Gun Enthusiast kills 17 year old 'For playing loud music'

[Ichy]

This situation is not that situation. Do you think if this guy had a baseball bat rather than a gun that a kid would have died? Or do you think he would have backed off?

Wasn't saying it was easier, more or less trying to stress the fact that some people are prone to violence, regardless of the tool.

It's also a lot easier to kill somebody by being retarded with a gun than it is with a bat. With a bat, there has to be physical aggression in order to result in injury. The guy would have had to go after them inside their own car. Not characteristic of somebody who feels they are in danger. Backing off while shooting, however, is pretty easy.

Very few people that own guns don't know how to use them, so "acting" retardedly with it is very very uncommon. I wasn't debating the fact that its easier to kill some one with a gun either.

There Doesn't have to be physical aggression in order to result in injury. A person in a panicked state can be just as deadly as a aggressive rational personal, sometimes more so (rare, but does happen). Several things happen when somebody feels they are in danger, usually fear/terror is first which can lead to a panicked state or an aggressive state, depending on personality.

When the tool is integral in the commission and escalation of the nature of the crime, it should be a point of focus.

A point of focus, not THE point of focus.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Wasn't saying it was easier, more or less trying to stress the fact that some people are prone to violence, regardless of the tool.

I had already acknowledge that. It doesn't change the fact that those who are not necessarily prone to violence are enabled to be more violent by weapons.

Very few people that own guns don't know how to use them, so "acting" retardedly with it is very very uncommon. I wasn't debating the fact that its easier to kill some one with a gun either.

I'm not talking about gun safety, I'm talking about being an idiot and overreacting. It's much easier to pull a trigger both physically and mentally than to commit to a full swing with a bat.

There Doesn't have to be physical aggression in order to result in injury. A person in a panicked state can be just as deadly as a aggressive rational personal, sometimes more so (rare, but does happen). Several things happen when somebody feels they are in danger, usually fear/terror is first which can lead to a panicked state or an aggressive state, depending on personality.

People who are panicked don't usually aggressively attack those they are afraid of with a bat when they have the opportunity to run.

A point of focus, not THE point of focus.

It depends on the discussion. A discussion about guns specifically should have them as the main point of focus. There can be multiple discussions threaded off of the same event that use the same points of focus but in different priorities.

[BoomChickn]

Getting sick of these random people shooting others and then running away with "I felt threatened! So I had the right to shoot!"...

Christ...

[xenogear3]

What is up with all these "gun zealots kill people for some stupid reason" stories?

You don't expect people buy these guns for collecting dust or door stop.
Of course, they use it to protect themselves.
First, they use it on kids/women for target practice.
Also, they have to test the gun. It has a 30 days return policy.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Getting sick of these random people shooting others and then running away with "I felt threatened! So I had the right to shoot!"...

Christ...

I feel like he probably shot in anger and then tried to use that as an excuse that is never going to fly.

[Itisamuh]

I see people are still spouting their nonsense about how guns are evil and should be taken away from everyone. How ridiculous.

[Ichy]

I had already acknowledge that. It doesn't change the fact that those who are not necessarily prone to violence are enabled to be more violent by weapons.

A weapon does not enable a person to be more violent, just gives them a better means to enact violence. As a modern society we are surrounded by "weapons" on a daily bases. Since we have such a readily available "cache" of weapons, are we more prone to violence when "bill in accounting is a F@#$ wad and screwing us over on our TPS reports"?

I'm not talking about gun safety, I'm talking about being an idiot and overreacting. It's much easier to pull a trigger both physically and mentally than to commit to a full swing with a bat.

Not really its actually far easier to swing a bat when overreacting then it is to un-holster your gun and get it pointed at the intended target. Its also easier to stop your self from squeezing the trigger then it is to stop a bat mid swing.

People who are panicked don't usually aggressively attack those they are afraid of with a bat when they have the opportunity to run.

Not all people WILL run when the chance arises. Some, do stand their ground and face their fear. Creating a different kind of panic then the one where the individual would have chosen to run. It turns in to what appears to be aggressiveness as the mentality switches from "Don't get hurt" to "Hurt them before they hurt me".

