Student makes a Counter-strike map, gets expelled

A high school student makes a counter-strike map based on his school, on his own computer, in his own home. The police search his room, find some crappy medieval swords, confiscate his property, and he is expelled:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2850/fbisd-police-found-5-swords-at-home-of-student-removed-from-clements-over-computer-game

He is not arrested or charged with anything, but was given a "police order" to delete the game and game maps from his computer.

Meanwhile when violent crime actually does occur, the University and police do nothing:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/17/60minutes/main286144.shtml
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/16/virginia_tech/index_np.html

To say the high school administration is stepping out of their jurisdiction is an understatement. The high school now has the power to act as a law enforcement agency for all matters that occur off campus?


These words are the mark of someone who is lying but wants to avoid taking responsibility for their statements. They want to give you an impression without making any actual statement that can be disputed later. "They got more stuff that doesn't look too good". He could not possibly have been more vague.

The people who can come up with logic like this, I can't even picture them as human. Anyone that stupid can't be the same species as me. If this happened to my kid, I would be so incredibly astounded, I would have trouble even communicating with these people, like the characters in "Idiocracy".

You can't blame the school, they're just terrified of a lawsuit. If they did nothing and another Columbine happened, then it emerged that they knew about this game, every parent who knew what an attorney was would be hiring one to sue the school for neglience.

Blame the "I'll sue" culture.

Oh shit.

I made a Quill adventure set in my school.

Whats that at the door....

That's ridiculous but people are afraid ... fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering and all that.

I don't buy it. When bad stuff actually does happen, the normal response is negligence to the point where it seems like they want it to happen. I've seen it enough times that I can say the normal police response to a school shooting is to let the killer finish, then go in. (But shoot any members of the public who attempts to go in to help.) Basically they just cordon off the area, pretty much assisting the suspect and participating in the act.

The same kind of thing happened after Katrina. Police confiscated weapons from houses, leaving the people defenseless. I heard a lot of stories from people who were lied to and threatened by the police. There's definitely this attitude that is like an occupying army.

After V-Tech, all they wanted to do was give the students counseling and encourage this victimhood attitude. One teacher was fired for pointing out that other armed students could have stopped the killer.

I think they want shootings and things to occur (as long as no administration gets hurt) and in the absence of real violence, they will fabricate potential violence like this. A climate of fear means less public oversight of those in power. I remember when my high school superintendent got in trouble for embezzling money. A fake terrorist act sure would have helped them.

I share your point of view, Leadwerks.

I don't know if there is an english translation of it available, but I can only recommend this book by Henryk M. Broder to everybody: "Hurra, wir kapitulieren." It's mainly about islamism and appeasement, but I think it also has something to say in a more general context.

Here's something about the author in the english Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Broder

The guy is almost cynical, but I think he just plainly speaks out the truths everybody wants to deny and ignore, because it is more comfortable that way.

About your statement "a fake terrorist act sure would have helped them"... Even though it is still not known who really did it, but the burning of the Reichstag actually only helped Hitler to strengthen his position in Germany. Very similar to 9/11, which actually helped Bush and his schemes a lot. Anybody remember that we did not live in police states before 9/11? No?

Well, there has always been too much surveillance and control in all of the "free" and "democratic western" countries. But almost all governments took advantage of the events of 9/11 to crush our civil rights. If it really was a terrorist attack, then one can say that the terrorists won: Significant parts of our freedom are gone, and it were our own elected leaders who took them away. They created a state of fear to justify their demolishing of democracy and liberty, and they are not done yet.

Well, it's only a game, I'm guessing that it was all out of just talent and fun, not of threats or fantasizing of what to do in real life. Man, oh man, can't these guys just tell the difference between just building for fun, and building for bad ideas?

> One teacher was fired for pointing out that other armed students could have stopped the killer.


Although I believe the teacher had a point, there are times when making that point is a stupid idea.

As for the counterstrike map, schools are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

> Anybody remember that we did not live in police states before 9/11?

I don't remember living in one since either.

>> Anybody remember that we did not live in police states before 9/11?
> I don't remember living in one since either.

Then you must have missed all those "anti terrorism laws" that have been passed in the last years in all G8 countries. Here is an example for the United Kingdom, whose police was in today's press because they now want to use the "Terrorism Act 2000" law against environmental activists that are currently demonstrating at Heathrow airport and have been labeled "anarchists". This is the official link to the online law text:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm

When I look at the crap our German minister Schäuble is planning and at all the laws Bush is passing and compare it to historic incidents, then I am getting increasingly concerned.

Sounds like they're trying to prevent the Doom-Induced School Raid those high school did back when. They bribed a programmer to make their school a level in their Doom game and eventually ended up reenacting the whole thing for real.

Why would you have to bribe someone? Often their school is the only building young programmers/modders know well, so Im sure quite a few of them do their school.

I wasnt joking when I said That I did a quill adventure set with my school as the Map. And I got my 12Yo nephew FPSC and the first thing he did was his school

Eh, I made a model of my high school some years back..... it was just somthing to do. I even had a little fire drill simulation.
Come to think of it, I made another when I was still in high school, for a class project ;)
As to this, it's crazy. I think were all just a LITTLE to paranoid...

Stop making handguns and high powered weaponry available to the populace and you'll have fewer and fewer school shooting sprees. The teenagers won't be able to get hold of the necessary equipment.

I don't see the problem as a question of what weapons are used. For example in real life, the governments of USA and also many european countries are in a mass hystery about terrorists, the checks in the airports take over 3 hours. However, what if the next terrorist attack is done by a naked Wing-Tsun master, he would easily kick out a metal door of the pilot's cabin and kill the pilot barehanded. I think the real problem is the source. We should eliminate all violence by making it not wanted by anyone. If USA would accept the fact that they are just one little country among 194 ( http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm ) other countries in the world, that would be a good start.
Violence in schools could be also dramatically lowered by having teachers who are competent and up-to-date, and not causing anger among their students. After all, when you get a job, nobody ever asks you for your school diploma, and if someone does, you better find a better job where they value your amateur skills and not your cheating skills. The good thing about school is that it teaches you discipline and written language skills, the rest is quite useless. The discipline comes to shine when you write bigger games, and the language skills when you communicate with people on the boards.

'hystery'? 'naked Wing-Tsun master'?


Heh - good luck with that idea.

@MadJack: I've seen many teachers who were loved by everyone, they were just cool and did their job, and they did it better than those anger teachers.

> Then you must have missed all those "anti terrorism laws"

No I did not, but I guess we have different ideas of a police state and will leave it at that.

> These words are the mark of someone who is lying but wants to avoid taking responsibility for their statements.

the article fails to mention what the original warrant was that allowed them to search the kid's house. Although the rest of the article seems pretty nuetral that is a glaring omission.

Seeing the state of the UK after banning firearms has made me opposed to any gun restrictions.

Actually I understand the decision of the FBISD, to forbid using blueprints of any manned building of real life in a computer shooting game. Game developers don't need that, since existing architectures are quite lame and you can do much better and more impressive constructs on a computer. Most computer games are more restricted than real life, so if you are a skilled programmer, why would you want to write something which is less powerful than real life, indeed you would want to write a game which is more powerful than real life. So far, not many games have achieved that. You can't destroy buildings in many games, you can't interact with objects in a simple manner like in real life, etc...

I've recently gotten into CS map making, and I was seriously considering making one of my school. The only reason I havn't yet is because it would either be too big or too lame. I've just been thinking about locations I know well enough to map, which pretty much boils down to my house, my school, or my work.

