The following study is published by the Harvard School of Public Health:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

Highlights:

* Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America.

* Homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns.

* Approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

* Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.

* States within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher.

* The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

...

ultimately no guns - no homicides?

No guns, no gun homicide, certainly.

How do you make the guns disappear, James? VT was a gun-free university, also knives, pepper spray and tasers were banned on campus. The security police were not even allowed to carry pepper spray.

Why don't we just ban murder instead? Then no one would have to fear for their life.

How do you make the guns disappear, James? VT was a gun-free university, also knives, pepper spray and tasers were banned on campus. The security police were not even allowed to carry pepper spray.

Why don't we just ban murder instead? Then no one would have to fear for their life.

You seem to have failed to notice the obvious: apparently guns were sold in that particular city to students.

You seem to have failed to notice the obvious: apparently guns were sold in that particular city to students.

You failed to notice the obvious: no student, professor or security guard had a method to protect themselves, or other students, from a violent, mentally disturbed individual with a banned gun on campus. The majority of the students did not live on campus, so it was fine to keep a gun at their residence as long as they did not bring it on campus.

'Privacy' laws were used as an excuse for not notifying state gun regulation authorities of Cho's mental disorders. Notification would have prevented Cho from purchasing a gun legally. Of course, a suicidal individual could simply walk up behind an armed police office, hit him in the head and take his weapon. That is why I asked James how do you make guns disappear. It is impossible to keep a deranged individual from getting a handgun in one way or another in the U.S. We can't lock up someone because they 'might' go on a murder spree sometime in the future. We 'could' limit his access to weapons, however. We 'could' grant the right for certain professors and others that have qualified for concealed carry permits to bring weapons on campus for the protection of themselves and the student body. In case you don't know, concealed carry permits are very difficult to obtain.

You failed to notice the obvious: no student, professor or security guard had a method to protect themselves, or other students, from a violent, mentally disturbed individual with a banned gun on campus. The majority of the students did not live on campus, so it was fine to keep a gun at their residence as long as they did not bring it on campus.

'Privacy' laws were used as an excuse for not notifying state gun regulation authorities of Cho's mental disorders. Notification would have prevented Cho from purchasing a gun legally. Of course, a suicidal individual could simply walk up behind an armed police office, hit him in the head and take his weapon. That is why I asked James how do you make guns disappear. It is impossible to keep a deranged individual from getting a handgun in one way or another in the U.S. We can't lock up someone because they 'might' go on a murder spree sometime in the future. We 'could' limit his access to weapons, however. We 'could' grant the right for certain professors and others that have qualified for concealed carry permits to bring weapons on campus for the protection of themselves and the student body. In case you don't know, concealed carry permits are very difficult to obtain.

You failed to notice the obvious. In civilized countries an effective police force protects the citizens. While this does not prevent all murders it does distinguish between a wild wild west society and a civilized one.

i am well aware of the short comings of the American society and the American mindset. I suggest you start with changes there.

You failed to notice the obvious. In civilized countries an effective police force protects the citizens.

How? In a free society, the police can only make arrests, or do real good, AFTER a crime has been committed. There is no way for the police to do anything before a crime is committed ...without taking away freedoms and civil rights.

Baron Max

How? In a free society, the police can only make arrests, or do real good, AFTER a crime has been committed. There is no way for the police to do anything before a crime is committed ...without taking away freedoms and civil rights.

Baron Max

read my post

http://pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html



729414
Gun defenses since January 1, 2007.
Date and Time Now: Friday, April 20, 2007 6:59:46 PM

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.


Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

How? In a free society, the police can only make arrests, or do real good, AFTER a crime has been committed. There is no way for the police to do anything before a crime is committed ...without taking away freedoms and civil rights. I knew we should have continued funding the Minority Report project....:D

James R

Number of suicides by age group and gender. JAPAN, 2003.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/japa.pdf

32,109 in 2003 the latest year that I can find.

http://pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html



729414
Gun defenses since January 1, 2007.
This really paints America as a rabid violent society... maybe we Yanks do need guns to protect ourselves from ourselves....????!!!!

