People going nuts.

Something is seriously wrong. Are more people getting more violent? What's wrong here?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045893&page=1

How could that guy have guns? Aren't college campuses "gun free zones"?

James Davis, Jr. wrote: How could that guy have guns? Aren't college campuses "gun free zones"?

I refer to them as "Victim Zones."

If everyone on that campus had been armed and trained, how many do you think would've had to die before this sonofabitch was stopped?

Real things and events like this are real things that need discussion so the level headed ones among us can steer the rest away from the edge of the cliff.

In gassho,

Mark

Mark Uttech wrote: Real things and events like this are real things that need discussion so the level headed ones among us can steer the rest away from the edge of the cliff.

I have no concept of how to use logic to dissuade someone from doing that which is completely illogical.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: How could that guy have guns? Aren't college campuses "gun free zones"?

Only if everyone on campus chooses not to own or carry a gun. The kind of thinking that produces gun free zones is the kind of thinking that comes up with the idea that laws protect people, rather than simply specifying the level of revenge society will indulge in for certian behaviors.

In the same way guns are now illegal in the UK and gun crime has gone up by something like 500% since the ban. The only limit on gun crime is people's good will and the risk of getting shot. Unfortunately insane people tend not to be great humanitarians and getting shot isn't much of a threat to someone who's decided to shoot themselves.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Only if everyone on campus chooses not to own or carry a gun. The kind of thinking that produces gun free zones is the kind of thinking that comes up with the idea that laws protect people, rather than simply specifying the level of revenge society will indulge in for certain behaviors.

Even revenge is in the logical level of retributions. When talking of an insane person who kills himself at the end and cares for no-one. The entire concept of laws against the act itself is useless. During the act itself, only a counter force would be able to stop such an act.

Alex Lawrence wrote: In the same way guns are now illegal in the UK and gun crime has gone up by something like 500% since the ban. The only limit on gun crime is people's good will and the risk of getting shot. Unfortunately insane people tend not to be great humanitarians and getting shot isn't much of a threat to someone who's decided to shoot themselves.

Gun laws are not useless if they are enforced at a sufficient level. The problem in many modern countries is our tendency to ban any weapons on the one hand thus increase the work load the police is supposed to do, and at the same time we decrease the police force to "reduce the inefficient Gov. budget".

If the gun laws are truly enforced, one would expect to have an increase in gun crime, but mostly due to felonies related to the new laws, i.e. crime that is connected to the (now) illicit gun position and trade, while one should expect less robberies with guns etc. Obviously, talking of increases and decrease should be done given careful analyses of population rise and densities etc.
If there is no decrease based on the above terms, it means the law enforcement agencies are either inefficient or very underbudgeted compared to their tasks, nothing else.

On the other hand, a "Gun free zone" is practically impossible if you allow everyone to have guns outside it, even a secure prison facility has some failures regarding drugs and weapons, and I doubt you are willing to have similar levels of security around an educational "Gun free zone" ...

Amir

Amir Krause wrote: Even revenge is in the logical level of retributions. When talking of an insane person who kills himself at the end and cares for no-one. The entire concept of laws against the act itself is useless. During the act itself, only a counter force would be able to stop such an act.

With you so far.

Amir Krause wrote: Gun laws are not useless if they are enforced at a sufficient level. The problem in many modern countries is our tendency to ban any weapons on the one hand thus increase the work load the police is supposed to do, and at the same time we decrease the police force to "reduce the inefficient Gov. budget".

Regardless of whether the police can protect us, they don't have any obligation to do so. We are unable to sue police agencies who don't come when 911 is called, even if our loved ones are imprisoned in their own home, beaten, raped or killed. Protecting ourselves is the only option with which we are left, and plenty of people don't even want us to have that ability!

Amir Krause wrote: If the gun laws are truly enforced, one would expect to have an increase in gun crime, but mostly due to felonies related to the new laws, i.e. crime that is connected to the (now) illicit gun position and trade, while one should expect less robberies with guns etc. Obviously, talking of increases and decrease should be done given careful analyses of population rise and densities etc. If there is no decrease based on the above terms, it means the law enforcement agencies are either inefficient or very underbudgeted compared to their tasks, nothing else.

