[Rolly]

(PS - More shocking to me is condolence threads that get turned into 'Blame America' crap.)

I have just reviewed the thread and can find no reference to any blame being allocated to America nor to the U.S.of A.
An opinion on legistlation which has been/is being debated in many countries was forwarded and may have been inappropriate under the circumstances.
Your vitriol and indecent language were certainly out of place.

[benjikan]

What saddens me to the core is the fact that the psycho-tropic effects of the mixture of Zoloft, Prozac etc. is known to cause temporary Psychosis more often than the drug manufacturers wish to highlight. From what I have read, the perpetrator of this heinous act was using a very dangerous mixture of many drugs at the same time. Children going through what I consider the normal growth process are given these psych-tropic drugs to curtail any form of expression that is considered excessive. Excessive is only relative to the the adult viewing that child's joy in living. Many of these adults forget what is was like when they were once in those children's shoes. Perhaps this tragedy was triggered by a multiplicity of volatile combinations that ended in a massive uncontrolled explosion of irrational rage...

I feel for the victims as I feel for the culprit. It is unfortunately the sign of our times.

Ben

[db2]

Our little family were saddened and shocked by this trajic event. I think its mental illness and unfortunately this type of thing will occur from time to time. The only thing we can do to prevent any future incidents like this is to Love one another sincerely. What else is there to do?

[jthommo]

The fact that lawful gun owners were banned from bringing guns on campus is shocking to most Americans, too.


(PS - More shocking to me is condolence threads that get turned into 'Blame America' crap.)

That's a good idea, to stop gun deaths lets give people more guns.

The figures on gun-related deaths per country are crystal-clear (and easily found if you care to look). Homicides in the US are over 4/100,000 people. In England - with it's tough gun controls - the rate is 0.12/100,000 people; you are 40 times more likely to be killed by someone with a gun in the US than in England.

Here in Australia a deranged gunman killed 35 people in 1996. The tough gun laws that followed - including a costly gun buy-back by the government - saw a 30-percent drop in gun-related deaths by 1998. Encouragingly that included suicide - if there's no gun at hand the suicidal person can't take a split second decision from where there's no return.

Blame America? Blame the slack gun laws certainly.

Having said that it's also crystal-clear that nothing will change - realpolitik dictates that.

My sympathies go out to the families of the victims of this appalling tragedy.

[Rick]

That's a good idea, to stop gun deaths lets give people more guns.

My first university degrees were in criminology and criminal justice administration. And then I worked as a cop. So I find that comment kind of interesting - even though I am not a resident of either the US or of Australia, England, or New Zealand.

Are you referring to the fact that peer reviewed research shows that firearms are used nearly three million times a year in the US (even though in less than 1% of those instances is a shot actually fired) in self defense? That women use firearms in defense against sexual assault a little over 400 times each day in the US? That in a self reporting survey that was part of a USDOJ study, over half the incarcerated violent felons reported deciding not to attack a victim for fear they might be armed? That states with "shall issue" laws regarding carrying firearms for self protection are enjoying a decrease in violent crime that isn't paralleled by places with Draconian gun control laws like Washington DC, New Jersey, etc?

Just a little curious as to what that comment was in relation to, is all...

For myself, I look at the approximate 11,000 annual victims of firearms violence - most of whom involve criminals with existing felony records killing other criminals with existing felony records, and not Joe shooting Al over the backyard fence they share. And I compare that number to the 2.5 million or so people who avoided being the victim of a violent crime because they had a firearm to drive their attacker off with. And I see a net worth in that society because of firearms, and will until the day society can guarantee each citizen their own personal police bodyguard to guarantee their safety. Only the naive would think that preventing people from having the means to defend themselves would make them safer from criminals

The figures on gun-related deaths per country are crystal-clear (and easily found if you care to look).

Well, no, they're not. Unless, of course, you can explain why (as just one example) Jamaica - where it is practically impossible to legally own a firearm and where gun laws are incredibly severe - has a murder rate with firearms far in excess of the United States.