Mind you, before I move to AU my family had about 14 or so guns, a 357 pearl handled magnum, .410, 12 ga over/under, quite a few hunting rifles, etc... (interestingly I won that 410 when I was 12 at a magic show!).

That said, I am so happy AU doesn't have guns running a muck.

Michael

Michael

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
http://pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

729414
Gun defenses since January 1, 2007.

This really paints America as a rabid violent society... maybe we Yanks do need guns to protect ourselves from ourselves....????!!!!

Not really as in most cases the gun was never fired, just having the gun, and showing that you were armed prevented the criminal from committing the crime, it speaks more to the fact that the police cannot protect you, and that they can only become involved after the fact and as I have shown with case law they really don't have to come and protect you, they only have to show up after it is all over, and take the report, it is even up to you, or your survivors to clean up the mess afterwards.

OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)


In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!

The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".

From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.

The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

Hmmmm I wonder why?

Without poo hooing diversity I'd like to see if there is a correlation. Have there been an increase in the number of crimes from say Aussies or Aussie Aboriginals or Aussie Greeks or Aussie Lebanese or is it a general trend across the board?

Could it be that more people report the crimes than before?

Is it an effect of population density? People told me Sydney was dead by 7PM 15 years ago. Now it'll probably be 24/7 in the next 5 years.

Could it be the violence against women or the such has been reported more? Therefor it appears there are more crimes when really it's just people feel they can speak up now?

Hmmm? Michael


PS: My ex got her purse stolen and I got punched up trying to get it back by a gang of Aboriginals in the park. Early too - maybe around 10PM. And these idiot Aussies are just walking by on the sidewalk not doing anything to help me. Arse holes. It's as if they thought "I'm not in the park so I don't have to do anything..." ??
Another time I was walking a girl back to her car, through Hyde park, after a date and a couple guys pulled a knife on us and said they wanted her purse - I told her to run (we were near a busy sidewalk) and just luckily a cop drove by and I whistled for him to stop and they took off running. The cop didn't stop!! But they ran away and I looked like a hero and got subsequently got very "lucky" that night :)

MII

Edit 3: Pre-text note: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

I read a news article about something similar earlier. It made me want to snap peoples necks, burn buildings, and shoot things until they were nothing but bullet holes. Until I realized I couldn't get a gun unless I really really wanted to. So I guess I'm a lazy homicidal maniac? You decide.

RIDDLE ME THIS: If someone owned a gun in, say, the Virginia tech shooting, how would that killer have shot 30+ people? And if all of those people had guns, how many fewer would have died?

One can argue that if guns were banned, he'd never have killed anyone. One can also argue that people can't be so insane they take to knives, swords, arrows, or fist-de-cuffs.

Might I also mention a worse alternative: Home-made bombs that anybody can make from items found in their kitchen?

The better answer: sans the initial suprise attack, almost nobody. If it would have ever happened at all. If they all had guns.

Gun control only serves to put guns in the hands of people that REALLY WANT THEM. These people tend to either be paranoid, or homicidal. Therefore, the people that want them, Are either homicidal maniacs, or those scared of homicidal maniacs.

Guns don't kill people, GUN CONTROL SUPPORTERS do.

Solution to this: Arm everyone. That is, if they pass a psychology exam. the problem is finding psychologists good enough for it, as I've only met a handful out of thousands that knew half of what they were talking about. So this also poses a problem, as a psychologist can be lied to. A good one will know when someone is lying, a bad one will not.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that I've heard many states with past histories of liberal gun control, had the lowest crime rates. Yeah. Guns totally cause crimes. Nyeah. Although the link claims otherwise, and I cannot find statistics on it. So we'll have to see later.

Oh yes, and the obvious: Gun control is unconstitutional. This includes limiting public access to buying or owning automatic weapons, among other things. The supreme court is weaseling it's way around this simply so that the government has more control over the populace. rather than making laws to prevent these gun owners from ever carrying them around (out of the case, etc).