It depends on the discussion. A discussion about guns specifically should have them as the main point of focus. There can be multiple discussions threaded off of the same event that use the same points of focus but in different priorities.

I agree with that, but more often then not the Focus does become "its because a gun was present that x thing happened". When really it should be more "while yes x thing happened be cause a gun was present, we really need to look at the individual". It simple reasoning, if you put 20 people in a room and just lay a loaded gun on the table no one dies or gets hurt. That is until a deranged individual makes a decision other wise.

---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 09:04 AM ----------

What is up with all these "gun zealots kill people for some stupid reason" stories?

You don't expect people buy these guns for collecting dust or door stop.
Of course, they use it to protect themselves.
First, they use it on kids/women for target practice.
Also, they have to test the gun. It has a 30 days return policy.

What? the ignorance in this is just ... I literally felt stupider after reading this.

Their are collectible guns that are manufactured to be just that collectible- not use-able.
The most common uses of a gun are for Sport- target shooting and hunting, not protection.
what? just... I.... where is this coming from?
Most retail items in the us has 30 day return policy.. except guns especially after being fired. 2 in most states to get a hand gun it takes an FBI background check and a 3-5 day wait before you can even take it home. Rifles follow pretty much the same rules, except the wait time is lower.

[capitano666]

I see people are still spouting their nonsense about how guns are evil and should be taken away from everyone. How ridiculous.

You are obviously not reading.

A weapon does not enable a person to be more violent, just gives them a better means to enact violence.

And that's what we are discussing about, is it good or bad to have people with a better mean to enact violence if they want to?
Nobody ever said that having a gun in your hands automatically makes you a violent person.

Not really its actually far easier to swing a bat when overreacting then it is to un-holster your gun and get it pointed at the intended target. Its also easier to stop your self from squeezing the trigger then it is to stop a bat mid swing.

I beg to differ, a gun allows you to keep at distance and safe, it takes more guts to run into 3 other people with the intent to hit them with a bat.
We don't even know if he had a proper holster.
I also think you can't compare guns and bats when it comes to aborting your action, a gun is binary it either shoots or doesn't, you can't stop it mid-fire.

Not all people WILL run when the chance arises. Some, do stand their ground and face their fear. Creating a different kind of panic then the one where the individual would have chosen to run. It turns in to what appears to be aggressiveness as the mentality switches from "Don't get hurt" to "Hurt them before they hurt me".

Nobody should get hurt, standing your ground just to play macho (and just because you know you have a lethal weapon) tends to have this kind of unfortunate consequences.

I agree with that, but more often then not the Focus does become "its because a gun was present that x thing happened". When really it should be more "while yes x thing happened be cause a gun was present, we really need to look at the individual". It simple reasoning, if you put 20 people in a room and just lay a loaded gun on the table no one dies or gets hurt. That is until a deranged individual makes a decision other wise.

I don't believe that guns increase the amount of violence, I believe that the same amount of violence is more likely to result in death.

The most common uses of a gun are for Sport- target shooting and hunting, not protection.

I have no data on that but a lot of people really sound paranoid about the need of self-defense.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2219160.html

Outlaw bows too?

Why aren't weapons viewed as another form of life insurance? A gun is like a condom: better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one.

[Deleted]

Why aren't weapons viewed as another form of life insurance? A gun is like a condom: better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one.

Bad comparison.

Condoms make you safe, yes, but it also makes your partner safe. In the case of a gun, no, it doesn't make your "partner" safe and, sometimes, it won't make you safe.

[Rooflesstoofless]

This is precisely why I don't support gun ownership by "regular law-abiding citizens"; because everyone is a "regular law-abiding citizen" until they aren't.

It's not like violent psychopaths go around advertising it until they do something to demonstrate it. They don't wear ID tags or anything.
I don't trust the average person enough to exercise the restraint required to actually own a firearm. If they get pissed off, the first thing they usually do is whip out their gun and start shooting.

I'm glad I live somewhere where things like this are not commonplace.

Have to agree with this.

BATF only checks to see if you are already blacklisted because of previous convictions or you are denied ownership due to self-implecation ("Yes, I want to harm myself or others") when you fill out the application to purchase. A complete psycho or someone out of touch with reality has as much right to gun ownership that I do unless they have priors that will deny them ownership. Pretty fucking stupid system if you ask me.