Or for that matter Israel - where many more people carry firearms than the US, and where terrorism has been a fact of life for decades and those figures get lumped in with crime victims as well - is a statistically safer place to be despite all the firearms.

It isn't about "guns" - it is about social issues within a society. Comparing different countries with different cultures and different dynamics going on is simplistic apples and oranges. Firearms can be both a positive and a negative dynamic in society, but they are not a cause of either good nor evil. The places with the most firearms are not necessarily the most dangerous, and the places with the least firearms are not necessarily the least dangerous. Inside of or outside of the US.

Homicides in the US are over 4/100,000 people. In England - with it's tough gun controls - the rate is 0.12/100,000 people; you are 40 times more likely to be killed by someone with a gun in the US than in England.

And violent crime is decreasing in the US while it is increasing in England. While you may be more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the US, you are infinitely more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in general in England. And, incidentally, gun crime in England has been on a dramatic rise for quite some time now. Apparently, somebody forgot to tell English criminals they were supposed to turn their firearms in for destruction along with the decent law abiding folks...

Here in Australia a deranged gunman killed 35 people in 1996. The tough gun laws that followed - including a costly gun buy-back by the government - saw a 30-percent drop in gun-related deaths by 1998.

Sounds good. Except that several studies, including a recent one in the British Journal of Criminology found no causal relationship between the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens and firearms deaths. That is being hotly contested by the opposite side of course, but claiming this is a proven causal relationship is simply glossing over the facts.

Canadian gun grabbers also claim that the Firearms Act of 1995 decreased firearms deaths and point to declining deaths as evidence - except the decline was already starting by 1995 and the law didn't actually become fully active until around 2004. Still, when you have a good thing going, might as well run to the front of the parade and claim you're the leader...

Encouragingly that included suicide - if there's no gun at hand the suicidal person can't take a split second decision from where there's no return.

I can't speak to suicide rates in Australia after the firearms confiscations - a polite word for legalized theft in an act of prior restraint. I certainly don't know if any attempt was made to eliminate confounding factors that, aside from the gun grab, could have also contributed to falling suicide rates. An aging population with fewer young males for example, or social programs aimed at excessive drinking.

I do know, however, that study after study of suicide has generally found that it is means independant. In Canada for example, after restrictions on handguns were brought in, suicides by handguns decreased - but suicide rates remained the same and in fact increased slightly. Those determined to commit suicide simply substituted other, equally lethal methods. And if firearms and suicide are somehow or other tied together, I would appreciate if somebody could explain that to me in the context of the suicide rate in Japan. Unless, of course, they don't count because firearms are almost nonexistant over there...

Blame America? Blame the slack gun laws certainly.

I agree. Blame the gun laws that left all those students, chained in that building, helpless, waiting for their turn to be slaughtered, knowing the police weren't going to get there and they had no means to defend themselves.

Given your knowledge of the "gun laws", I am sure you're aware that Virginia is a state that allows its' citizens to carry a firearm for self defense. However, some schools like Virginia Tech forbid their students from exercising their right to carry the means to defend themselves. Other, like the Appalachian School of Law, recognize and respect that right. We'll get to the implications of that in a moment...

An initiative to end Virginia Tech's bylaw that enforced disarming students with carry permits was defeated in 2006. A Virginia Tech board member at the time said, and I quote:

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

And, like always, at the beginning of the school year, 100's of students began the usual practice of surrendering their firearms to campus police each time they came on campus - the same campus police who did nothing for half an hour while fusillades of shots rang out inside as unarmed students were methodically slaughtered at point bank range. Some of those murdered students might well have handed over their firearms and the means to defend themselves to some of the police crouching outside.

Appalachian School of Law, on the other hand, allows students and staff to carry firearms for self defense. Perhaps because they realize the Bill of Rights also includes the 2nd Amendment... And it was here in 2002 that after a school shooting was began by a deranged student, two armed students confronted the murderer at gunpoint, long before the police ever had a chance to arrive and put an end to any further violence. Of course, you didn't hear about THAT in the media at the time. We wouldn't want people to get the idea that ordinary people and students with firearms might be able to stop something like this before the butcher's bill got too high.