@H&K - Quill?

Was this by Gilsoft?

>The same kind of thing happened after Katrina. Police
>confiscated weapons from houses, leaving the people
>defenseless.

And taking weapons out of the hands of would-be evil-doers.

>After V-Tech, all they wanted to do was give the students
>counseling and encourage this victimhood attitude.

This is a sick statement.

>One teacher was fired for pointing out that other armed
>students could have stopped the killer.

Unless these other students are trained killers, they most likely won't be a match for a well armed teenager in a killer mindset. Getting more people killed, isn't the answer to school killings.

The idea that guns are the answer to everything, and more guns is even better, is really sick and twisted.

Eh! Black market?

@Yeshu777 yep, "The Quill" by Gilsoft on the Spectrum. Black box, gold inlay of a Quill which (I think), was writing "The quill"

The Quill... Know it well.

I used to (and still do) live in the same town as Tim Gilberts (Gilsoft).

As an 11 year old writing games in Spectrum basic I popped in a few times to show him a few of my dire attempts, most amusing looking back.

The generous guy gave my friend and I a free copy of The Quill and Illustrator to play about with..

Their office (house) later became a home brewery centre. Don't know if there's any link between that and programming.

Anyway, your post stirred a few memories.

Ah.. nostalgia..

------
And taking weapons out of the hands of would-be evil-doers.
------

They would not have gotten my guns... I am no evil-doer, I legally own guns, and they have no right to take guns from legal owners.

-------
Unless these other students are trained killers, they most likely won't be a match for a well armed teenager in a killer mindset. Getting more people killed, isn't the answer to school killings.
-------

Bah, that kid knew that no one else was opposing him. Had one other person had a gun, they would have easily surprised him and taken him down. Then instead of a tragedy, we would have a hero.

Also, a gun owner is normally trained fairly well. Especially if they are carrying it on them. They have to take classes to be allowed to do that legally. That kid had bought his guns shortly before the incident, he was NOT trained.

I have been carrying guns on my person everyday for the last 4 years and I take it seriously. I am trained, I practice, and I would not be afraid to use it to protect myself or someone else.

-------
The idea that guns are the answer to everything, and more
guns is even better, is really sick and twisted.
-------

No one said guns are the answer to everything. But, the fact that people such as yourself are close minded enough to be afraid of guns, which are just another tool, is just pathetic. "Oh my gosh, he has a gun. I am so scared". That is pathetic. A gun is no worse than a multitude of other weapons he could have carried into the school and done the same amount of damage.

Since nobody else was armed, and he knew it, he was able to walk right up to people and shoot them.

This discussion will probably get this topic locked. I apologize, but I can't sit by and let someone speak this kind of narrow-minded, uneducated tripe.

I feel nervous knowing that there are people who feel the need to carry guns around with them everywhere they go and are fully prepared to kill with them. It's ridiculous and alarming to me. You might as well walk around with a broadsword strapped to your back and a stick of dynamite in your back pocket "just in case".

Guns = individual power. Every country I have seen ban firearms always follows with a bunch of repressive laws and increase in government power. It's not even a theory, it's just a law of reality. The government telling you to give up your guns is like the other team in a hockey game telling you you don't need your stick.

Look at countries like Switzerland, where the entire male population serves in the military. You have a population of people who own and are trained in firearms. I imagine people must be very polite there.

I agree that in the U.S. the people who are attracted to guns are usually the weirdos. But that image is exaggerated by our media, whose agenda is obvious. Think about the "gun weirdo" image in your mind. How much of that is based on TV and how much is based on real life experience?

Installing nukes in every backyard would make the government think twice about oppressing people too.


No it isn't. I'd explain why but quite frankly it's obvious.


All Chinese university students are forced to undertake mandatory military training. I imagine university students must be very polite there. Therefore, students in countries where military training is not mandatory are violent and aggressive. It must be true because I ocupled a fact with a spurious, unrelated guess!

Look, I'd really like to hear a sane, reasonable and logical reason as to why people should have the fundamental right to bear arms, but in the absence of any such reason, I repeat again: arming the population with firearms is no more sensible than handing out broadswords and dynamite. It is ludicrous to think that promoting violence in a society can bring about greater freedom - it simply results in an increased threat of violence; it replaces freedom with the illusion of freedom, but this is really just another form of oppression. Of course, gun owners never understand this because they confuse personal power with personal freedom.

At 4:14 Yuri Bezmenov explains why I do not argue with liberals:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rvcZiNt6ypI

Dynamite? Nukes? Are you sure you're arguing on the same topic? There's a huge difference between owning a weapon of mass destruction and owning a weapon for self defense.


There's also a big difference between promoting weapons and allowing weapons (where a citizen has the right to decide whether or not they need a weapon).


I admit you have some good arguments why gun possession isn't necessary in many cases, but you still haven't explained why you think a complete ban would benefit everyone.

There will always be criminals, and they will always find a way to get a gun. Banning guns completely only makes an armed burgler's job easier.

My government doesn't allow guns like they do in America and I don't feel oppressed in the slightest, thank you very much. Please provide some evidence before making such sweeping statements.

In America you don't even need to be ban firearms before passing a bunch of repressive laws!

Love that video, especially the bit just after 4:14. It's the same with British people saying to Americans that guns should be illiegal. Americans say that banning guns is useless because criminals will not give them up, so gun crime will continue. Yes, this is absolutely true, no body is saying that banning guns will illiminate gun crime, it will however, greatly reduce it.

It will stop crimes such as children killing themselves or their family when they get the gun out of their dad's cupboard and think it's a toy. The solution is not to put a lock on the cabinet, the solution is to lose the gun, it's that simple. How often does an American citizen actually use a gun to stop a crime? Please give me some evidence for this because I've never heard of it on the news. The simple fact is. If guns were illegal, as they are in the UK, 99% of people would not be able to get hold of a gun, therefore most violent crimes would end up in hospitalisation, not death, just like the UK. Which a much better situation.

Here;s my personal experience:
I got attacked in the street a couple of years ago, by a small gang of teenagers. There were obviously out to start some trouble because it was completely unprovoked by me, they simply walked up to me, started calling me names, then when I tried to push past them to go home they punched me to the ground and started kicking me. A police car went passed, the police didn't notice me being attacked but it scared the teenagers enough for them to run off, I then ran home.

If either myself or any of those kids had had a gun on them, I'm sure that one or more poeple could easily have ended up dead. Even though I got attacked, and yes, it was scary, yes it hurt. But it in no way called for a leathal weapon to be needed, a cricket bat would've been nice, but a gun would have been ridiculous.

Get some perspective, guns belong with special units of the police and the armed forces. Not in the hands of the average Joe in the street.

Ban the guns, save lives, that's all there is to it.

Call me a pussy, call me oppressive, but some laws are just common sense, like speeding laws, like age limits on having sex, or when you can drink. I mean for gods sake, you can own a gun in the US but your not responsible enough to buy a beer!?!?! WTF! You people have some serious contradictions in your laws that need sorting out fast.

As please don't quote the 2nd ammendment at me, that document is over a hundred years old and bares little relevance to modern day living.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Some nice figures on that site.

Found some figures:
the number of murders in the UK in one year spnnaing 2005/2006 was: 765
The US population is five times more than the UK, so an equal amount for the US would be: 3825 murders.
The actual murder fugure for the same period in the US was, 16692
You are more than 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than in the UK.
Looks like gun control isn't such a big problem to deal with after all, you just have a violent culture. Banning guns should just be the start of your road to a better country.

