I don’t understand what you mean by symptom and reason. I am talking about motive.
Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s when airplanes were being hijacked to Cuba at the rate of around 1 per week, there was a humor column written about how to hijack a train - which was reprinted on the Trains “Turntable” page. Obviously, more finesse than merely waving a gun around would be needed - so the perpetrator dressed in the then-railroad “uniform” of suit and fedora hat with Masonic ring, introduced himself as Downing B. Jenks, President of the Missouri Pacific, told the crew that this was a surprise test of the railroad’s flexibility, and that they would be getting double overtime for the unusual route to gain their willing cooperation, and so on. It was pretty well done - the above is almost as clever.
- Paul North.
Roger / GN_fan and steinjr - Thanks for the detailed insights on how this is handled in other countries (Italy and Norway).
I understand that in Switzerland and Israel, they go farther and allow or require that military-style weapons be kept in the individual’s house so as to be accessible in the event of a call-up. In Switzerland, all able-bodied adult males are issued military weapons that are kept at home; in Israel, it is all those who are in the Army or reserves. Let me know if any of this is incorrect, or if there is more to know about it. Thanks.
- Paul North.
What I am saying is that the wounding of self esteem is a symptom of a problem which leads to the shooting, and not a motive for the shooting.
Well if somebody retaliates with deadly force because they have been insulted, what is the motive? The shooting has to have a motive. A crime has to have a motive.
Yet you say that if the shooter did so because of feeling insulted, that feeling cannot be a motive, but rather, only a symptom of a problem. Can’t you explain what you mean by problem? Or are you saying that the shooting just happened due to some abstract cause, and because that caus
Guns are not the Problem,
Look at New York City, or Washington DC, they have some of the most restrictrive gun laws in the country, yet they have amongst the highest PER CAPITA rate of gun violence. Vermont on the other hand, has the BEST gun laws in the country, and has among the lowest PER CAPITA rate of gun violence. Vermont allows OPEN CARRY or CONCEALED CARRY, WITHOUT a License of any kind, even for those from out of state.
A gun is just a tool, nothing more or less. If you want to be DRACONIAN, do so in penalizing those who break the laws, not those who obey the laws. The Hells Angles motorcycle gang carry Ball Peen Hammers almost to a man, WHY? because the damage they can cause is incredible, yet there is practically no place that a Ball Peen Hammer can not be carried legally.
The criteria defining an assault weapon, is more cosmetic than mechanical, and amounts to little more than Fear Mongering Spin. To allow a ban on those weapons, and handguns opens the door to further bans on guns like Hunting arms, just ask the Aussies. The Gun Control crowd Loves to say, Hey compromise, you don’t “NEED” Assault Rifles, Handguns, etc., etc., etc. Then you ask them OK, We’ll talk about compromising, what are YOU willing to give in return? You get a blank look, and the reply, “What you mean give in return?” There is no compromise with them.
Doug
Bears don’t need arms, they have four legs. They have nothing to pick up anyway.
And we find out this person had issues–and no one picks up on them? And it is WAY easier to just ban guns altogether—so the criminal/outlaw will continue to have them—mmm—not this way will things work.
Deal with the people CAUSING the problem. WORK at detecting AND HELPING those who need mental health care. ALSO, place those HC people behind bars, where they belong. Don’t offer catch and release to guys who habitually are violent–come now that is what we all are doing here—and then we wonder about why there is so much trouble
While there is a right to bear arms id does not mean that we should give everybody guns and let them run loose. If we have guns for hunting animals with no means of shooting back how much of a gun do we really need? Semi automatic weapons and machine guns? Are we “protecting” ourselves from other people? Now your talking esclation of forms of wsponary. If grandma down the street has an oozie, then you must have a super oozie, then she gets a super super oneto arm a militia. Private gun ownership for hunting animals does not warrent super automatic and semi automatic weapons until dear, bear, and ducks are armed. And by anyone increasing the number of weapons or the destructablity of his arsenal only perpetuates the needless, and mindless, probalem of gun ownership. We have armed forces and police agencies to protect us so that we don’t have to put ourselves in danger by exposing ourselves to gunfire. Would ownership of guns by those 13 people here in Binghamton last Thursday have prevented their deaths? No. The argument for ownership of guns does nothing to further one’s safety or abilty to defend oneself. For the most part, at the moment, it is an arguement to put more and bigger and more spophistaicated guns, in the hands of a dangerous few. All I am asking is that we get a handle of what guns are and what gun control can do to allow the ownership of guns while safely protecting those who elect not to own them.
