Do guns kill people?

Another thought. The Fort Hood shooting. People who think there should be no laws against gun ownership often say thatif everyone were armed such shootings would not occur because a large number of people would be armed and able to shoot the perpetrator. But where in the US are many people more likely to be armed and trained to use guns, along with many weapons freely available than on an army base? Yet no other shots were fired other than by the crazed killer. So much for safety where there are large numbers of armed people. Think of that the next time someone says school kids would be safer in school if the teachers were armed. Lois
Lois, I usually respect your opinions, but this one is not based on facts. Soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases. Your premise is false. That said, I do agree with your opinion that arming teachers is a bad idea. Not even military police and the people at guard stations? I have visited many Amy bases, though not in the past few years, and there were always people around with holstered guns, just like cops, right out in the open. Why do you suppose that soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on military bases? What could possibly be the rationale? What if they have to defend themselves? Should they have fewer rights than civilians? Is the 2nd amendment suspended on Army bases? And for what purpose? Are guns too dangerous for trained military to be trusted with? Lois Lois: Many years ago, when I was in the service as an MP, we could only carry guns or have guns in our possession when we were on duty, when we were off duty they were kept in an arms room, even in Viet Nam. The reason for this was to avoid accidents. Even among experienced combat veterans who have first hand knowledge of what their weapons can damage and kill, accidents happen. I was witness to two both resulting in death. One died when he shot himself another killed a young man who was doing no more than riding a bike past the barracks when a M-14 went off accidentally and he was hit. Which should be the attitide when it comes to civilians carrying weapons, too. But the NRA types will have none of it. But there is more to it than accidents. There are the nut cases, too, which the NRA types also don't address. Lois
Others do not read, and, well, shoot immediately from the hip. :zip:
Not me...?
Sigh... Do you really think I needed that explanation? You underestimate me.
Well, I am sooooo sorry! :-)
Objects do not cause anything. Events cause other events. :zip:
Events and objects must work in harmony. Events are not made of particles. Objects are. There can be no events without particles. There can be no particles without events.
No. People doing stupid or immoral things kill. (Ha! We are slowly nearing the free will debate. Thanks for this opening, VYAZMA!)
Of course cyanide, trains and heart attacks kill people. Just ask any coroner. There's a cause of death box right on the certificate.

A small subset of people kill people. The technology of killing preceded science, when someone first learned to kill using an object. Prior to that a small subset of people probably killed other people by hitting, choking, kicking, biting, stomping, or some combination. Technology only made it easier. Science, when it eventually came in to being, contributed to the advancement of the technologies of killing. People are, at least partially, predators. Some people kill other people. This has always been the case, with or without technology, science, or guns.
So is this a “mental defect”? In answer I cite a line from a poem: “Why does Man pollute the land?.. Maybe Nature littered Man.”

Others do not read, and, well, shoot immediately from the hip. :zip:
Not me...? Not this time.
Of course cyanide, trains and heart attacks kill people. Just ask any coroner. There's a cause of death box right on the certificate.
Cyanide being in its bottle does not kill anybody. Trains standing still do not kill anybody. For short: objects taken on itself do not kill anybody. Cyanide entering a living animal kills. A train overruning a living animal kills. These are events. And that's also the difference with a heart attack. A heart attack is not an object, it is an event. That people tend to use shorthand, especially where the real meaning is unambiguous, does not make objects killers.

GdB, I’m just toying around. Most of my contribution to this thread have been half-hearted
quips as an attempt for levity. The coroner line is a good example of this.
The smileys were another tip-off…

So the answer to the topic title question is obvious. A subset of people use guns to kill other people. A gun can’t kill anything by itself, and it is designed to be used by people (i.e., other critters are unlikely to use guns to kill people).
So the next obvious question is: what can we do to decrease the ease (for which guns have been designed) of killing, by the subset of people who would use them to kill other people?
We can’t limit the availability of guns through legislation or Constitutional amendment, because the NRA won’t allow it. I don’t see the power of the NRA diminishing anytime soon, so I suggest looking at other potential solutions.
If we had other solutions, perhaps they could also work to limit the small subset of people who will kill people, from using other means of killing, also. This is important, as science and resulting technologies will inevitably continue to provide ever more efficient means for people to kill other people.