Those statistics are very interesting, but comparing one country's murder rates to another doesn't prove anything about gun control laws. Now, if you showed me how murder rates in the UK dropped after guns were banned, then that would be quite convincing.

However that wasn't the case with Austrailia:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Here are some interesting figures for you:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott30.html
Although after reading the entire article, I'm not so sure it's information is correct (the writer seems to be a bit biased), but it would be interesting to verify these statistics.

We could do an experiment. A "big brother" TV program, two houses in one they have guns and plenty ammunition, and in the other they don't. Then we can sit in front of the TV and see in which house the first murder takes place.

Any bets?

Do you really take 'worldnetdaily.com' as a reliable source?

Why have the sent the poor kid to a "special needs" school though thats the question.

M R Wood Alternative Education Center is classified as an "Other Level" not defined as a Primary, Middle, or High School.

Behavior Learning Center 112
Structured Learning Center 28 special education students
Expulsion Program 35
JJAEP 30 Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program
(Thats the total student body)

It doesnt even have a Libary?


No Joke this is on the county web page

Academic Opportunities
Students have the opportunity to use networked computers in classrooms on the M.R. Woods campus.

Thats it, thats the academic oppertunity

Now, I see no problem at all from stopping maps of schools from being in camputer games. But surly a way to aviod another Columbine, is NOT to disenfranchise a bright Kid by sending him to a school THAT YOU CANNOT GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL FROM.

Oh Im sure he'll not spend the next twenty years hateing his old schools trustees, and couldnt possibly be lifethreteningly envious of the students at the school. He wont stay awake at night dreaming about prowling the school coridors in his CS mod, that ruined his life. And its not like his level of acceptance to violence is going to go up. Is it? Not now hes at school with the counties entire population of violent head-the-balls

Its a given though that if he did do anything violent CS would get the blame.

Sure they do. Bigger guns.

Except at least two teachers and one student who tried to fight him off.

Because pulling a trigger is such a difficult and complicated task.

A gun is no worse than sa baseball bat or bowie knife? You think it's as easy to defend yourself against a semi-automatic firearm as it is to defend against a man with a knife? Well come at me with a knife while I'm pointing a gun at your head, we'll settle that one real quick.

Rubbish. The government has Tanks and Bombs, you have a .45 ACP. That doesn't sound like much of a power struggle to me. Just look at Iraq. An armed populace, unable to defend themselves against a supposedly oppressive regime, unable to defend themselves against their supposed liberators, and ultimately unable to defend themselves from warlords and bands of brigands. This despite not having any gun control laws! In Iraq, you could legally own fully automatic assault rifles, grenade launchers, and even howitzers. It was customary to give each other assault rifles as gifts at "coming of age" rites.

It gets worse. What happens if a armed citizen shoots a criminal? He gets shot by the police.

A gun is no worse than a baseball bat or bowie knife? You think it's as easy to defend yourself against a semi-automatic firearm as it is to defend against a man with a knife? Well come at me with a knife while I'm pointing a gun at your head, we'll settle that one real quick.

You are just proving our point. There is no reason why the law abiding citizen should have to have the knife while the criminals get to carry the guns.

I have two children at home who need their daddy. I will do everything in my power to make sure I get home every day. If that means carrying a gun, so be it.

For the guy with the story of getting beaten up. Had the cop not drove by, you could have been seriously injured or killed. You do not believe you should have the right to defend yourself?

You non-believers have your say. That is fine. It is what America is founded on. You have the choice to not have guns, but I also have the choice to have them.

I saw not too long ago where they were going to (or did) ban swords and stuff in England as well. Next thing you know, it will be illegal to go outside with a cricket bat.

If you take one weapon from a criminal, he will just find another.

>Bah, that kid knew that no one else was opposing him. Had
>one other person had a gun, they would have easily
>surprised him and taken him down. Then instead of a
>tragedy, we would have a hero.

Or maybe not. You are making a definitive statement based on unknown circumstances. In your version any teenager with a gun can take out a guy with a gun and stop the killing before it happens. Reality rarely follows those neat lines.

>Also, a gun owner is normally trained fairly well.
>Especially if they are carrying it on them. They have to
>take classes to be allowed to do that legally. That kid
>had bought his guns shortly before the incident, he was
>NOT trained.

But he obviously didn't have a problem aiming and firing a gun.

>I have been carrying guns on my person everyday for the
>last 4 years and I take it seriously. I am trained, I
>practice, and I would not be afraid to use it to protect
>myself or someone else.

So, you think you are Rambo... Big deal.

>No one said guns are the answer to everything. But, the
>fact that people such as yourself are close minded enough
>to be afraid of guns, which are just another tool, is just
>pathetic.

Ahem, I have been handling guns since I was 8. I would hardly call myself afraid of guns. I just realize that a gun is a penis-extender for most men, just like a powerful car etc.

>"Oh my gosh, he has a gun. I am so scared". That is
>pathetic. A gun is no worse than a multitude of other
>weapons he could have carried into the school and done the
>same amount of damage.

Except, a gun delivers alot more power at longer range.

>Since nobody else was armed, and he knew it, he was able
>to walk right up to people and shoot them.

That's life. He could have gone into a preschool or a kindergarten, does that mean we should arm babies as well?

>This discussion will probably get this topic locked. I
>apologize, but I can't sit by and let someone speak this
>kind of narrow-minded, uneducated tripe.

To you, anything you don't agree with, is narrow-minded, uneducated tripe.

EDIT:
>At 4:14 Yuri Bezmenov explains why I do not argue with
>liberals:

and...

>You non-believers have your say. That is fine. It is what
>America is founded on. You have the choice to not have
>guns, but I also have the choice to have them.

Who cares about America. This is a worldwide forum.

I'd rather take my chances outrunning a bloke with a knife than a bloke with a gun.
You also get the situation where people just keep out of range (like a game of 'tag') rather than legging it.

You're missing the point I'm afraid. In a free society, why should it be necessary for a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm in the first place? Now I realize that in 3rd world countries like Iraq, Somalia and Serbia, an armed citizenry is a must, but in the US? I would hope not.

How does "getting shot" ensure you get home every day? You think a gun wielding maniac is going to politely stand idle by while you draw, release the safety, cock the gun, aim and fire?

I live in a 3rd world country. Why do you think that citizens must own/carry a firearm?

You have an Internet connection. Which 3rd world country is this?

Anyway to answer your question: To protect yourself from lawlessness, and the occasional corrupt government official.

I live in the Philippines. I don't see what an internet connection has to do with a 3rd world country.

I have never felt the need to carry a weapon with me. Carrying a firearm is hardly going to keep you safe:

Was that the first link you found in a Google search?

There's an article on Snopes that references your entire quote.

No. That's so ridiculous any point you were trying to make is totally lost.


I'd bet the first murder would take place in whichever house has a murderer, regardless of whether guns exist. The murderer would probably steal a gun from the other house and use it.


Nice, I'm glad you found that (it seems everyone else wants to ignore proof in favor of personal opinion wars). It does reasonably explain why many of the statistics are worthless due to sample size, etc., but I noticed it didn't have anything to say about one of the most significant statistics:

Chris Rock got it spot on, keep guns, up the price of bullets to $5000 each, then when someone gets shot you KNOW they must have done something bad :)

As for the kid getting expelled, that's plain over reaction done solely for brownie points by authorities, 'hey look, we've expelled a future murderer', not!