Edit2:

to the other person statement of it being uncivilized: How is carrying around a weapon for protection uncivilized? Many retired soldiers, and other people, in ancient civilized cultures carried weapons around. Specifically in countries such as japan.

carrying around armament to protect yourself differs from carrying around clubs and bear skins. It is not uncivilized. Stop attaching labels to it to make it less plausible. The content of the arguments against guns is ridiculous. They don't even take into consideration the thing guns make obvious:

Living. Conditions. And education. Misapplication of guns, and homicide rates from guns, is directly proportional to how well people were raised, how they lived, and how they were educated. It shows a problem with the USA, not with guns.

Americans are not a law-abiding people. We do not revere our government authorities and kiss their butts the way the Germans, Britons and Japanese do. We break laws and flaunt it. Entire industries spring up to cater to our law-breaking habits. Occasionally the government wises up and either repeals the law as it did Alcohol Prohibition, or gets in on the action as it did with state lotteries. Usually it maintains the laws, in collusion with bankers, who get rich by laundering black market money.

There is no way that a law against handgun ownership could possibly work in America. I personally hate guns, but by the goddess if the government told me I couldn't have one that would convince me that there was probably a good reason I needed one, and I would go out immediately and get myself one.

A very good rule to live by in America: If the government mandates something, it's probably wrong.

A very good rule to live by in America: If the government mandates something, it's probably wrong.

That's so truthful I think "God" shed a tear. :D

Michael

Another time I was walking a girl back to her car, through Hyde park, after a date and a couple guys pulled a knife on us and said they wanted her purse - I told her to run (we were near a busy sidewalk) and just luckily a cop drove by and I whistled for him to stop and they took off running. The cop didn't stop!! But they ran away and I looked like a hero and got subsequently got very "lucky" that night

It is a sad fact, that if you check the laws in your country, that those Cops didn't have to stop.

Americans are not a law-abiding people. We do not revere our government authorities and kiss their butts the way the Germans, Britons and Japanese do. We break laws and flaunt it. Entire industries spring up to cater to our law-breaking habits. Occasionally the government wises up and either repeals the law as it did Alcohol Prohibition, or gets in on the action as it did with state lotteries. Usually it maintains the laws, in collusion with bankers, who get rich by laundering black market money.

There is no way that a law against handgun ownership could possibly work in America. I personally hate guns, but by the goddess if the government told me I couldn't have one that would convince me that there was probably a good reason I needed one, and I would go out immediately and get myself one.

A very good rule to live by in America: If the government mandates something, it's probably wrong.



I've never seen people kiss their governments ass more than Americans. It is known that Americans use more drugs than Europeans and you probably did exactly that before you wrote this.

Well, maybe I should add something to this. The only reason it seems that Americans are not as law-abiding as Europeans is because they get jailed for stuff that isn't illegal in Europe. Like smoke weed. Look at the reactions of americans in Europe. They finally can do stuff they did in the US legally. YOu know...freedom and such?

Didn't really expect the standard rhetoric shit from fragglerocker. But then again he is just an American.

A sports event. What do americans do? Kiss the governments butt by singing the national anthem. A president lies to them. What do americans do? They kiss his butt.

How do you make the guns disappear, James?

Do what Australia did. Ban certain classes of guns. Have a gun buyback scheme in which people hand in their guns.

Then, you gather all the guns into a big pile and put them in the trash compacter.

Done!

James R,
Do what Australia did. Ban certain classes of guns.
The U.S. bans certain classes of guns, among the automatic weapons, assault-style weapons and handgun magazines with over a 10-round capacity.
Have a gun buyback scheme in which people hand in their guns.
That has been tried in certain cities in the U.S., with about the same results as in Australia. The cheap saturday-night specials and non-working guns were what was turned in. Then many of those that turned in these handguns used their new-found wealth to buy better, nicer guns. Criminals and the insane aren't allowed to own guns in the first place, so you don't find them toting the guns they don't wish give up to the police, and be possibly arrested for illegal possession of a firearm. Maybe Cho would have turned in his $580 Glock for $160 because he dumb, right James? Or was he was homicidial rather than dumb?
Then, you gather all the guns into a big pile and put them in the trash compacter.
Take a pretty damn big trash compactor in the U.S., wouldn't it James? :D
Done!
Ahh, so simple, wasn't it? Now, if we can just ban fertilizer so the homicidal maniacs couldn't make a bomb....

