to pull the trigger, now out of fear or judgement further clouded by fear and anxiety?

Meanwhile, the effect of adrenalin on the physiology of both gun wielding people is to cause their peripheral vision to shut down, their hands to shake, and a fight or flight reflex to take over. The result is that even police officers trained and qualified as marksmen on the range become, usually, very bad shots. So bullets start flying everywhere.

A society that thinks that the appropriate response to a plethora of gun-wielding criminals is to arm everyone and to encourage people to shoot back is a society in which I would truly hate to live. I'd far rather make it a very serious offence to carry a gun unless specifically authorized to do so ...and I'd severely limit the right to do so....and I'd enact very harsh punishments for people importing or selling illegal guns. I'd far rather see illegal gun dealers and owners in jail than I would people who deal in marijuana, for example....altho, admittedly there is currently a significant overlap between those categories due to the truly alice-in-wonderland 'war on drugs'...which is another story altogether....tho isn't it odd that many of those who most loudly proclaim their 'right' to guns want to stop others from smoking marijuana? or from having abortions?

[JoAnneM]

Where I live the city and county council meetings always have security present, like a sheriff's deputy. And I don't know what the time frame for this incident was but where were the police? I know a security person eventually shot at him but where was he while all this was happening? Just seems he had a lot of time.

[Phil]

How would the non-Americans engaging in this debate feel if one of the councilmembers was a retired police officer or retired military that happened to have a weapon? Why do the 'no guns' group assume that everyone that has a gun is going to use it incorrectly or wrongly, and that the situation would become like a scene from Scarface? Why is having an innocent person getting shot (or shot and missed here) such an acceptable outcome? I can guarantee you that if I were on that board and some loony came flailing a gun, aside from saving my own ass, one of the things that I would be wishing is that I had a very large caliber weapon sitting in my lap.

Please do not give me the crap about if guns were outlawed, this would not happen. Are other illegal things in Europe available on the black market for people? If a sufficiently motivated nutcase wanted to go on a spree, couldn't he acquire a weapon?

What if the doofus that attacked the councilmembers had a knife? A gun doesn't look so bad in that scenario and might have saved a life.

If your society doesn't allow guns, that's fine. I don't own a gun, but I'm not going to pass judgment on those that do.

[cherdano]

 y66, on 2010-December-17, 08:47, said:

That "typical American" comment and subsequent comments are surprising to me. It is definitely typical of some Americans to respond that way. But hardly "typically American".

It's "typically German" to respond to such a shooting by asking for video games to be censored.
Well, of course strictly speaking it's only typical of some Germans. But there are many more such Germans (at least in the public debate) than there are Brits or Americans. So I think it's accurate to describe that as a "typically German".

[blackshoe]

 Fluffy, on 2010-December-17, 09:05, said:

yeah and everyone has the rights to have nuclear missiles in his home for the same reasoning lol.

Yes. Provided they can afford it, have room for it, have met all the safety requirements, and have completed all the paperwork that would allow them to buy the nuclear material (among other things) legally*.

Let's not get stupid, okay?

*This last, btw, ain't gonna happen.

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2010-December-17, 14:53, said:

I'm not a gun nut. I don't own one. I favor far more control.

I'm not a gun nut. I don't currently own one. I favor far more training in how to use a gun, if you're going to own one, than most people get.

[luke warm]

 mikeh, on 2010-December-17, 15:36, said:

I'd far rather make it a very serious offence to carry a gun unless specifically authorized to do so ...and I'd severely limit the right to do so....and I'd enact very harsh punishments for people importing or selling illegal guns.

just curious, do you think the founders of the country erred in including the 2nd amendment? (forget for a moment the argument over what it actually means, let's try to focus on their reasons)