For the most part, more guns = less crime. Look at what's happened in South Africa, Australia, and England when firearms were banned.

Amir Krause wrote: On the other hand, a "Gun free zone" is practically impossible if you allow everyone to have guns outside it, even a secure prison facility has some failures regarding drugs and weapons, and I doubt you are willing to have similar levels of security around an educational "Gun free zone" ... Amir

We can't stop pot, cocaine, terrorists, or anything else from waltzing through our borders or coming ashore. If we make guns illegal, criminals will find a way to get guns.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say than we acquire a magic wand and get rid of every gun. That will then mean that every woman walking alone to her car is guaranteed to not have a gun. Every home can be broken into without fear of being shot. If you accost someone who has a small child with them, you know that they can't run very fast to get away from you. Being a criminal get pretty easy.

Remember, our representatives that tell us that they don't trust us with a gun usually carry one themselves, or hire a professional bodyguard who does. Apparently, they think that their lives are worth protecting.

Oh yeah, and the Supreme Court still has set a precedent that we have no right to police protection.

So how are the Japanese able to keep their society relatively crime free?

Ricky Wood wrote: So how are the Japanese able to keep their society relatively crime free?

Japanese people are more likely to change their behavior based on peer pressure and family honor; It's just the way they are. Conversely, watch some music videos and you'll see the "gangsta" life glorified here in the states. Watch a lot of our movies, and you'll see disregard for human life.

Strangely, the mayor of Nagasaki was just shot recently, despite stringent Japanese gun laws...

Ricky Wood wrote: So how are the Japanese able to keep their society relatively crime free?

Centuries of individuality-stifling homogenity and socio-familial pressure?

Crime-free, though? I guess that depends on which crimes we're talking about.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Japanese people are more likely to change their behavior based on peer pressure and family honor; It's just the way they are. Conversely, watch some music videos and you'll see the "gangsta" life glorified here in the states. Watch a lot of our movies, and you'll see disregard for human life. Strangely, the mayor of Nagasaki was just shot recently, despite stringent Japanese gun laws...

Crime in a society is quite reflective of that society, and not easy to compare with crimes in other countries. The level of crime in Japan is sky high. Much of it is simply not ever processed to make it into the statistics. It is institutional. It is hardly ever necessary to carry out such drastic crimes as the Nagasaki mayor's shooting when lower levels of criminal activity (threats, extortion, appeals to the shame culture whatever you want to call it) suffice to obtain the goals of the criminals. Being indoctrinated over generations helps too. Just as the indoctrination in the USA leads to the particular crime categories we see there. And this holds for each country.

James wrote:
...lets say than we acquire a magic wand and get rid of every gun. That will then mean that every woman walking alone to her car is guaranteed to not have a gun.

Do you really think that the creep at the edge of the parking lot is thinking, "Hmmm...I wonder if she has a gun..."?

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: Crime in a society is quite reflective of that society, and not easy to compare with crimes in other countries. The level of crime in Japan is sky high. Much of it is simply not ever processed to make it into the statistics. It is institutional. It is hardly ever necessary to carry out such drastic crimes as the Nagasaki mayor's shooting when lower levels of criminal activity (threats, extortion, appeals to the shame culture whatever you want to call it) suffice to obtain the goals of the criminals. Being indoctrinated over generations helps too. Just as the indoctrination in the USA leads to the particular crime categories we see there. And this holds for each country.

When was the last time you were a victim of crime in Japan and what was it's nature Gernot?

Lorien Lowe wrote: James wrote: ...lets say than we acquire a magic wand and get rid of every gun. That will then mean that every woman walking alone to her car is guaranteed to not have a gun. Do you really think that the creep at the edge of the parking lot is thinking, "Hmmm...I wonder if she has a gun..."?

If you were a criminal, would you be more likely to attack someone who you KNOW is not armed or one who MAY be armed? Would you take that chance?

Fact is that cities that have required gun ownership have seen their crime rates go down. Go figure.

Fact is that countries that have banned guns have seen their crime rates go through the roof - like Britain & Australia. Go figure.

John Hogan wrote: Fact is that cities that have required gun ownership have seen their crime rates go down. Go figure.

Source? Which cities require gun ownership?