Don't get me wrong, James, I do believe the gun laws should be tightened a great deal in the U.S. Unlike many in the U.S., I would support a licensing procedure in the U.S. similar to obtaining a driver's license, in which the applicant would have to demonstrate his knowledge of firearm safety and a least a minimal proficiency in their use. I would also support a law making it mandatory that all acts of aggressive behavior, mental health issues and anti-social tendencies to be reported to the firearms control authorities so they could be reviewed before issusing a firearms license. Those types of individuals definitly do not need to own guns. You see, I do not believe all people should be able to retain the same rights. A HUGE problem with my approach would be the expense to impliment such a system.

Take a pretty damn big trash compactor in the U.S., wouldn't it James?

Yes. That's 200,000,000 guns. Wow!

Couldn't you use your industry for something more ... err... productive?

Do what Australia did. Ban certain classes of guns. Have a gun buyback scheme in which people hand in their guns.

I was just reading an article as to the results of that buy-back scheme. It cost the government millions and did nothing to hinder the increase in gun related homicides. Most people used it to get money for worthless firearms. It sounds like it was a huge flop.

Here it is:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

shaman_

Australians do feel a lot safer than Americans. The culture here in Melbourne is very different. We don't feel this desperate need to own a gun for protection. Obviously we don't have the same crime rates though.

I think you don't understand Americans very well, I am a gun owner, and I believe in the 2nd amendment as it was written by the founders of our country.
As for your interpretation of a desperate need for protection? do you have seat belts in your car?, and do you use them?, and do you have a desperate need to have them? I doubt it, but you have them, they are a tool to for your safety, should another driver crash into you.
The gun I carry is a Browning in 40 Smith % Wesson, and I carry it as a tool, I have used it on the road to put down animals that have been hit by Auto, Deer, a Bear, and Raccoons.
Earlier in my life, I used to sell insurance, and I would work with appointment to a fairly late point in the evening, and some of the clients were located in some unsavory parts of town, twice I have had incidents that required me to show that I was armed, it save me from being robbed, beaten, or killed, no one was killed, no one was hurt, so as a tool for my protection it has worked well, and my service to my clients saved them from problems later in their lives because I was able to be there to provide them services for them and their families.
So no their isn't a desperate need for protection, It is using a tool, for any number of reasons and it is a tool that offers protection.
I would thing from what I have read on the rising crime problems in Au, I would think that having a tool for your self protection would be a good thing, is their a desperate need no I doubt it, but like Insurance isn't it better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it, especially when in most cases if you can show that you have protection she scum decide to look for easier target.

shaman_



I think you don't understand Americans very well, I am a gun owner, and I believe in the 2nd amendment as it was written by the founders of our country.

What well regulated militia are you a member of?

This study has absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws, rather it is based upon surveys, so even if someone illegally had a gun, they would say yes they had a gun...

I was just reading an article as to the results of that buy-back scheme. It cost the government millions and did nothing to hinder the increase in gun related homicides. Most people used it to get money for worthless firearms. It sounds like it was a huge flop.

And yet, there have been no mass shootings in Australia since the scheme was introduced. Funny that.


I think you don't understand Americans very well, I am a gun owner, and I believe in the 2nd amendment as it was written by the founders of our country.

You do realise that the US Constitution was written by people, right? It's not inviolable. It can be changed. It's not sacred. Besides, you're misinterpreting it, as has been pointed out before.

As for your interpretation of a desperate need for protection? do you have seat belts in your car?, and do you use them?, and do you have a desperate need to have them? I doubt it, but you have them, they are a tool to for your safety, should another driver crash into you.

Statistics unequivocally prove the safety value of seatbelts. The same cannot be said for guns.