So there you have it: Two different approaches to gun laws in Virginia; two entirely different outcomes. One school murderer immediately confronted by potential victims who happened to be armed and a very small death toll; one school murderer with hundreds of unarmed victims at his disposal and over thirty dead. Tragically, the differing results speak for themselves, and certainly speaks about "slack gun laws".

This is a terrible tragedy - but it won't be the last as long as the media can make a dollar off it and the next loser can see that as his guarantee of his moment of fame. And it won't be the last of it as long as we presume an unarmed victim lying in a pool of blood is somehow or other morally superior to someone who defended themselves with a gun in their hand. The Victim Lottery is reasonably safe to play, even if participation is mandatory in most places. But it should tell us something that in both Canada and the US, the supreme court has held that neither the government nor the police have a duty to secure the safety of individuals. Having been a police officer, I can also tell you that any police officer who tells you police can protect you or secure your safety is a liar. Police come to clean up afterwards, and that's the brutal truth.

If I believed gun control could prevent people from having things they shouldn't have and committing crime, I'd have to be a big supporter of Prohibition and The War On Drugs. Which I am not. As the old saw goes, the definition of insanity is trying the same failed experiment over and over again, while for some reason or other expecting a different result to occur.

By the way, seeing as our Commonwealth friends sort of swung this to speaking of issues of firearms and gun control, if they think the 2nd Amendment is purely an American oddity, they might want to read the English Bill of Rights if they have forgotten it since their high school days. There's a few enumerated rights in there that might sound vaguely familiar...

[Rick]

What saddens me to the core is the fact that the psycho-tropic effects of the mixture of Zoloft, Prozac etc. is known to cause temporary Psychosis more often than the drug manufacturers wish to highlight. From what I have read, the perpetrator of this heinous act was using a very dangerous mixture of many drugs at the same time.

There is more to what you are speculating on than you might imagine.

I don't know anything about this killer, and I am making a deliberate attempt to not read or hear anything about him - I think the attention these sick individuals are given contributes a lot to these occurances.

Having said that, psychotropic drugs are a correlation found in a disturbing number of mass murders since the James Huberty murders in... 1984 I think. Correlation isn't causation, but a very high number of mass murderers have had prescriptions for these drugs, and Prozac in particular. It may well be a situation of whether the chicken or the egg came first, but it is certainly a situation that should be causing us as a society to ask questions.

If we really are seeking answers, I think we should be equally looking at the impact of modelling behavior and the impact of the news and entertainment media on the proliferation of these events. The work of Dr. Brandon Centerwall in this regard stands out. It is well worth a look for those seriously wondering what possible causal factors are involved.

One thing we DEFINITELY aren't going to have a genuinely serious conversation about is the role of the media as a causal factor in these horrible incidents. And whether maybe or not the right to "freedom of speech" should be limited, not just the right to arms for defense (check out the English Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, you smug Canadians). Oh, we'll talk about the media's role a bit - but nobody will seriously talk about passing a few laws in that corner.

Think about it. Firearms have been around for centuries; semiautomatic handguns (often direly called "automatic weapons" by some of the fear mongers) have been in civilian circulation for well over a hundred years. Many schools had shooting ranges on site - including here in Canada - with students taking firearms to school to use at those ranges well into the late 1960's and early 70's. And yet these mass murders where a lone gunman, armed with multiple firearms, attacks scores of people he doesn't even know, are just over 20 years old. James Huberty began it at a MacDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro in 1984. Since then there have been dozens of incidents and the words "going postal" have become part of our language. The "gun laws" certainly haven't gotten more lax (including in the US); in fact, quite the opposite is true.

Given that ready access to firearms, including semiautomatic and automatic firearms, has existed for well over a hundred years, what has changed that these have become regular events? Events that are so identical in the manner in which they are carried out that each murderer almost seems to be performing from the same script?