btw, you're gonna hate this article

Quote

~~~ isn't it odd that many of those who most loudly proclaim their 'right' to guns want to stop others from smoking marijuana? or from having abortions?

yes it is odd... different people have different views on which different 'freedoms' to allow

[hotShot]

 Phil, on 2010-December-17, 16:12, said:

How would the non-Americans engaging in this debate feel if one of the councilmembers was a retired police officer or retired military that happened to have a weapon? Why do the 'no guns' group assume that everyone that has a gun is going to use it incorrectly or wrongly, and that the situation would become like a scene from Scarface?

I can't speak for all, but if you are dealing with somebody who lost his emotional and mental balance, what is working with one could make another one explode.
Bringing a 2nd gun into the situation will usually make things more unpredictable.

 Phil, on 2010-December-17, 16:12, said:

Why is having an innocent person getting shot (or shot and missed here) such an acceptable outcome? I can guarantee you that if I were on that board and some loony came flailing a gun, aside from saving my own ass, one of the things that I would be wishing is that I had a very large caliber weapon sitting in my lap.

Please do not give me the crap about if guns were outlawed, this would not happen. Are other illegal things in Europe available on the black market for people? If a sufficiently motivated nutcase wanted to go on a spree, couldn't he acquire a weapon?

Sure you can get an illegal weapon, but there is a chance that you came to your senses before you get one.

 Phil, on 2010-December-17, 16:12, said:

What if the doofus that attacked the councilmembers had a knife?

Assuming that the doofus has the guts to try that with a knife, the same thing could happen.
But running away very effective would have been very effective for most people in the room or if the cooperated they would have a chance to overpower the doofus.

[JLOGIC]

Who knew this would become a gun control debate and an american/non american debate because of the youtube comments! Only in the water cooler lol. I guess it was predictable.

Suggestion: Can we split the water cooler into 2 threads, one where posts about politics are not allowed and one where they are? I'm sure I'm not the only one who basically never posts here because every thread gets politarded up.

[kenberg]

 blackshoe, on 2010-December-17, 17:10, said:

I'm not a gun nut. I don't currently own one. I favor far more training in how to use a gun, if you're going to own one, than most people get.

You get no argument from me.

[gwnn]

If he had gotten a training, he would have killed three or four people from the board at least.

[kenberg]

 mikeh, on 2010-December-17, 15:36, said:

Meanwhile, the effect of adrenalin on the physiology of both gun wielding people is to cause their peripheral vision to shut down, their hands to shake, and a fight or flight reflex to take over. The result is that even police officers trained and qualified as marksmen on the range become, usually, very bad shots. So bullets start flying everywhere.

In its basic form, this has to do with why I stopped hunting. For some, hunting is a way of life and hopefully they know what they are doing (not always true). Me, I went out maybe once one year and not at all for the next year or two. Pulling a trigger, when you are not sure (and you never are) of just who/what might lie in the direction that you are shooting, is an emotional decision. At least I found it so. I decided to stop before I made a mistake. We have to know who we are, and Daniel Boone I am not.

[blackshoe]

My father grew up on a West Virginia farm. Hunting was part of what they did. Then he became a doctor. Somewhere along the line, he decided hunting was not for him, so he quit doing it. From my early years, I was aware that he didn't hunt, and also that he owned three long guns: a .22, a .410 shotgun, and a beautifully crafted 8 mm Mauser hunting rifle that was a gift from one of his patients, a gunsmith. I don't know what happened to his .22, the one currently in the house was my younger brother's (a birthday gift when he was a teenager). The .410 is still at the house. Dad gave the Mauser to my brother in law, who sold it for the cash.

As for hunters knowing what they're doing, folks who grow up in the country usually do. Folks who grow up/live in cities and come out to hunt once a year (if that) generally don't. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

There was a time when folks hunted because they couldn't afford to buy meat at the market. For most, that time is long gone.

[mike777]

 JoAnneM, on 2010-December-17, 16:04, said:

Where I live the city and county council meetings always have security present, like a sheriff's deputy. And I don't know what the time frame for this incident was but where were the police? I know a security person eventually shot at him but where was he while all this was happening? Just seems he had a lot of time.

He said on tv that he went out to his car to get his vest and more ammo and then came back.

[blackshoe]

Meh. Fire him, his judgement is poor. He should have been wearing the vest and carrying the extra ammo to begin with, or he should have left them in the car and taken care of business. No doubt he didn't expect to need either until the excrement hit the rotating air circulator, but that is not the time to be making such decisions. How would he feel (and what would the legal system say) if while he was out "gearing up", some of those people had actually been shot — or killed?

[Fluffy]

 blackshoe, on 2010-December-17, 16:59, said:

Let's not get stupid, okay?

Never my intention, was just exagerating to point out how stupid your logic was, no need to go nuclear: gas, bombs, tanks would work the same way.

[Fluffy]

The debate seems to be that some peopele belive high crime in USA is because of guns, and some other people believe it is just because of americans.

I would love to see 1 estate banning them for a decade or so and see if it affected crime or not. The same way I'd love to teach basic contract bridge to some uncomunicated people and see what bidding systems they develop 30-40 years later. both are kinda uthopic sadly.

[mgoetze]

 mikeh, on 2010-December-17, 15:36, said:

A society that thinks that the appropriate response to a plethora of gun-wielding criminals is to arm everyone and to encourage people to shoot back is a society in which I would truly hate to live. I'd far rather make it a very serious offence to carry a gun unless specifically authorized to do so ...and I'd severely limit the right to do so....and I'd enact very harsh punishments for people importing or selling illegal guns. I'd far rather see illegal gun dealers and owners in jail than I would people who deal in marijuana, for example....altho, admittedly there is currently a significant overlap between those categories due to the truly alice-in-wonderland 'war on drugs'...which is another story altogether....tho isn't it odd that many of those who most loudly proclaim their 'right' to guns want to stop others from smoking marijuana? or from having abortions?

Congratulations, you may qualify as an honorary European! Call today to apply!

 Phil, on 2010-December-17, 16:12, said:

How would the non-Americans engaging in this debate feel if one of the councilmembers was a retired police officer or retired military that happened to have a weapon? Why do the 'no guns' group assume that everyone that has a gun is going to use it incorrectly or wrongly, and that the situation would become like a scene from Scarface? Why is having an innocent person getting shot (or shot and missed here) such an acceptable outcome? I can guarantee you that if I were on that board and some loony came flailing a gun, aside from saving my own ass, one of the things that I would be wishing is that I had a very large caliber weapon sitting in my lap.

So therefore you should have a very large caliber weapon sitting in your lap all the time just in case? Come on Phil, even if one of them had a gun, it would probably be in their jacket or something. And reaching into your jacket to pull out a gun is definitely wrong because you will immediately increase the probability that shots will be fired to about 99.99%. OK, fine, maybe you will hit him and he won't hit anyone. I won't speculate on the probabilites involved there. But I would much prefer any solution where no shots are fired at all.

 Phil, on 2010-December-17, 16:12, said:

Please do not give me the crap about if guns were outlawed, this would not happen. Are other illegal things in Europe available on the black market for people? If a sufficiently motivated nutcase wanted to go on a spree, couldn't he acquire a weapon?

Please do not give me the crap about sufficiently motivated nutcases who calmly, rationally plan their shooting spree. They don't exist. The guy in this video is a prime example - he was obviously in a pretty messed-up state. I think you don't appreciate how difficult it is to obtain a gun in some places. Here in Germany, I have no idea whatsoever how I could get a gun. I suppose with careful planning and anonymised research on the internet I could find out - but if I was not thinking clearly and just went out on the street to try and get a gun I would be more likely to end up with a police officer than an illegal arms dealer.

The ready availability of guns is a necessary precondition for the kind of incident depicted in this video.