Lorien Lowe wrote: Do you really think that the creep at the edge of the parking lot is thinking, "Hmmm...I wonder if she has a gun..."?

It depends on how smart he is and whether he's been shot at before.

What every scumbag thinks about before doing something horrible is whether he can get away with it or not.

Dan Botari wrote: Source? Which cities require gun ownership?

Kenesaw, GA was the 1st city I believe, in 1982. Their crime rate went down afterwards. Other cities followed at various years - how many I do not know; throughout the yrs I have remembered various cities here & there adopting the same type of law. I don't think there is one source of information compiling the cities that have done so.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: What every scumbag thinks about before doing something horrible is whether he can get away with it or not.

Hello James,

I think there's also many instances of people that don't have any ideas about "getting away with it" but instead, for whatever reason seems justifiable in their minds, they've decided they are willing to die to accomplish their goal. Then there's also the ones that haven't considered what they're doing until after the fact, if ever.

We are all at risk all of the time and must learn to deal with it appropriately.

John Hogan wrote: Kenesaw, GA was the 1st city I believe, in 1982. Their crime rate went down afterwards. Other cities followed at various years - how many I do not know; throughout the yrs I have remembered various cities here & there adopting the same type of law. I don't think there is one source of information compiling the cities that have done so.

So am I to understand that you are required to own a gun? Everyone in the city? I find that simply amazing!

Dan Botari wrote: So am I to understand that you are required to own a gun? Everyone in the city? I find that simply amazing!

Each household is required - not exactly every person, but each household. Amazing but their crime rate has dropped. Those pesky burglers went elsewhere. Although I am not sure if that would work in certain areas of the country... certain towns & regions have more respect for life than some other towns... I live in a big city where the road rage I have witnessed would have probably resulted in someone being killed by the other...

Additionally, Switzerland, as you probably know, has the same requirement because everyone is part of their 'militia', much like every male here was considered to be a part of at the time of the US constitution was written, & I don't think their crime rate is huge.

I'm told by other gun nut friends of mine that there are a couple of towns in one western state also, I & thought a city in IL did as well, but still checking.

One person said that, although not law, their small secluded town 'encourages' each household to have one for protection as their county sheriff is 30 minutes away & have had budget cuts.

Chuck Clark wrote: Hello James, I think there's also many instances of people that don't have any ideas about "getting away with it" but instead, for whatever reason seems justifiable in their minds, they've decided they are willing to die to accomplish their goal. Then there's also the ones that haven't considered what they're doing until after the fact, if ever. We are all at risk all of the time and must learn to deal with it appropriately.

I understand, Sir. When Lorien made mention of the "creep at the edge of the parking lot", I thought of the rapist/mugger type scenario where the crime is premeditated and someone is actively looking for a victim. I hadn't considered the behavior being impulsive.

I really liked the seminar in Orlando. I hope to train with you again some day.

Take care, Sensei.

Ricky Wood wrote: Something is seriously wrong. Are more people getting more violent? What's wrong here? http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045893&page=1

I'd say the main thing that is wrong here is the public being so easily induced to become hysterical by tabloid-style mass media sensationalism. The problem is lack of perspective and ignorance of mathematics. Shooting rampages may be increasing somewhat, though I'm not sure even that is true. Nonetheless, it is not significant on a national scale, and certainly not worth getting everyone's knickers twisted up like I'm seeing. On a pure numbers basis, you are at least 18 times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed in a shooting rampage. This kind of thing would have to happen more than 8 times per day just to equal deaths from cardiovascular disease, a large portion of which can be considered self-inflicted.

Yes, shooting rampages are bad, and reasonable measures should be taken to prevent them. And, yes, it does appear that civilization is deteriorating. However, I'd say the media circus and the sheep-like, perspectiveless reaction of the public is much more worrisome than the incident itself.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: IThe problem is lack of perspective and ignorance of mathematics.

Ok...maybe this will help our perspective and ignorance.

Excellent! Looks like you should get a job for a major media outlet, or maybe The Enquirer or Star.

I wanted to post, as a rebuttal, 2.4 million dots. This would represent how many people, with mug shots no less touching I'm sure, die each year in the US. Unfortunately, my high-res wide-screen monitor only has about 1 million pixels...