Has a new human gene mutated that causes people to arm themselves with multiple firearms, dress in a similar fashion, and then kill as many people as possible before shooting themselves? Perhaps the perpetrators of these horrendous events are part of a sinister group who are trained to commit their crimes in a nearly identical manner, right down to carrying multiple firearms and committing suicide after killing as many strangers as possible? Or maybe the CIA is applying experimental drugs to the surface of firearms, causing certain people to become psychotic, form some kind of mind-meld with deceased school killers, and replicate their crimes. How likely is any of that?

Here's a thought: maybe the reason these murders by people who never knew each other are so nearly identical is because they are inspired and guided by the media coverage these events get. Want to go out in a blaze of glory and have the world finally pay attention to you and millions of people spend hours reading all about you and your life? Want to ensure your name, like "Klebold" or "Lepine", "Kimveer Gill" has instant recognition?

Well baby, just follow the script provided by the media from past events, and your fame and notoriety is pretty much guaranteed. The media will tell the world about you, and the public will reward them for doing this by lapping up everything they put up about you. Profits couldn't be better!

There is no doubt that in the days and weeks to come there will be an outpouring of media editoralizing regarding the "need" for more gun control and prohibitions. It will in many instances run right beside every fascinating detail that same media can dig up about the sick animal who committed this horrendous crime.

What will be markedly absent is any decision by the media to not glorify yet another mass murderer - and inspire the next pathetic individual out there who wants the same attention when he decides to end his own life.

Because, as those who work in the news media are wont to say: "If it bleeds it leads".

There are lots of complex issues involved in mass murders. "Gun control" is a long failed strategy that isn't among the answers. But the time is long overdue to start paying attention to how incredibly similar all these events are in how they are carried out and start asking the media what part they play in these copycat slaughters.

As criminologists, we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle - but we do have a lot. Unfortunately, that really isn't what the public and the politicians find particularly interesting right now.

By the way... the death toll in this horrendous crime is miniscule in comparison to the greatest mass school killing in US history. That one was carried out with explosives. Something Timothy McVeigh apparently knew and reminded us of a few years ago... and something the Columbine killers tried to emulate as well, but apparently hadn't been paying sufficient attention in Chemistry to get it right.

[jthommo]

I suppose we'll agree to disagree on basically every point you made. Let me just say I'm glad stringent gun laws introduced in the '90s have halved our gun-related deaths (in 2003) to 290. I guess you are happy with the US gun-related deaths - 28,000.

By 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.

There's not much more I can say really.

---

Last edited by jthommo; 04-20-2007 at 04:20 PM.

[benjikan]

There is more to what you are speculating on than you might imagine.

I don't know anything about this killer, and I am making a deliberate attempt to not read or hear anything about him - I think the attention these sick individuals are given contributes a lot to these occurances.

Having said that, psychotropic drugs are a correlation found in a disturbing number of mass murders since the James Huberty murders in... 1984 I think. Correlation isn't causation, but a very high number of mass murderers have had prescriptions for these drugs, and Prozac in particular. It may well be a situation of whether the chicken or the egg came first, but it is certainly a situation that should be causing us as a society to ask questions.

If we really are seeking answers, I think we should be equally looking at the impact of modelling behavior and the impact of the news and entertainment media on the proliferation of these events. The work of Dr. Brandon Centerwall in this regard stands out. It is well worth a look for those seriously wondering what possible causal factors are involved.

One thing we DEFINITELY aren't going to have a genuinely serious conversation about is the role of the media as a causal factor in these horrible incidents. And whether maybe or not the right to "freedom of speech" should be limited, not just the right to arms for defense (check out the English Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, you smug Canadians). Oh, we'll talk about the media's role a bit - but nobody will seriously talk about passing a few laws in that corner.

Think about it. Firearms have been around for centuries; semiautomatic handguns (often direly called "automatic weapons" by some of the fear mongers) have been in civilian circulation for well over a hundred years. Many schools had shooting ranges on site - including here in Canada - with students taking firearms to school to use at those ranges well into the late 1960's and early 70's. And yet these mass murders where a lone gunman, armed with multiple firearms, attacks scores of people he doesn't even know, are just over 20 years old. James Huberty began it at a MacDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro in 1984. Since then there have been dozens of incidents and the words "going postal" have become part of our language. The "gun laws" certainly haven't gotten more lax (including in the US); in fact, quite the opposite is true.