So the answer to the topic title question is obvious. A subset of people use guns to kill other people. A gun can't kill anything by itself, and it is designed to be used by people (i.e., other critters are unlikely to use guns to kill people). So the next obvious question is: what can we do to decrease the ease (for which guns have been designed) of killing, by the subset of people who would use them to kill other people? We can't limit the availability of guns through legislation or Constitutional amendment, because the NRA won't allow it. I don't see the power of the NRA diminishing anytime soon, so I suggest looking at other potential solutions. If we had other solutions, perhaps they could also work to limit the small subset of people who will kill people, from using other means of killing, also. This is important, as science and resulting technologies will inevitably continue to provide ever more efficient means for people to kill other people.
You're right, and if you can come up with a workable solution, i and a lot of other people would be eternally grateful. But I can't think of one thing that would get through Congress and the Supreme Court--at least the way both are comprised today. No amount of punishment is going to stop people from killing other people with guns, and our hands are tied when it comes to seriously limiting their availability, even to known unstable people. . It seems to me that we can only hope that the majority of the voters come to their senses one day, but I'm not holding my breath. This is America, after all: Land of the free, home of the brave and crazy as loons from bottom to top. Lois
We can’t limit the availability of guns through legislation or Constitutional amendment, because the NRA won’t allow it.
Don't forget the gun manufacturers, funding the NRA.
...If we had other solutions, perhaps they could also work to limit the small subset of people who will kill people, from using other means of killing, also. This is important, as science and resulting technologies will inevitably continue to provide ever more efficient means for people to kill other people.
You're right, and if you can come up with a workable solution, i and a lot of other people would be eternally grateful... Lois I suggest we go at the problem from another direction than gun control (since, unfortunately, gun control is going nowhere). A concerted effort, is in order, to identify the characteristics of the small portion of our population who are most likely to commit mass and serial killings, and to identify the circumstances in which they are most likely to kill.
A concerted effort, is in order, to identify the characteristics of the small portion of our population who are most likely to commit mass and serial killings, and to identify the circumstances in which they are most likely to kill.
You suggest massive screening of citizens to find the few rotten ones? The NSA is already applying for the job as they read your posting, Tim... Think about the great synergies! :-S No, I think you (Americans) have no chance. The NRA is too strong, and most of the gun owners will not give up their dreams that they are safer with guns spread around the people than without. The problem is that you can't control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion. As I said in a posting earlier, unwise people using technology is bad. The more a technology is prone to be misused, the more wisdom it needs to use it correctly, which in the case of guns means to refrain from using it in most situations. But the wisdom must be on the side of the people using the technology. Forbidding unwise behaviour by lawgivers is seldom wise. People do not give up on their 'acquired rights', if this is gun ownership, or driving polluting cars, buy technological gadgets for which the earth is exploited; and forcing them to do it creates just powerful lobbies of resistance (tobacco lobby, car lobby, climate deniers, NRA...) , that, if necessary, bribe, lie, or kill, whatever is needed. I have the rather pessimistic view, that our technology kills us, because we do not have the wisdom to use it correctly. I am afraid that the evolutionary experiment of human technology will slowly come to an end. If people do not really see what science tells us (and this includes 'soft sciences'), and people change their behaviour of their own free will, then we will have no chance.
The problem is that you can’t control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion
Works in Canada.
The problem is that you can’t control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion
Works in Canada.
And in many other countries, such as the UK, which has a much lower rate of firearm deaths than the US and also a much lower rate of homicide by all means. Maybe English people are just more sensible. There has to be a reason. Lois
The problem is that you can’t control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion
Works in Canada.
Yeah, and in many other countries. But when people are used to a privilege, you cannot easily take it away.
The problem is that you can’t control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion
Works in Canada.