Map making for games is hugely popular, so it just goes to show how out of touch the teachers/authorities are with the youth & technology of today.

On a similar topic, did you read about the 13 year old girl in NY who was arrested for writing 'okay' on her desk?

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/29290prs20070406.html

Absolutely outrageous!

what about the number of fatalities in these armed robbiries, I'd imagine they've dropped as there's less confrontation between armed victims and criminals.

Back to the original story. The kid sounds like a computer and role-playing geek, not exactly dangerous. I think he should be commended on his computer skills, rather than be expelled.

I began creating a CS map of the place I worked in, but got bored...maybe lucky me I didn't finish it. :) I also created a zombie/vampire adventure game that took place in my neighbourhood, with this annoying lady a couple of houses away as the head evil vampire when I was in high-school. Actually won a runner up price in a HyperCard coding competition for that, but I guess times have changed since then.

Oh....well....better add to the gun debate... http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm Seems most of them get used for suicide. :/

Wow, you guys still on this topic...

Here ya go...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_2b_mFS3WM8

"Kill gun, kill..."

Responses...

---------
Who cares about America.
---------

Me, it's where I live.

---------
In a free society, why should it be necessary for a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm in the first place?
---------

Because there are people who want to do bad things to other people.

---------
How does "getting shot" ensure you get home every day? You think a gun wielding maniac is going to politely stand idle by while you draw, release the safety, cock the gun, aim and fire?
---------

How does having nothing to defend yourself help?

Cock, release safety? Huh?!?! My gun is cocked, there is no safety. Ever fired a gun before? Many do not have safeties. Safeties are inherently built in to a double action trigger.

--------
Carrying a firearm is hardly going to keep you safe:
--------

Nope, but it will give you a fighting chance if it becomes necessary.

Yes, if someone wanted to commit suicide, a gun would probably seem the most easy and "painless" way to go, but I doubt banning guns would have anything more than a very slight impact on suicide rates.


You may be right, but unfortunately finding statistics on these subjects seem very hard to find.

Here's another source on the Australia gun ban:


It's interesting that murders did fall by 3% in the long-term, but the dramatic increase in manslaughters, assaults, kidnappings, armed robberies, etc. is just as important to consider.

You've also got to consider that, for at least the time immediately following any gun ban, the very people who you don't want running around with firearms will find themselves atypically empowered. Britain, for example, doesn't really have that much of a gun culture still (although I'm sure we'll get there), but banning firearms isn't going to turn a country with a gun culture into Britain overnight. On the contrary, you would expect crimes to which firearms lend themselves to increase and remain increased until not carrying a gun becomes the societal norm.

So "Gun laws don't reduce crime" should really read "Gun laws don't reduce crime immediately", because that's all we know so far (a decade really not being very much time at all). And if you think about it, this makes a lot of sense: By embracing firearms you train the populace to think in terms of not victimising others for fear of getting shot (unlike societies where guns are rare and in which folks are more likely to learn not to victimise others because it is right and proper in and of itself). Once you've adopted the gun as a behavioural crutch it's always going to be difficult and painful to get a society to the point where it would have been had firearms never been adopted in the first place. Fingers crossed that it's even possible to reverse something like that at all.

Yes, and shot someone too. I'm an ex-marine.

I don't know that "many" do not have safeties. In my experience only the Colt M1911 does not have a safety. I know Glock, Beretta, Sauer and H&K sidearms all have safeties that lock the firing pin in position.

Safeties are inherently built into my trigger finger. Hooah!

Carrying a gun does not make you a better fighter. It's one thing to be shooting targets, it's another thing entirely trying to shoot someone whose shooting back while everyone else around you is freaking out. Not to mention that some well meaning trigger happy moron (who might also be a police officer), might shoot you thinking you're the gun wielding maniac.

Anyway, I think this strip over at threepanelsoul pretty much sums up my views on this insane hide and seek culture of fear we're embracing.

Fair enough.


Even if there was a society where it was impossible to get/make a gun, don't you think a thief, for example, would simply switch to a knife rather than a gun when breaking into your house? I don't think criminals would suddenly accept that it's "right and proper" not to victimise others, simply because guns get banned. My point is simply that even before guns existed there were still violent crimes, possibly even more violent than now, and removing the guns from the population for any length of time isn't going to change the attitude of these criminals.


And it's another thing to have your house broken into by an armed burgler and there's nothing you can do but hope he treats you kindly.

Personally, I always thought that carrying a gun in public can be more dangerous than not. I just think banning guns completely is not a good choice for several reasons.


That's a definite risk involved in using a gun, and anyone who is allowed to carry a gun in public should definitely be trained to understand these situations.

---------
Yes, and shot someone too. I'm an ex-marine.
---------

And I thank you for your service... I was in the US Army for 6 years.

--------
only the Colt M1911 does not have a safety
--------

Is the M1911 not a standard 1911 .45? I have a 1911 .45 and I though they all had that safety on the side?!?!

-------
Carrying a gun does not make you a better fighter
-------

Sure doesn't.

-------
It's one thing to be shooting targets, it's another thing entirely trying to shoot someone whose shooting back while everyone else around you is freaking out
-------

Also true.

-------
Not to mention that some well meaning trigger happy moron (who might also be a police officer), might shoot you thinking you're the gun wielding maniac
------

Also true, but has no bearing on whether you should or should not carry a gun. As a cop could shoot you by mistake anyway.

------
I think this strip
------

LOL... Now I do...

That's exactly where the problem is and exactly where those statistics you posted find their origin -- a crim is, more than likely, not going to switch back. You'd be looking to a wholesale shift in society's attitude to firearms to ensure that upcoming generations don't adopt the prevailing mindset. My guess it that it'll take decades at least.

I guess I'd put it this way: What does a society's attitude toward firearms have to do with a criminal's attitude toward crime?

Only that to at least a certain extent (and you could certainly argue whether or not it is a significant extent) the latter is derived from the former. Acquiring a firearm, pointing it at someone then pulling the trigger -- every step of that process remains deeply aberrant in the UK; Compare that with the US where folk are comfortable with owning and handling firearms and you join a gang by nonchalantly shooting a random passer-by and, sweeping generalisations notwithstanding, the point forms itself.

Criminal activity is derived from the possession of guns? Why then was there criminal activity before the invention of guns?


Not exactly; not everyone in the US is comfortable with owning and handling a firearm, in fact, most people have never even used one, and will most likely never need one.


Wait... either I'm totally misinterpreting you or you just said the average gun owner murders random people.

NO, its quite a "belief" in the UK, that Gun crime is so accepted in the Americas (Nth and Sth), that most gang inilialition is to go and shoot some random person.

OK so you know that its part of an urban myth (ie the dont flash your lights at drivers who have theirs turned off), while all we ever here about the US is;
Torist being shot for being one block from were the should be
Random shooting
Mass Shooting
Vice Pres Shooting
(Or Bridge falling down)
And the current top US series are the CSIs, NSCI, and Law and order, (oh and House I suppose), so in the UK, US life is presented as a constant vigulance incase your wife wants the life insurance, or you accedently stood on someones toe in the metro

Screw it. Just keep all your guns then. If you need to kill people that much just get on with it.

Just promise to think about what your doing, before you pull the trigger, a guy who breaks into your house does not deserve a death sentence from your handgun, nor does a guy robbing a 7-11.

Why can't you all carry tazers or cans of mace, why does it need to a be leathal force when they're just stealing your cellphone? It's only a phone, let it go, it's probably insured anyway.