Given that ready access to firearms, including semiautomatic and automatic firearms, has existed for well over a hundred years, what has changed that these have become regular events? Events that are so identical in the manner in which they are carried out that each murderer almost seems to be performing from the same script?

Has a new human gene mutated that causes people to arm themselves with multiple firearms, dress in a similar fashion, and then kill as many people as possible before shooting themselves? Perhaps the perpetrators of these horrendous events are part of a sinister group who are trained to commit their crimes in a nearly identical manner, right down to carrying multiple firearms and committing suicide after killing as many strangers as possible? Or maybe the CIA is applying experimental drugs to the surface of firearms, causing certain people to become psychotic, form some kind of mind-meld with deceased school killers, and replicate their crimes. How likely is any of that?

Here's a thought: maybe the reason these murders by people who never knew each other are so nearly identical is because they are inspired and guided by the media coverage these events get. Want to go out in a blaze of glory and have the world finally pay attention to you and millions of people spend hours reading all about you and your life? Want to ensure your name, like "Klebold" or "Lepine", "Kimveer Gill" has instant recognition?

Well baby, just follow the script provided by the media from past events, and your fame and notoriety is pretty much guaranteed. The media will tell the world about you, and the public will reward them for doing this by lapping up everything they put up about you. Profits couldn't be better!

There is no doubt that in the days and weeks to come there will be an outpouring of media editoralizing regarding the "need" for more gun control and prohibitions. It will in many instances run right beside every fascinating detail that same media can dig up about the sick animal who committed this horrendous crime.

What will be markedly absent is any decision by the media to not glorify yet another mass murderer - and inspire the next pathetic individual out there who wants the same attention when he decides to end his own life.

Because, as those who work in the news media are wont to say: "If it bleeds it leads".

There are lots of complex issues involved in mass murders. "Gun control" is a long failed strategy that isn't among the answers. But the time is long overdue to start paying attention to how incredibly similar all these events are in how they are carried out and start asking the media what part they play in these copycat slaughters.

As criminologists, we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle - but we do have a lot. Unfortunately, that really isn't what the public and the politicians find particularly interesting right now.

By the way... the death toll in this horrendous crime is miniscule in comparison to the greatest mass school killing in US history. That one was carried out with explosives. Something Timothy McVeigh apparently knew and reminded us of a few years ago... and something the Columbine killers tried to emulate as well, but apparently hadn't been paying sufficient attention in Chemistry to get it right.

Thanks so much for your enlightening treatise. However, I am not speculating, I know this to be a fact. These drugs are being administered to "infants" as young as six years old by the large drug company cartels through political lobbying and payments to some very deep pockets in the political arena.

To add to this conundrum, just read a few books by the famous German Therapist, Alice Miller. I have read about five of her perhaps ten or eleven books such as, "Breaking Down the Walls of Silence", "For Your Own Good", "Banished Knowledge and "The Drama of the Gifted Child" for example. If you can come away from reading these books without being profoundly affected, I would be surprised to say the least...

[Rick]

I suppose we'll agree to disagree on basically every point you made.

Well I expected that - after all, your views are based purely on emotion and nothing whatsoever on the peer reviewed objective research that exists in the field of criminology - which is what my points are based on. And of course, the narrowest minds let in the least amount of light.

Let me just say I'm glad stringent gun laws introduced in the '90s have halved our gun-related deaths (in 2003) to 290. I guess you are happy with the US gun-related deaths - 38,000.

That's like me saying "I gather you're happy that over 30 students were disarmed so they could be slaughtered without any hope of defending themselves whatsoever". Or perhaps, "It must really make you angry that over 400 American women each day in the US use a firearm to drive off an attacker instead of being left defenseless so they could be easily raped." Either would be as irrational a comment as yours above.

You may well believe that changes in firearms related deaths in Australia are soley - or primarily - a direct result in changes to firearms laws. Criminologists who have researched this and had their work published in peer reviewed journals disagree with you - but what would they know, they are only trained in that field and spend their lives investigating crime.