What about making the laws that you already have work? How about mandatory sentencing of the troublemakers in the first place? What about ‘dangerous offender’ classifications for those who have demonstrated that they are a threat to themselves/others? What about not releasing–“on their own cogniscense”–or offering/setting bail–those who were involved in violent crime?
Look–you can control guns all you want. But ‘criminals’ will continue to create issues because they do NOT believe in your laws. They will still have their guns. And they will still use them.
As for disturbed individuals: we have facilities to help these people but over the years we so relaxed the regs around this issue we now have people walking around in plain need of help and no help is available. But do I hear anyone asking where the help is? NO. And why not? Because we really don’t wanna work at these problems. So we make everyone else jump through more bureaucratic hoops to do simple things because there might be somebody like the recent individuals around–anyone care to think about dealing with the HUMANS who are at the center/cause of all this in the first place?
That seems like a bizarre conclusion that is completely, every which way out of synch with the obvious.
From what I have read, the shooter in Binghamton had legally obtained the hand guns and there is no indication that he had any criminal record that would have prohibited his possesion of the guns. Had he not taken his own life, he would have probably been given New York’s maximum penalties, incarceration for life or a death sentence. So tell me, what laws “on the books” would have prevented the shootings? What is proposed as a further deterant? Should the government or some entity perform an intense pyschological evaluation of all who own or want to purchase a gun? How else do you propose to “find” the individuals who might harm themselves and others?
First of all–was he even a citizen of your country? He still was going there, was he not? If not–there are issues.
Second-there used to be in some states testing done–what happened since? And yes, it can be done.
Third-apparently there was a certain issue with his learning of English–I know a couple of people up here who have suggested in the past that those issues can be indicative of underlying problems.
Fourth-If the individual is/was involved in a violent act in the recent past then s/he should be prevented from owning a gun. --watch this though–if caught with one–into the cell with 'em—
BTW–IMO I’m not going to tell you that will stop the craziness but lets try to work on what is there–rather than come up with new regs that will just clutter things up more. I don’t quite believe in ‘Panic Doing for Panic Times’ here–
Most–if not all-of these situations seem to be related also to our ongoing fiscal issues as well. Now, are we going to suggest that until we are out of these issues we are no longer allowed to have guns? Are you going to see the criminal element give up their’s? There are issues all around that can be reason enough for the gun control crowd to stir up fear/paranoia.
Facts here: shooter was a 30 year citizen of this country, had permits for the guns he toted. He also had criminal records in California and New York. He had a drug abuse record. He was known to frequently buy a gun or two then return them for another within a week. He was know to be going to a practice range more frequently over the past several weeks than he had normally done. He was also clad in a protective vest which only police are authorized to purchase and wear.
And I don’t see how my conclusion that if the 13 dead, 4 wounded, and almost 40 others in the building at the time, had guns that the outcome would still have been the same. Sorry, pull 'em from the boot or from under the arm only works on TV and in John Wayne movies. When are we going to move beyond those good’ole shoot’em up westerns and understand that it didn’t really happen that way then and shouldn’t be happening that way now?
And if deer, ducks, bears, and whatever creature out there in the wild doen’t have a gun and can’t shooot back, why do we need such sophisticated weapons for hunting purposes? It appears that those kinds of guns are to be used to shoot people: who else or what else? And why? So are these guns neccessary? Or are we all to have full arsenals so that we can open fire on the nieghbors or the tourists whenever we get a bee in our bonnet or somebody looks over the fence at us? This guy, and others, slipped through the cracks because those who have been put in charge of gun control is akin to putting a fox in the hen house. If gun owners…and I would say “legitimate gun owners” if we knew what that meant…if gun owners can’t police themselves, then the rest of us have to. Keep shooting and sooner or later will stop you. For good and for the good.
Fellas, as much as you have done, collectively, a very fine job of keeping emotion and other derailers from corrupting the discussion, I feel I must stop the thread here and ask that we deal more with purely train-related subjects. My compliments to you, everyone, but I feel strongly this should stop here. It is now a topic of the right to bear arms, and not of how it relates to the business of running trains or of riding in them.
-Crandell