Here's a little code:-

#define GOOD 0;

New BIG int  infinity;
int          more_bullets = death;
long int     more_life_taking_projectiles = infinity;
less_death = people_alive+some;
int          less = GOOD;
int          YOUR_CASH = infinty -1; /* ho ho */

less_guns = less;
more_bullets = more_life_taking_projectiles;
More_guns = more_bullets;

less_death = GOOD;

if(less_guns > More_guns)
{
   more_bullets = less_death;
}
else
{
   more_bullets = more_death;
}

CASH_out = (More_guns+more_bullets);

YOUR_CASH = YOUR_CASH - CASH_out;

/* where is your money going - into lead ? */

might not compile but true.

knives = death;
swords = death;
car crashes = death;

The world is full of some very deadly things and some very deadly people. Nobody wants death, but banning guns from the honest only results in more death, burglary, assault, etc. from criminals.


Just to make myself clear, I never said anyone needs to kill people. I said a responsible citizen should have the right to decide if they need a gun, but with that right comes the very serious responsibility of using it wisely both legally and morally. I understand that most people don't want to deal with that level of responsibility, and fortunately most people don't need to.


That's right, you don't kill someone who's stealing your cell phone. Doing that would probably get you put in jail longer than the burgler.

Wow, why is it that owning a gun means you want to kill people or need to kill people. In fact, why does it have anything to do with killing at all.

I have fired my 8 guns, yes, I have 8, thousands upon thousands of times (I buy bullets in bulk, cases of 500 and 1000). And never at a person. It is a very fun activity, it is even considered a sport by some (not me). Target shooting, trap shooting, and just screwing around in the woods shooting. It is quite fun.

Don't get me wrong, I practice shooting human sized targets sometimes. I practice head shots, I practice double taps, I practice the body-body-head technique. I even practice what they are teaching now, which is a 5 shot string. body-body-head-hip-hip.

More and more, police are running into drugged out criminals who don't die, even after being shot numerous times. So, they are teaching to shoot them in the hips, physically making their legs stop working so they can no longer advance on the officer.

Anyway, I was in the army. I really liked my M-16 while I was in, and got an AR-15 when I got out (a civilian version of the M-16). It is very fun to shoot. Shooting is fun. I have taught my children how to shoot an dhow to handle weapons, my wife is a hooter. I have many firends who are shooters. And I can tell you, non of us have ever shot at a human being.

If it was only about protecting my loved ones and myself, I would own one. But it is a fun activity, I do it often.

No different than countless other dangerous activities that one could do. Many times in the news you see someone "accidentally" plow into a crowd of people with a car killing many. Cars should be outlawed, they are so dangerous. bad guys can use them to kill people.

>No different than countless other dangerous activities
>that one could do. Many times in the news you see
>someone "accidentally" plow into a crowd of people with a
>car killing many. Cars should be outlawed, they are so
>dangerous. bad guys can use them to kill people.

Oranges and apples. Every firearm is designed to kill, it is the very purpose of a firearm.

I really think that this 'a gun is merely a tool, like a hammer or a wrench' is a silly concept. It teaches people to think about firearms in a way where the purpose is decoupled from the action and consequences of using a firearm.

Yep, designed to kill. That is true. It makes hunting for food much easier...

And cars were made to go form point a to point b, they had a purpose. Now we use them to go from point a to point a (racing).

Airplanes had a purpose, parachutes had a purpose, lots of things had a purpose when they were originally built. Now we use them all in forms of entertainment.

We don't have fins, or gills, or webbed toes, but we go in the water. It is not our purpose. Not how we are designed.

Hell, I even strap a tank to my back so I can breathe underwater.

Original intent of an item and what they get used for is never the same thing. So, something should never be used for anything other than the reason it was designed?

I MADE A MAP OF MY SCHOOL, TOO

i made it as a 3d model including a viewer. i photographed the walls and measured the place. some teachers knew about it and they wanted to see it.
no one ever thought bad about it...

@Devils Child - So did I. I also made doom levels of the office where I worked way back when. My co-workers and I always said how fun it would be to run around in the office with our paintball guns. I never played in an actual, furnished office building, that would be loads of fun. Probably spawning from my desire to kill, huh Andy?

Taskmaster, I don't understand. What uses are you saying guns have beside killing things? I spose I could hammer a nail in with the butt of one (remember to poing it away from you).

I've made a quake 4 map of my flat and started one of my local high street. (although in reality my local high street is chav haven, so maybe a gun toting idiot would be doing the world a favour there)

I honestly did wonder if you were taking the piss when I read this because at no point have I proposed that criminal activity is wholly derived from gun possession. We're talking about crime rising after a gun ban and I'm saying it's only to be expected because, as a criminal, you now know you're less likely to be shot in retaliation and are wholly less likely to forsake any firearms you yourself may favour. A gun ban is a binary thing -- one day they're allowed the next they're not -- but guns becoming aberrant to a previously armed society is a protracted process.

Yes, you're totally misinterpreting me because I used that example to highlight the kind of attitude to gunplay that emerges in a society that is comfortable with firearms compared to a society where even touching a gun is a massive step. You'd have to be insane to go to the trouble of acquiring a gun to effect a burglary in the UK whereas in the US you might simply never leave home without your shooter because that's normal.

Ultimately, getting rid of guns (to a point where it's unusual to hear of gun usage even in crime) is a painful process and you can expect things to get worse before they get better.

Well the AUS figures infer that a significant number of people only refrained from criminal activity because there was a danger of getting shot. It's not so much a matter of what you're armed with as what your intended victim could be packing. However this, the Republican wet dream wherein everyone is controlled by a mortal fear of what will happen to them should they transgress, doesn't give people the scope to be noble and, in effect, suppresses humanity. And that's really one of the wider benefits of moving away from gun culture -- not that it's some sort of magical cure-all for crime, but that it actually gives the populace the freedom to start behaving (rather than merely 'acting' in the Thespian sense) humanely.

Did I say wholly derived?

Me: I guess I'd put it this way: What does a society's attitude toward firearms have to do with a criminal's attitude toward crime?
You: Only that to at least a certain extent (and you could certainly argue whether or not it is a significant extent) the latter [a criminals attitude toward crime] is derived from the former [a societies attitude toward firearms].
Me: Criminal activity is derived from the possession of guns?

I guess I should have said "A criminals attitude toward crime is derived from the possession of guns to a certain extent?" to be more clear. Sorry.


Ok.


It's hard to tell from a statistic, but that may be true.


If a criminal knows there will be no negative consequences when they perform a crime (if there were no police, no laws, no guns, etc.), they'll simply rob and kill all they like. If you understand the need for law enforcement, the statement you just made is contradictory.


Again, IF you could completely remove guns from the population, I would agree with you. But my point is that you're not going to keep guns from criminals, and that criminals aren't going to start feeling aberrant towards tools which they need to commit their crimes (that includes guns, knives, swords, baseball bats, etc.)

Hello, I figured I'd try this again: Great article on Snopes about why the "stats" on crime in Australia are wrong.

As an Australian, I would also like to point out, that argument is crap. Hardly anyone in Australia ever had guns, even before the government restricted them, therefore the "danger of getting shot" was never a risk for any criminal. Those that did, rarely would keep them under the bed or in the house for their own defense, because Australia has never been the kind of country where you'd feel the need for that. So even in the case where someone did own a gun, it's still unlikely a criminal would fear getting shot.

Guns aren't even banned in Australia. In general only the ones that'd be really good for killing lots of people are.

Please do some research next time before spouting off some more NRA rhetoric so I don't have to get annoyed.