By 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.

Ignoring for the moment your simplistic view of the issue and what published research has found that contradicts that view, we are left with a puzzling question.

If Draconian firearms laws and confiscating them from the hands of all compliant law abiding citizens is such a wonderful way of dealing with firearms related homicides... how come Jamaica's homicide rate by firearm makes the murder rate in the US look like schoolyard squabbles? After all, Jamaica is an island nation, just like Australia. So if disarming all law abiding citizens (we know the criminals never do comply, how rude of them) is such a successful mechanism to deal with firearms crime... why is Jamaica such a slaughterhouse?

And why in Israel, surrounded by enemies and under constant terrorist attack, is a nation whose people are armed on a scale that surpasses firearms ownership in the US such a safe place to live even with terrorism factored into crime statistics.

A criminologist would probably tell you that it isn't a matter of making simplistic cross cultural comparisons and crime generally has a lot of complex social and cultural dynamics involved. But what would they know.

There's not much more I can say really. I see by your bio you are an ex police officer - these are the views I would expect you to hold.

Actually, I hold the views I do because I was trained to look at crime and its' causes objectively, not through the lens of emotional "everybody knows" handwringing. Therein lies the difference between people such as yourself and people such as me, regardless of what particular occupation anyone ever worked in, past or present.

All that being a former law enforcement officer taught me is that anyone who thinks police can protect them from evil in the world is dreaming in technicolor. It taught me that legislated bans - whether Prohibition, the War On Drugs, or even bans on murder - simply don't work. And - with the murder of one of my very best friends while attempting to arrest two suspects some years ago - that gun control laws like drug laws are little more than bread and circuses for the ignorant masses. Keep 'em happy that you're "doing something" is what it is all about.

One question does stand out. Every piece of research I've ever seen in a refereed journal examining the relationship between alcohol and crime - conducted in any country - has found that booze has a CAUSAL (not correlation) relationship with violent crime in general and murder in particular that exceeds 50%. Think of that for a moment: the beer, wine, scotch, etc that so many of us love to drink is a causal factor in over half the murders (with or without firearms), rapes, assaults, etc in the countries we live in. Compare the death toll from drunk drivers in any country to those murdered with firearms - booze wins every time.

With that in mind, why is it that those so eager to ban and confiscate firearms from the hands of their fellow citizens in hopes of reducing the carnage aren't equally up in arms demanding that their chianti or Fosters be immediately banned from possession and use? Where has their concern about the suffering and loss of life suddenly disappeared to? After all, you don't NEED alcohol anymore than you NEED a firearm. You can't bring home game for the pantry with alcohol as you can with a firearm, drinking isn't yet an Olympic and Commonwealth Games sport, and you certainly can't use alcohol to defend yourself and your family.

The big difference of course, is they have no problem whatsoever in encouraging government to confiscate and deprive their fellow citizens of firearms because they don't own them themselves and have no personal interest in them. But let anybody suggest they shouldn't have the priviledge of lawful access to their booze, and by God there will be hell to pay. Drinking may not be constitutionally protected, but we certainly aren't going to stand for THAT!

Hypocrisy, thy name is gun control. jthommo, if you're an equally ardent supporter of banning all alcohol from society, I'm not referring to you with this, of course. I would be interested in hearing what you or any groups you belong to have done in Australia in advocacy of banning alcohol in that nation, in fact. Because as you and I both know, alcohol abuse and the criminal results of that abuse are a huge problem in Australia - and New Zealand and England as well.

Aside from the immediate horror of this crime, the truly sad part is the majority of society's energy and efforts are going to go - yet again - towards gun control. Criminologists who have done considerable work in the field of mass murderers have published at length at what appears to motivate these killers, and their work and findings go largely ignored. Perhaps because they don't seem to feel that gun control is the problem and the answer, but ignored none the less.

And so, in the future, it is inevitable that the rate of such killings simply will not stop. The fact that we will learn no more from this crime than we have from the previous ones makes it all the more horrible.

[nosnoop]

In almost all the condolences thread in various forums, they all degenerate into debates on gun control or even Iraq war. This is very off topic and nothing to do with condolences.