A few years ago a friend gave me a WASP knife. He works in the TV/movie business and they gave it to him after they were done shooting. I'm a 'knife guy' so he gave it to me. I didn't have any use for it since I actually collect (and use) practical knives for bushcraft and such. I put it up on Craigslist and the guy who came to buy it was crazier than shit. Tried to convince me he was an assassin for the CIA and such and that's why he wanted to buy it. Weird people are always around...

[Magemaer]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but gun defenders: come on. I want you to feel a bullet crossing your body, tearing everything on its way, like i did, and after that bring all this pro-gun nonsense.

[Vuljatar]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but gun defenders: come on. I want you to feel a bullet crossing your body, tearing everything on its way, like i did, and after that bring all this pro-gun nonsense.

The fact that I own a gun might save me from ever feeling that. If I am ever attacked, or my home invaded, I will shoot first instead of being at the mercy of a criminal.

Believing in the right of an individual to defend themselves from harm means supporting the second amendment, no two ways about it.

[Sorshen]

"Let's solve violence and home break-ins by giving everyone a gun." Works well so far.
Grow up!
2nd amendament causes more harm than it prevents.

[Knight Gil]

I see what you are trying to say, but making guns illegal won't stop people from using them, specially the idiots who do not use them for self protection/hobbies like the idiot who shot a kid for listening to music. I am more than sure that these kind of people are nuts enough to own guns even if they were outlawed. this isn't an ideal world.

But it.Will.Fucking.Make.It.Harder.For.Anyone.To.Get.Hold.Of.One.

It's not that pro-guns can't understand this simple fact. They just are too deep in denial to admit it.

That argument is the same as "Oh, killing is illegal, but it doesn't stop people from killing, so let's make it legal". Fucking, fucking pathetic...

[Deleted]

But it.Will.Fucking.Make.It.Harder.For.Anyone.To.Get.Hold.Of.One.

It's not that pro-guns can't understand this simple fact. They just are too deep in denial to admit it.

That argument is the same as "Oh, killing is illegal, but it doesn't stop people from killing, so let's make it legal". Fucking, fucking pathetic...

No point arguing this with Americans. They never get it no matter how many school shootings/random offences blatantly facilitated by widespread gun ownership they have.

The rest of us can continue not living there and not getting shot at and let them wallow in their own ignorance.

Infracted

[ovm33]

The rest of us can continue not living there and not getting shot at and let them wallow in their own ignorance.

Already shown earlier in the thread that Europe has a near effective murder / violent death rate as America. Sure, you're not being shot at but you're being stabbed / bludgeoned / whatever'd to death at pretty much the same clip. So if Europe is effectively just as unsafe as America, WTF is the point of your gun laws?

So if the weapons available for use aren't the issue, then what is?

The answer is easy, people murder each other for the same reasons they have since recorded time. Love and money. Money being the operative one here.

[Deleted]

Already shown earlier in the thread that Europe has a near effective murder / violent death rate as America. Sure, you're not being shot at but you're being stabbed / bludgeoned / whatever'd to death at pretty much the same clip. So if Europe is effectively just as unsafe as America, WTF is the point of your gun laws?

So if the weapons available for use aren't the issue, then what is?

The answer is easy, people murder each other for the same reasons they have since recorded time. Love and money. Money being the operative one here.

I would need to question where you are getting the figures (source please) in regards to the US having a murder / violent death rate similar to Europe? If you are comparing it to the entire continent, and therefore including parts of eastern Europe and ex Soviet states then I am sure the "average" may be similar, however if you compare it to western Europe (most closely tied with the US in culture, economic power etc) I think you would be suprised.

I can link a nice Wikipedia article (taken with a slight pinch of salt of course) World homicide rates 2010

This shows the USA having a murder rate - note murder rate NOT gun related murder rate as 4.3 / 100k people compared to the UK's rate as 1.2 / 100k. I could go on with French, German, Dutch, Swedish etc murder rates, but they all are equal or lower to the UK rate. This is a massive difference between supposed "first world countries" and arguing that murders will happen regardless is such a lazy argument that is disproved over and over that it is actually comical now. There IS a direct link to the ease of aquiring firearms in the USA and the substantually higher risk (3x more likely then the UK for instance) to be murdered..