----------
Taskmaster, I don't understand. What uses are you saying guns have beside killing things?
----------

A gun makes a little projectile move in a straight line till it impacts something. That is what it does. That is what it was designed to do. What could we use that for?

Well, I tend to put things up, paper, cans, water bottles, etc, and shoot those little projectiles at them. See how accurate I can be. No different than archery. Not much different than say... GOLF! Yes, I said golf, swing a stick at a ball and make the ball fly towards a target. Pretty much a very similar concept.

We even play games. We set up bowling pins and see how many shots it takes to knock them all off of a stand.

We have moving targets. We have steel targets, that when shot, they swing from one side of a pole to the other. It is a competition for two people, I shoot them, they swing to your side, you shoot them, they swing to my side. Whoever has the most on their side when both shooters are out of ammo is the loser.

---------
Australia has never been the kind of country where you'd feel the need for that
---------

Wasn't Australia a penal colony at some point way back when? Or is that just a myth?

Guns were invented to kill people. Golf clubs were not.

----------
Hello, I figured I'd try this again: Great article on Snopes about why the "stats" on crime in Australia are wrong.
----------

It doesn't say it makes those stats wrong. it tries to explain that there could be other reasons for the stats. It explains stats. It never says that the cause and ffect relationship is or isn't there. Just that it isn't a proven fact.

Good try though. You read it it how you want, I'll read it how I want. Neither of us are proven right.

We've already dismissed those statistics from this debate. The one we're referring to is a study by some "Dr. John R. Lott, Jr." on the effects of Australia's gun ban. These statistics are more long-term than the original (meaningless) ones I posted.


Nobody knows for sure why a gun ban raises crime rates, so everything we say here is nothing more than speculation. All we know is the current effects of the gun ban are very bad, and we're debating whether or not in the very long term crime will be reduced as a result of a gun ban.

I'm not really saying there should be no consequences for criminal activity, just that a society in which the stakes are lowered gives people more of a chance to do the right thing for better reasons and that there's some value to that.

We could consider a hypothetical community in which there is no burglary, and that might sound superficially idyllic. But if I were then to explain that there's no burglary because everyone sits at home, shotguns cocked, too scared to leave their houses unprotected, then that suddenly doesn't sound like such a nice way to live. Now this leads us to think about possible alternatives and how practicable they are, bringing us to what you wrote next...


I think you're right and it's unrealistic to expect criminals who are used to guns to suddenly drop them -- this is why the positive effects of a gun ban within an armed society can be expected to take such a protracted length of time to emerge (assuming they even will). The hope is that each generation finds guns a little more aberrant than the last.

Additionally, I think you're really hitting the nail on the head by pointing out that weapons are only tools. Guns (and swords and knives and whatever) may facilitate criminal inclinations but that's not the same thing as them causing crime. Inequality, a lacking education system and abuse are the kind of things that cause crime -- banning the tools used to effect crime without addressing the reasons why people feel the need to resort to criminal activity in the first place is really just papering over the cracks. No arguments there.

Using a golfclub to knock cans over is practicing for playing golf. Knocking cans over with a gun is practising to shoot someone, there's a huge difference!

Very true.


That's a very good thing to hope for. But "banning the tools used to effect crime without addressing the reasons why people feel the need to resort to criminal activity in the first place is really just papering over the cracks", and if papering over the cracks comes at the cost of higher crime rates, maybe you should fix the foundation first, because otherwise the shaky foundation will keep causing the cracks to reappear.

Canada has lots of guns, but not much gun violence. Vermont doesn't require a concealed weapons permit, and it has the second-lowest gun homicide rate in the U.S.

That's interesting -- as an Australian what's your gut feeling about the causes behind the stats then?


Posting here *is* the research -- we postulate then someone with a better argument comes along and convinces us otherwise. I'll freely admit, though, that I've been treating gun-toting societies as a homogeneous group (which you can tell from the way I switch seamlessly from talking about AUS to the US to 'armed societies') and that's certainly less than wise.

To be honest, before looking at this thread I was unaware of any sort of gun issue in AUS so it's reassuring to read a bit more detail about it. It does make those stats even more perplexing though.

-------
Using a golfclub to knock cans over is practicing for playing golf. Knocking cans over with a gun is practicing to shoot someone, there's a huge difference!
-------

This is your opinion. Sorry.

Practicing shooting is improving my ability to use that tool. But, if you want to consider it practicing shooting "someone", then so be it. Then, I consider practicing swinging a baseball practicing hitting someone. And practicing swinging a golf club practicing hitting someone.

But, you know what, when/if the need arises, I don't mind being able to shoot someone well. Better than not being any good at it.

I also play softball. And when/if the need arises, I don't mind being able to hit someone with a bat well, either.

If all you do is practice beating the shit out of people with your golf clubs and baseball bats, I hope I never run into you in the street.

I think you might need counciling mate.

Here is a little test for ya:

True or False

Hitting a ball with a baseball is practicing beating people.

Hitting a ball with golf club is beating people.

Throwing a ball at a target is practicing for throwing stuff at people.

Shooting a bullet at a target is practicing shooting people.

Here is another question for ya:

My 2 daughters (13 and 11) are both second degree black belts in Tae kwon Do. They must be practicing for beating the shit outta people. What are your feelings on people learning Martial Arts? People shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? Do you believe that there can be sport in Martial Arts?

My two daughter are both State Champs in their division. They do Forms (showing of technique with no weapon), Weapons (technique with weapons), and Sparring (fighting against other kids). Do you consider this sport, or do you consider it practicing to beat the shit outta people.

You seem to be a pacifist. When someone accosts you on the street, you are just going to roll over and let them do to you what the will? Or do you want to be skilled and have the capability to protect yourself?

In sweden using motoral combat skill is strongly dissalowed.
Being a chap and fighting people ends that the person ends in jail. and the bad boy go free with some money.


Even if i forgett to sand my stairs in winter .the bulguler will have some $$ cause he fell and droped the Xbox.

so Here in sweden we are so normal so we al having stockholmsyndrome :)

If you'd bother to look at my link, the cause behind the stats is that they are insignificant, and specifically chosen for their shock effect.

But since you like to believe in stats, you can actually see a reduction in firearm related deaths in Australia since the legislation passed. Overall homicide rates in Australia have remained relatively static, arguably going downwards. Violent crimes overall are fairly steady (or even declining) in relation to population increase, assault has been going up over the years but others are steady.

Overall the firearm legislation in Australia has had a negligible or positive effect on firearms related crime and other crime in general, although in terms of records there are not enough years to track the effect accurately.

Personally I could care less about gun legislation in Australia or elsewhere, I'm just not keen on you guys posting some shock percentages you found on some pro-guns websites bagging out the place. Violent crime is comparatively extremely low in Australia, and gun ownership has never been high enough to really merit it this much attention.

The situation there sounds more comparable to the UK than US, then -- ta for the info.

Well my point was that those stats don't necessarily make banning guns a bad idea because the long-term effects should be beneficial even if there's a short-term rise in violent crime. I would stick by that general assessment even if it is not directly applicable to AUS.

You don't have to lecture me on martial arts. I've trained in taekwondo myself for the last three years, and I'm due to take my black belt in a months time.

Hitting someone with your fist is nothing like owning a gun. Every time we train, we're trained to run away and only ever punch someone if there is no other option. That's not the same as someone pulling a gun out and threatening to kill you, or the other way round. And, no one can accidently kill someone with martial arts, you're trained to control yourself, it's that simple.