And arguments or debates on gun control invariable leads to no where.

Non-Americans believe that allowing people to own guns so freely is crazy.
Americans believe that not allowing people to own guns is crazy.

And that's that. You will never convince the other party to change the mind. I'd advice to you do what I do - when coming across these gun control debates and you have a strong urge to post? Just take a deep breath, and switch channel

[justuspr]

First off my condolences go out to the families and friends of the victims.

Secondly, I am a gun owner, I own several for hunting, and shooting sports. I also own a handgun and have the paperwork filed for a Concealed Weapons Permit.

Thirdly, I am not a criminal and hope that I never have reason to use a firearm against another person. However I will carry a firearm to defend myself and my family, and will fight to retain that right.

[Rick]

Thanks so much for your enlightening treatise. However, I am not speculating, I know this to be a fact. These drugs are being administered to "infants" as young as six years old by the large drug company cartels through political lobbying and payments to some very deep pockets in the political arena.

I didn't mean to imply the role of drugs used in psychiatric treatment was speculation. I do know those drugs have been prescribed for a suspiciously high number of the people who commit these crimes, and that fact seems to go almost unaddressed. What I should have clarified is that I know very little of any aspect of criminology that has covered that particular issue. And therefore, I would be hesitant to offer any opinions or statements concerning that.

Drugs and children are certainly outside my scope of knowledge. We did cover some of the research and links between hyperactive/attention deficient kids, the RAS, and psychopaths (and not all psychopaths are criminals) back in university, and that was somewhat mind boggling. However, that is pretty much the sum of my knowledge.

Thanks very much for the references to the books; I'll try to get at least one of them on my reading list.

[Rick]

In almost all the condolences thread in various forums, they all degenerate into debates on gun control or even Iraq war. This is very off topic and nothing to do with condolences.

That's true. Although, these threads really aren't about condolences - the chances that a friend or family of the victims is actually reading is pretty slim. If I truly wanted to send condolences that would reach those who have suffered a loss, I would wire flowers or send a card (which, incidentally, I did). These threads are as much about condolences for ourselves, our shock and pain that this can happen and the fear and uncertainty that we suffer because of it.

With that comes, for many people, a desire to find a root cause and with that a solution. And with that comes, for many people, advocacy for "gun control". Many of course roll personal biases against the US, capitolism, etc in there as well - never miss an opportunity to bash the US or their culture when the chance presents itself. Sadly, Canadians are particularly good at this. It says a lot about us as a country that we seem compelled to define ourselves by broadcasting how we are different than the US - rather than by simply getting on with our destiny and being what we are, regardless to whether we are similar to another culture or not.

And arguments or debates on gun control invariable leads to no where.

On that we most certainly will have to disagree.

First, allowing the lies and propaganda being spread about firearms and gun control in general to be spread unchallenged only leads - inevitably - to firearms confiscation and banning. Canada has seen that, as has England. Allow somebody (who invariably knows nothing about firearms themselves) to falsely claim certain firearms have "no sporting purpose" long enough, and it becomes accepted fact and sufficient reason to confiscate them.

Second, when we continue to choose "gun control" as our primary solution to violent crime rather than taking an unemotional look at the causal factors and proceeding from there, we not only waste huge sums of public funds and criminal justice system resources, we also waste the lives of those who die because we didn't do something more effective in combatting the problem. The last reason alone makes the debate well worth having - peoples' lives literally depend on it.

Non-Americans believe that allowing people to own guns so freely is crazy.
Americans believe that not allowing people to own guns is crazy.

We will have to disagree on that as well.

I'm not an American, and I believe that any law that mandates decent, law abiding men and women must go defenseless in a society that can't disarm and control violent criminals and can't defend them from those violent criminals is crazy. Do we seriously expect my 125 lb wife to do ground and pound mixed martial arts with a drunken rapist weighing 200 lbs? Do we expect my 78 year old arthritic father to pull off some sort of Bruce Lee kung fu move against a 28 year old repeat offender who spent the last three years in prison pumping iron and surviving multiple gang fights while in prison? Opposition to irrational firearms legislation is not exactly an exclusively American position.