And in many other countries, such as the UK, which has a nuch lower rate of firearm deaths than the US and also a much lower rate of homicide by all means. Maybe English people are just more sensible. There has to be a reason. Lois I think it is largely cultural. Switzerland has a far higher rate of handgun ownership than the United States, but one of the lowest firearm related death rates in the world. Having met a few Swedes I get the impression they don't have the macho me-first I'll-do-whatever-the-hell-I-please attitude many Americans have.
I think it is largely cultural. Switzerland has a far higher rate of handgun ownership than the United States,
Hand gun? I am not sure. Every man that has been in the army has his army gun at home (SIG SG 550]), but I don't think this counts as a hand gun. If you are correct, then I start to feel unsafe here... I know that it is not difficult to get a gun permit here, but still I think there are not so many Swiss really owing one.
but one of the lowest firearm related death rates in the world. Having met a few Swedes I get the impression they don't have the macho me-first I'll-do-whatever-the-hell-I-please attitude many Americans have.
Right. If I see some gun-crazy Americans in a documentary I just can't believe what I see. And of course I saw Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine'. It is impossible for me to understand that mentality. If I see some gun somewhere I start to get nervous, except when it is a Swiss soldier on his way to or from the barracks with his rifle (he is not allowed to have ammunition...).
The problem is that you can’t control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion
Works in Canada.
And in many other countries, such as the UK, which has a nuch lower rate of firearm deaths than the US and also a much lower rate of homicide by all means. Maybe English people are just more sensible. There has to be a reason. Lois I think it is largely cultural. Switzerland has a far higher rate of handgun ownership than the United States, but one of the lowest firearm related death rates in the world. Having met a few Swedes I get the impression they don't have the macho me-first I'll-do-whatever-the-hell-I-please attitude many Americans have. Whatever the cause, Americans kill people when they can get their hands on guns and that's a truth that must be addressed. The Swiss are probably more intelligent and more stable. Americans have proven over and over again that they are anything but. We need different laws when we are dealing with stupid, impulsive and unstable people. It doesn't do a bit of good to compare ourselves to the Swiss. There is absolutely no comparison. Lois
Whatever the cause, Americans kill people when they can get their hands on guns and that’s a truth that must be addressed. The Swiss are probably more intelligent and more stable. Americans have proven over and over again that they are anything but. We need different laws when we are dealing with stupid, impulsive and unstable people. It doesn’t do a bit of good to compare ourselves to the Swiss. There is absolutely no comparison.
No, gun ownership in Switzerland doesn't equate with ownership in America. There are approx. 310 million civilian firearms alone in this country not counting the untold number of military weapons. Much of this is tradition as we've had a frontier since 1893 and hunting was still a way to maintain a food supply. Hell, we have millions more weapons than there are Swiss citizens (approx. 8 million). The immediate problem we face is the various state laws that often conflict with proposed national laws restricting the right to ownership. This is tied to conservative political positions on government restriction of Citizen's rights and are cancelled out by congressmen bent on reelection who want to appear a a champion of the people. The best case scenerio here is to enforce legislation already on the books, i.e. background checks. Keep guns out of the hands of sociopaths and the severely depressed and take precautions to ensure no access, as in theft of weapons in private hands. Cap't Jack

Yes VA. I would add that we need to keep pressure on legislators to outlaw any weapons(pistol, shotgun or rifles)
with magazine caps. over 8 rounds.
Then Tax ammunition at 100% or so.

The problem is that you can’t control people by forbidding some mass behaviour. Even if you would succeed to pass a law against private gun ownership, it would stimulate radicalism and paramilitary groups, this time with illegal weapons and other means: suppression creates rebellion
Works in Canada.
Yeah, and in many other countries. But when people are used to a privilege, you cannot easily take it away. No it takes time. But it is possible through gradual processes.
Yes VA. I would add that we need to keep pressure on legislators to outlaw any weapons(pistol, shotgun or rifles) with magazine caps. over 8 rounds. Then Tax ammunition at 100% or so.
I totally agree Vy. No civilian needs to be running around with a weapon that shoots multiple rounds for either hunting or defense. But your last statement just hit the NRA's list of no no's, Taxing ammunition, and at a hundred percent. There's already a shortage of 22 cal. Ammo and the conspiracy nuts believe that the government" is behind it. I've already had some gun owners, not the nuts but the competent ones ask that question. So I did a little research and found that particular round is so popular that stores can't keep the shelves stocked fast enough so there's a shortage. It's economics, not politics. Cap't Jack