Yes, a trained black belt could probably kill someone with a punch or a kick, but he/she would have to mean it, it wouldn't just happen by accident. That's the difference.

I appreciate gun culture in drilled into the brains of US citezens your whole lives, but please try to look at it from a sensible point of view.

I learnt martial arts because I was attacked and didn't want to feel threatened again. Owning a gun would not give me anything like the feelingI have now from knowing I cand efned myself. If I owned, I would not feel safer, I'd think people would panic the moment they found out I had a gun on me. When people find out you're a high level grade taekwondo fighter, they actually feel safer, that's a good feeling. And the cool thing about bothering to learna martial art, instead of taking the cowards choice and buying a gun, is that you can be sure that the guy who assaults you in the street won't be expecting you to know martail arts, he's expecting a gun, that actually gives you the edge in the situation. Anyway, I'm going on too mucha nd this probably isn't making much sense.

All I know is that if you want a peaceful country to live in, allowing your citezens to walk around with leathal weapons is probably not a good idea. It's really a stupid thing to try to argue against. It's like saying every country should have nukes, in order to keep the peace, which as we all know, is total crap.

I don't know, but I must say I'd rather live in a country with law and order (where weapons are in the hands of trained police) than in a jungle where everyone has a gun to sort out his problems. And how much is a life worth? when am I entitled to shoot, $10, $100, maybe $1000? And what about alcohol? In most countries you aren't allowed to drink and drive. So what do you do with your gun then? What happens if by some "infortunate" accident you happen to kill an innocent that just happened to be around? And if this innocent is a member of my family, what do I do then? Get my gun and blow the brains out of one of your loved ones?

NOTE: I have no intent of being controversial, these are just reflexions I ask myself on the matter.

I agree.

Unfortunately it seems this false stereotype (a jungle of civilians carrying guns shooting at anyone they don't care for) is commonly believed in the UK (you, andy_mc, and many others).

I'm not quite sure why, maybe it has something to do with this:

Warning: Uncited Wikipedia quote!

------
You don't have to lecture me on martial arts. I've trained in taekwondo myself for the last three years, and I'm due to take my black belt in a months time.
------

Ah, so you do believe in self-defense. But only the kind you like...

------
Hitting someone with your fist is nothing like owning a gun.
------

Nope, and I would never shoot someone who only deserved to be hit in the face with my fist.

------
Every time we train, we're trained to run away and only ever punch someone if there is no other option.
------

Exactly the same training in civilian firearmns courses.

------
That's not the same as someone pulling a gun out and threatening to kill you, or the other way round.
------

Well, it won't be the other way around unless absolutely necessary. But, if someone pulls out a gun, which would YOU rather have, your hands, or a gun. I know, you will say your hands because having your own gun will make the person shoot, blah, blah, blah. I am talking about when you NEED, ABSOLUTELY HAVE to fight back. You know the person is going to kill you. Use your hands, go ahead. I will use a gun.

-------
And, no one can accidently kill someone with martial arts, you're trained to control yourself, it's that simple.
-------

Not entirely true. Accidents happen. But we are not discussing accidental shootings. People get killed accidentally by a whole shitload of things. Why do we have to single out guns? More accidental deaths from cars each year than guns. More accidental deaths from sports injuries than guns. The list goes on and on.

------
Yes, a trained black belt could probably kill someone with a punch or a kick, but he/she would have to mean it, it wouldn't just happen by accident. That's the difference.
------

Where did accidents come into play? I don't point my gun at someone unless I plan to kill them. No accident, guaranteed. I have never pointed a real gun at a real person (except in the Army). Even when I knew it was unloaded, because responsible gun owners treat unloaded guns as though they were loaded.

As I said before. Accidental killings happen with all kinds of stuff. Why shouldn't we ban them all? You are singling out guns because they scare you. It is an unfounded fear.

------
I appreciate gun culture in drilled into the brains of US citezens your whole lives, but please try to look at it from a sensible point of view.
------

Nope, not drilled into us BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICAN. I have many friends who have never handled a gun in their lives. And have no desire. And, believe it or not, they live in the UNITED STATES, ahhh, gasp....

------
I learnt martial arts because I was attacked and didn't want to feel threatened again. Owning a gun would not give me anything like the feelingI have now from knowing I cand efned myself.
------

That is good. You should defend yourself. But hand to hand combat puts your life in jeopardy where it shouldn't need to be. Even without firearms. You take the risk of being stabbed, or hit with a club. Why take that risk. Lets face a knife wielding maniac. You defend yourself with your hands, I will use a gun. Ever see Indiana Jones?

------
If I owned, I would not feel safer, I'd think people would panic the moment they found out I had a gun on me.
------

Nobody should ever know. It is not their business. Nobody knows I carry except the very few individuals I inform. I have a concealed handgun license. The gun STAYS concealed.

-----
When people find out you're a high level grade taekwondo fighter, they actually feel safer, that's a good feeling.
-----

I guess. I would not feel safer with you.

-----
And the cool thing about bothering to learna martial art, instead of taking the cowards choice and buying a gun,
-----

Cowards choice? Nice... I have a family who relies on me to come home each ngiht. I would rather give my attacker a 5% chance of killing me than give him a 50% chance. When it comes to life and death, there is no such thing as a fair fight. I will do everything in my power to make sure I survive. Even if that means my attacker dies.

------
is that you can be sure that the guy who assaults you in the street won't be expecting you to know martail arts, he's expecting a gun, that actually gives you the edge in the situation.
-----

LOL, nice logic there. That is actually quite funny, I am laughing out loud for real.

Oh no, he is reaching into his pocket, and he pulled out a........... FIST!!! AAAAaaaahhh, run, he has a fist!

-----
Anyway, I'm going on too mucha nd this probably isn't making much sense.
-----

You were doing pretty good until that last paragraph where you decided anyone with a gun was a coward and that your fists were more surprising than a gun. It isn't about being a coward, it is about surviving the situation. If fists will do the job, I have fists. If they are not enough, I am ready to step it up to the next level.

-----
All I know is that if you want a peaceful country to live in, allowing your citezens to walk around with leathal weapons is probably not a good idea.
-----

Why? If someone intends to cause violence, they are going to do it whether they have a gun or not. Why does it matter ? Why do you see a distinction. This is the heart of the discussion. If everyone has guns and everyone is happy and not committing crimes against others, then there should not be a problem gun or no gun.

-----
It's really a stupid thing to try to argue against.
-----

Stup[id because it is contrary to your opinion. THis is not a very good debate tactic. When you have no answer it is not a good idea to just say well, then, your stupid. That is just not a good tactic. It shows that you are not understanding of both sides of the debate.

-----
It's like saying every country should have nukes, in order to keep the peace, which as we all know, is total crap.
-----

Actually, it has worked. If only one country had them, they could bully everybody else if they wanted to. But this is beside the point.

I am not saying that life around me is peaceful because I have a gun. I don't think guns have any bearing on it at all. I have guns for fun. Shooting is fun. The fact that I carry one is for my protection. No other reason. I don't expect a bad guy to say, I am not going to attack him because he might have a gun. I would rather there just not be bad guys. But, if a bad guy does decide to attack me, I will do everything in my power to stay alive. I owe that much to my family who depend on me for their livelihoods.

But, if anything, having a gun makes me behave better. Knowing that if I get into a skirmish, I have a gun makes me avoid skirmishes more than usual. So, in effect, my gun is helping keep the peace, but not as a detetrent to others around me, as a deterrent to myself. I don't want a confrontation, because I don't want it to escalate to a situation where I kill somebody.