In the US, on the other hand, there are lots of people who would prefer to see Americans disarmed and converted into compliant, defenseless sheeple. If you think the US lacks Draconian gun legislation, check out the gun laws in Washington, DC, New Jersey and New York. Arnold Schwartzenneger - who made his fame and fortune portraying characters using firearms in the most illegal and irresponsible manner imaginable - never met a gun control law he didn't like, and California gun laws reflect that as well. So yes, there are lots of Americans who prefer to see their fellow Americans disarmed. But they aren't the majority and are unlikely to be so anytime soon.

And that's that. You will never convince the other party to change the mind.

Past events have proven that false as well. In Canada at least, support for firearms registration as an effective means of preventing crime has gone from high support to high levels of opposition. Rational people are capable of looking at the issue and changing their minds. Emotional people? You're right, they will take a "don't distract me with the facts" position every time. (Unless you're advocating banning alcohol, of course, in which case they rapidly put together a rational argument as to why bans don't work).

I'd advice to you do what I do - when coming across these gun control debates and you have a strong urge to post? Just take a deep breath, and switch channel

Well thank you for the advice. But what works for you may not necessarily work for others.

[Rick]

Thirdly, I am not a criminal and hope that I never have reason to use a firearm against another person. However I will carry a firearm to defend myself and my family, and will fight to retain that right.

It is fascinating that you would have difficulty finding anyone, here or elsewhere, who wouldn't agree with the concept that people have as their most basic right the right to life and security of their person. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would stand up and say people don't have a right to self defense. It's where the idea of a right to carry arms for self defense is raised that it starts getting real interesting.

The logical fallacy begins at this point. If people have the right to defend their lives and security of the person, by what means do they secure that right? If the laws of a society dictate that a woman can do no more than use her hands and feet against a rapist who outweighs her by 70 lbs, is her right to life and security of the person nothing more than an illusion? Are middle aged and senior citizens, the infirm, required to stick to cool martial arts moves and pure luck if they want to defend their right to life and security of the person?

If you do have a right to life and security of the person, it follows that you also have a right to the means to effectively defend that right against those who would take your life of your wellbeing from you. Dialing 911 doesn't cut it; police response times in the best of jurisdictions are usually around the 15 minute mark - assuming the criminal waits and patiently allows you to dial 911 in the first place. Nobody seriously believes the police will be there standing by your side at the moment a rapist attacks you or a group of thugs out "wilding" starts beating you to death in a corner park.

As just about every victim of violence will tell you - those still alive - at the instant a criminal attack was initiated on them, the only person present to defend their life and wellbeing was they themselves. In places like Appalachan School of Law, some students carried the means to defend their lives and a school shooter was quickly stopped. At Virginia Tech, they died unarmed and defenseless - their right to life and security little more than a theoretical concept.

There is no way around it. It is a the height of insanity to say people have a right to life and security of the person, yet they are not allowed to have the means to defend that right when threatened. That is why, until we can issue each person their own individual bodyguard, unarmed people will continue to die at the hands of violent criminals in gangs, armed with knives, clubs, and guns. Because criminals don't pick on those capable of defending themselves, and they certainly don't have any qualms about carrying and using weapons themselves.

[jthommo]

Rick, you cite learned "peer reviewed objective research"; is it online - could you provide a link?

I'm happy to provide links to research - for example the Harvard study which accepts (as I do) banning guns in the US is impossible, but harm minimisation could help. Here's summary in the Harvard magazine:
David Hemenway applies scientific method to the gun problem - Harvard Magazine (September-October 2004)

It states, inter alia "the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that increased gun prevalence increases the homicide rate."

And further "Firearm prevalence was positively related to the suicide rate"

Florida State University College of Medicine has also conducted research. You might be interested to note what they say about children playing with guns they find at home.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

I'll provide more links if you wish.

Your assertion that people with guns prevent massacres is interesting, too. No, I've never heard of the case you cite but a quick online search throws up a number of massacres where this did not happen and none where it did.