I'm interested in hearing from guys on this site, guys who I suspect is a largely liberal constituency, think should be done about mass murderers (assume that they have been given ONE fair trial.
I mean the shooter of Rep. Giffords hasn't even been brought to trial yet; Major Hassan who shot those people in Fort Hood is just coming to trial this week!
Mass Murders in the Denver Area
I happen to agree with U. Let him have his ONE fair trial, and if he's found guilty, FRY HIS ASS --None of this hanging around a Colorado jail for 20 fucking years while people decide if he's "mental" or not!
But what should happen to THIS MAN? One respondee said "fry his ass". Yes or No?
Here's a study by Dr. Martin Killias, a world renowned criminologist from the University of Switzerland, whose study concluded there's a definite correlation between gun ownership and gun-related deaths, whether it is suicidal or homicidal. (Complete copy of the report here : http://web.archive.org/web/2008010717452 8/http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/ books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERS HIP.pdf )
"The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide."
Of course, this study is 20 years old, but I don't think the statistics would have changed that much. The numbers would have increased, of course, but the overall statistical trends would still be similar to what it was back then.
There are plenty of "studies" which show results that say more stringent gun control laws would reduce gun-related violence too. I cannot comment on the validity and disinterestedness of any of those studies, since they would obviously be funded by one side of the gun control controversy or the other. So, ultimately, it all boils down to a personal opinion and what side of the issue you stand on.
In an argument against gun control, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
In addition:
As of 2006, approximately 35% of American households have a gun in them. About 22% of Americans actually own a gun.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a licence on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago).
In England, Wales and Scotland, the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in Dunblane and an earlier gun massacre in Hungerford in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban. In the UK, only 8 per cent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind. In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. The lowest rate of gun crime was in 2004/4 whilst the highest was in 1994. There was, however, a noticeable temporary increase in gun crime in the years immediately after the ban, though this has since fallen back. The reason for the increase has not been investigated thoroughly but it is thought that 3 factors may have raised the number of guns in circulation. These are, the reduction in gun crime in Northern Ireland (which led to guns coming from there to the criminal black market in England); guns (official issue or confiscated) acquired by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and guns coming from Eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain.[citation needed] Firearm injuries in England and Wales also noticeably increased in this time. In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including airsoft guns). Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005. In Scotland the picture has been more varied with no pattern of rise or fall appearing.
Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were heavily restricted and a special Gun Court established. However a high proportion of the illegal guns in Jamaica can be attributed to guns smuggled in from the United states where they are more freely available.
When such laws were first proposed, there was concern that they would cause a significant increase in accidental shootings. And the Trayvon Martin case notwithstanding, those fears have largely proved to be unfounded.
So all in all, while I don't think they are anywhere near as great or effective as the NRA does, I don't think they're a bad thing either.
No, guns don't kill people. Deranged trigger-happy idiots with guns do.
As BearinFW said, the US does need tougher gun control laws. Arming everyone wouldn't deter the would-be shooters or violent criminals. Fact is, not everyone's eager to shoot at another person, for self-defense or for defending others. There might be a few "heroes" in the crowd, but most people would rather duck and run to save their lives.
It's incredibly scary to see just how many gun nuts are amassing arms, claiming they're for "defending themselves for when the System attacks us". Wow. Really? What next? Machine guns on your roofs and landmines around your house in case of a zombie apocalypse? Or against the inevitable rise of the damn dirty apes?
Forks don't make people fat, but giving everyone cheap coupons for McDonalds' Happy Heart Attack Burgers just might do the trick :)
(off the topic, I agree with you, rae, on the hypocrisy of the "anti-choicers". A lot of them are all in favor of death penalties, but abortion is sinful to them. It's amazing how twisted our ideals must have become when the life of a parasite is more important to us than the life of its host. Apparently, a mass of undifferentiated cells and tissues without an independent identity of its own is more important than a fully-functional sentient life that is carrying it. "We want less Government intervention, unless it's a group of men who don't have a uterus, deciding what a woman's rights should be when it comes to her own body". Fuck em all.)
However, I don't think they are the answer for situations like what happened in Aurora. There really isn't much reason to believe that an ordinary citizen would be able to gun down a madman during a pressure-packed, chaotic shooting spree.
I do not think there is a need for guns - save for:
(1) the military
(2) for hunting
(3) for competitive sport
Uncontrolled access to gun ownership is unreasonable. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution made sense as a way to involve the populace in responding to invasion. Similarly gun ownership allowed for protection since our country did not yet have police forces. Guns were necessary for survival, they were necessary for families to eat, at least, in pre-agricultural days in our country.
In contemporary society, however, I fail to see any justification for assault-style weapons of any sort to be available to the general public. It is beyond reason for a person to justify having bazooka in his closet...
It is sad to say that the guy who pulled the trigger at the theater in Aurora, CO may be found not guilty by reason of mental instability...
One exception to a plea of insanity includes the guy who drove the truck with the explosives to the Federal building in Oklahoma City. After his conviction it was not very long before he was actually put to death. My belief is (if my memory is correct) that he did not seriously fight the death penalty. That guy got the just penalty he deserved...
Justice is always elusive. Even with the death penalty for the movie theater murderer the debate about justice being served will be an endless one. Those who argue about the death penalty and whether justice is served when that is adjudicated are really arguing about the issue from a philosophical point of view.
For the families of 9/11 victims "justice" was served when the pilots who took control of the aircraft also perished. In the case of Saddam Hussain (former President of Iraq) "justice" was achieved for the survivors of numerous people killed either by his own hand or by his orders.
Let us hope that justice will be served for those who perished in Aurora and for their families...
The Aurora shooter purchased his guns, including assault rifles, at Gander Mountain and Bass Pro Shops in the Denver area. Not exactly Walmart, but pretty close. How could a 24-year-old have been able to just waltz into stores and buy multiple assault rifles in a short time frame with NO ONE raising any questions about it?
It is a sad commentary and a reflection on money and lobbying power that the NRA has so totally been able to reshape gun control arguments in its favor. Having some gun laws isn't the same thing as banning all guns!!!!!!! The NRA wants basically ALL gun restrictions prevented or abolished. And they have basically succeeded in twisting the argument in their favor.
I actually support gun ownership and concealed carry laws. However, I don't see that people need to be able to go out and buy multiple assault rifles. They must be going after some well-armed deer!!!
Other areas of American life, including our sacred free speech, are not immune from regulation. I don't see why guns should be either.
And BTW, though I don't advocate a total gun ban and the Supreme Court wouldn't allow it anyway, I think it would reduce gun crime over time. It wouldn't have an immediate impact, but check back in 50 years or so. Countries that don't allow or severely limit gun ownership have astronomically lower gun crime rates than we do.
Unless there were an armed cop or soldier in the crowd, I doubt it would make much difference. There's no reason to believe, other than just wishful thinking, that ordinary citizens would be able to stop a well-armed, determined assassin, which is what these types of killers are.
However, there is little will in this country for tougher gun laws, so I guess occasional events like this are going to continue to be part of the price of that freedom. (And NO, I don't think things like this will be prevented by giving everyone a gun!!!)
As for the killers themselves, they deserve the maximum punishment that the law allows.