Carrying a gun is not the cowards choice you think it is. It is actually the opposite. There is a lot of responsibility that goes with it. If you shoot someone, even defending yourself, it will cost you a lot of money. You will need a lawyer, you may have to defend your actions in a criminal court. Then the person you shot (if still alive) or their family may sue you for hurting them. It could cost thousand, even hundreds of thousanbds of dollars. Carrying this gun is a huge responsbility, but it is a responsibility I am willing to take to ensure the safety of my life and my family.

Which brings up another point. Imagine you and your family, if you don't have one, imagine you had mine, a wife and 2 young daughters. Anyway, imagine you and your family are walking down the street and you get accosted by 3 or 4 mean looking guys, one or two of which has a knife or a bat. Are you going to pull out your lethal fists and defend 4 people from 4 people with your hands? Good luck. You would have a better chance with a gun.

>Guns (and swords and knives and whatever) may facilitate
>criminal inclinations but that's not the same thing as
>them causing crime.

True, but the easier it is to get hold of a gun, the easier it is to use it.

>Inequality, a lacking education system and abuse are the
>kind of things that cause crime

But the stereotypical people who hate gunrestrictions so much usually also hate legislation which tries to rectify those causes.

>banning the tools used to effect crime without addressing
>the reasons why people feel the need to resort to criminal
>activity in the first place is really just papering over
>the cracks.

Exactly, but in most societies people are not willing to pay for adressing those reasons.

>Carrying a gun is not the cowards choice you think it is.
>It is actually the opposite. There is a lot of
>responsibility that goes with it.

Driving a car is also a responsibility, and most people I know don't take it very seriously.

The fact is, the more 'main stream' is is to own something legally, the less serious it will be taken.

>Anyway, imagine you and your family are walking down the
>street and you get accosted by 3 or 4 mean looking guys,
>one or two of which has a knife or a bat.

I was in a similar situation once(me against 3 guys, one of which had a knife). I was surrounded by these guys, and suddenly we were all surrounded by strangers who very politely asked the 3 guys if they really really wanted to get their asses kicked.

What if you weren't so lucky? The question is, what would you do if you were in the situation TaskMaster described, and there was nobody around to help.


Guns aren't exactly "main stream" like cars here in the US, and they are taken very seriously (please try to understand that much of your opinion on this subject is influenced by false stereotypes).


True, but the same applies to any weapon (knives, etc.):

>Guns (and swords and knives and whatever) may facilitate
>criminal inclinations but that's not the same thing as
>them causing crime.

I'm not sure what your point is. You could say that taking away all weapons would make a criminals job harder (no gun/knife/baseball bat to commit a robbery means no unusually high threat to most victims - they could just run away), and therefore result in less crime. But that's not the issue, the issue is that criminals always get/make a gun/knife/etc, and as a result banning weapons (guns, in this case) hasn't reduced crime.


That may be true, but that's no reason to ban guns (for the reason stated above).

Here's a short history lesson. Guns where invented after the domestication of animals. If you're hunting for "sport" try with a knife - give the animal a fighting chance! If you're hunting for food, try the local supermarket.

Modern Tae Kwon Do is a sport, not a martial art. Besides which it measures up quite poorly to a firearm in terms of lethality and effectiveness. I've practiced Martial Arts for 15 years, and served in the Marines for 2. I assure you, there's nothing in this world that is more effective in combat than a firearm. The bigger the better. You don't even have to shoot it, you hit someone with a decent firearm, and he'll be much worse off, than someone on the wrong end of a tornado kick.

As for the "A gun is a tool" argument, that is only true insofar as the task at hand is "murdering someone". Like guns or don't, but don't pretend that a firearm is was designed, much less useful for anything but killing other people. I like guns too, really I do, but when they can ban "smoking in public places", which has no demonstrable effect on others health, how long do you think they're gonna let you keep your guns?

Also let me just dismiss the myth that "Criminals will still have guns". People kill for three reasons. Two of which are "for money" and "compulsion". These people will always be able to get guns, and no gun laws are going to be effective at preventing them from killing people. However the third reason someone kills is passion. The "you've been caught cheating on your wife" scenario. Now if she has ready access to a firearm, as an up to this point in time, law abiding citizen, you and your mistress will be staring into the wrong end of a .45, and probably praying to whichever god you believe in before feeling the tingly sensation (and indescribable pain) as a slug rips through your body tissue. Now if she didn't have access to a gun, she'd have to go into the kitchen to get a knife, giving you ample time to get the hell out of dodge. Even if you didn't make it, you'd have a hell of a better chance to fight her off.

Now of the three types of homicides, what kind of percentages do you think occurs more often in the US? Are you willing to bet that on the average day, the professional killers and maniacs commit more crime than otherwise honest people? If you are then you've just lost, and that's why banning guns is effective. It prevents ordinary people from becoming murderers in an instance of passion, when they aren't thinking too clearly.

There are no weapons allowed in prison. But prisoners always seem to be killing each other with knives. And that is the most extreme police state, more than ANY society ever could be.

Lets use the argument using a 'gun' for sport. I'll wager that there's been more fatal sporting accidents with guns than golf clubs.

Anyhoo, getting a bit of topic, the lad shouldn't have been expelled for making his map, he should have been applauded for it - I'm sure most agree on that.

You're probably right, but here are some numbers I found on sporting accidents to put things into perspective:

So you're ~10 times more likely to die boating than hunting, and you're ~20 times more likely to die swimming than hunting.


Hunting live game with a knife? That's ridiculous (not to mention violent). Have you tried chasing down a deer, or even a chicken? I'm not sure what your point is here.


You can speculate all you want, but banning guns simply does not reduce crime (murder, manslaughter, burglary, etc.)


Yes, a bit :)

I must say that I'm very lucky so far, I'm 49 and no one has yet killed me. And I' haven't killed anyone either. I was mugged when I was 15 and felt very bad about it, because I was a coward and gave them my money, watch, and shoes. They had a knife. Now I'm old and happy I didn't kill anyone. Maybe I should get a gun and start killing people. But to tell you the truth I can't be bothered.

If someone wants to kill you how will a gun protect you?

bang, bang, and he was dead.

Facts are that you are less likely to be mugged in the US, in a state that allows concealed carry (from stats I've read in the past). The mere possibility that the "target" might have a gun is a pretty good deterrent for the average mugger. It's not going to stop some crackhead hell-bent on getting his next fix at the expense of another person. But it WILL stop some people. If the bad-guy knows that he stands little chance of an armed response to a mugging, then he's that much more likely to do so.

So... That's how a gun will protect you. Even if you don't HAVE one.

Less regulation is needed. Not more.

That hunting animals with a gun is not sport. The animals don't have a fighting chance.

So you'd say the average murder rate in the US hasn't gone down since after the civil war? Well real statistics prove you wrong. The violent crime rate in the US is at an all-time low, and firearms have never been as difficult to come by.

That's why pro-gun organizations use Aussie statistics instead of US ones. Because in the US, the National Firearms Act introduced in 1934 has been effective in reducing firearms related deaths in the US.

I did not say restricting gun use does not reduce crime. I said banning guns does not reduce crime.


Well this is a totally different topic. Nobody says "look at this deer I shot, I'm brave aren't I?" People hunt animals for several reasons, mainly for wild food (not from the supermarket) and pest / predator control.

If it's the animal's right to be left alone you're referring to, then I suggest you become a vegetarian and join PETA.