Please, carry on believing that all of those lethal pieces of equipment (which many people in this very thread have admitted to not storing in a locked box or similar) are protecting you guys, you are actually raising the average IQ of the world with each death so we should thank you for that.

[ovm33]

I would need to question where you are getting the figures (source please) in regards to the US having a murder / violent death rate similar to Europe? If you are comparing it to the entire continent, and therefore including parts of eastern Europe and ex Soviet states then I am sure the "average" may be similar, however if you compare it to western Europe (most closely tied with the US in culture, economic power etc) I think you would be suprised.

I can link a nice Wikipedia article (taken with a slight pinch of salt of course) World homicide rates 2010

This shows the USA having a murder rate - note murder rate NOT gun related murder rate as 4.3 / 100k people compared to the UK's rate as 1.2 / 100k. I could go on with French, German, Dutch, Swedish etc murder rates, but they all are equal or lower to the UK rate. This is a massive difference between supposed "first world countries" and arguing that murders will happen regardless is such a lazy argument that is disproved over and over that it is actually comical now. There IS a direct link to the ease of aquiring firearms in the USA and the substantually higher risk (3x more likely then the UK for instance) to be murdered..

Please, carry on believing that all of those lethal pieces of equipment (which many people in this very thread have admitted to not storing in a locked box or similar) are protecting you guys, you are actually raising the average IQ of the world with each death so we should thank you for that.

Both sources were linked earlier in the thread. Oddly enough one of which was the exact same as the one you linked. And yes, it does include eastern Europe. But America doesn't get to exclude it's unsafe areas and neither do you. But I knew everyone would be up in arms about it so i posted this link as well at the same time:

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

Now compare UK's murder rate to any New England state. (Or some of those "fly over states" city folk like to make fun of.)

Uh-oh... the murder rate is near identical... but... but... New England has guns and the 2nd Amendment! Guns increase the murder rate! My entire position on guns being bad is that more people die because of them!!! This means I'm wrong!!!

Once again it has been proven guns do not increase murder rates. Socioeconomic reasons are the cause of increased homicide rates. Not guns. Period.

And if guns do not increase homicide rates... WHY BAN THEM?

[Deleted]

Both sources were linked earlier in the thread. Oddly enough one of which was the exact same as the one you linked. And yes, it does include eastern Europe. But America doesn't get to exclude it's unsafe areas and neither do you. But I knew everyone would be up in arms about it so i posted this link as well at the same time:

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

Now compare UK's murder rate to any New England state. (Or some of those "fly over states" city folk like to make fun of.)

Uh-oh... the murder rate is near identical... but... but... New England has guns and the 2nd Amendment! Guns increase the murder rate! My entire position on guns being bad is that more people die because of them!!! This means I'm wrong!!!

Once again it has been proven guns do not increase murder rates. Socioeconomic reasons are the cause of increased homicide rates. Not guns. Period.

And if guns do not increase homicide rates... WHY BAN THEM?

The reason I can exclude eastern Europe and ex Soviet states from my figures is that they are self governing countries in their own right, only tied to Europe due to geographical location. You could even argue that certain eastern European countries do not qualify as second world countries, let alone first world.

Saying that New York and New England have different figures for murder rates is more on a par to comparing London with Norwich, or Great London with East Anglia (counties, similar to states I guess?) as they fall under the SAME country, SAME laws and SAME government. FACTS state that you are 3x more likely to be murdered in the USA with its lax gun control culture, as you are in the UK where we have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world (and our police are not routinely armed due to there being NO NEED).

I do also like the fact you ignored my comments regarding safe storage of weapons, which should be at the very least a check in place BEFORE guns are handed over to the happy buyer, to prevent firearm thefts to then be used in crime.

There may not be documented proof, but there is a noticable corralation which needs to be investigated futher, rather than ignored, disregarded or vilified based on your opinion. Please, continue to spout "Guns do not increase homicide rates" argument though.