By the way, are you aware of the huge resistance there was when seatbelts were first introduced. People just like you complained that having to wear a seatbelt would take away their "freedoms". Just like in the gun case.

The gun I carry is a Browning in 40 Smith % Wesson, and I carry it as a tool, I have used it on the road to put down animals that have been hit by Auto, Deer, a Bear, and Raccoons.

There's no highway patrol? No animal rescue?

Did you buy the gun specifically for that purpose? Or is it really a general purpose tool? Does it make coffee, too? If it does, I might buy one.

Earlier in my life, I used to sell insurance, and I would work with appointment to a fairly late point in the evening, and some of the clients were located in some unsavory parts of town, twice I have had incidents that required me to show that I was armed, it save me from being robbed, beaten, or killed, no one was killed, no one was hurt, so as a tool for my protection it has worked well, and my service to my clients saved them from problems later in their lives because I was able to be there to provide them services for them and their families.

Did the people who attacked you have guns?

So no their isn't a desperate need for protection, It is using a tool, for any number of reasons and it is a tool that offers protection.

You contradict yourself in the one sentence. You're really quite muddled on these issues, aren't you?

I would thing from what I have read on the rising crime problems in Au

There's no rising crime problem in Australia. In fact, all evidence says violent crime is on the decrease.

I would think that having a tool for your self protection would be a good thing, is their a desperate need no I doubt it, but like Insurance isn't it better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it, especially when in most cases if you can show that you have protection she scum decide to look for easier target.

American Paranoia.

And yet, there have been no mass shootings in Australia since the scheme was introduced. Funny that.

True. But, that doesn't mean it won't happen again. Please note that those types of crimes were falling from 1986, prior to the buy back scheme.

Statistics unequivocally prove the safety value of seatbelts. The same cannot be said for guns.

True again, but people dying on the roads is far higher than those dying from guns.

There's no rising crime problem in Australia. In fact, all evidence says violent crime is on the decrease.

That is for other reasons like increasing funds to the criminal justice system, for example, not as a direct result of gun control.

James OR

1.You do realize that the US Constitution was written by people, right? It's not inviolable. It can be changed. It's not sacred. Besides, you're misinterpreting it, as has been pointed out before.

That is the beauty of it, and what has changed from the time of its writing?

2.Statistics unequivocally prove the safety value of seatbelts. The same cannot be said for guns.

And statistics prove unequivocally that guns reduce crime:

http://pulp.com/gunlock/noframedex.html

3.There's no highway patrol? No animal rescue?

When are they ever there when you have a accident?, on the highway after a accident, you have to first attract their attention, a relative easy thing now days with cell phones, now once you make contact, your call is prioritized, and it may be dispatched to a patrol a hour later, animal car accident with out injury to the occupants have a very low priority, now you have to wait for the office to arrive, now while you are doing this you have a living animal, with sever, injuries, flopping around in mortal pain, suffering, how would you like to stand there and watch this happening for up to 3 hours until the authorities come? what would you recommend? for the animal, hours of suffering or a quick end to it life.

4.Did the people who attacked you have guns?

No idea, as the attack never occurred, they went off to look for a easier target.

5.So no their isn't a desperate need for protection, It is using a tool, for any number of reasons and it is a tool that offers protection. ”

You contradict yourself in the one sentence. You're really quite muddled on these issues, aren't you?

No, I am stating the fact, that as I have pointed out, in most of the life you lead there is no desperate need for protection, but what would you call what happened on the VT campus? where the police their to protect the 32 student slaughtered by Cho?, as he was firing was their need for protection desperate?, when the human animals of this world come to you for you life, and they do come, what are you going to do? wait for the police? when they chain off you escape route what are you going to do? the need for self protection is 99.9 time not desperate, and I lead my life that way, I am 56 years old and twice in my life as a civilian I was in situation that other human acted in a threatening manner, approach me in a pattern that indicated the intent to do me harm, three people approaching a lone individual from three separate point of attack and thet all three of them left at the same time, when only one could actually observe that I was armed tells me that they intended me harm, now no one got hurt at this time, the most important of all being me, but what happened to the next individual that they targeted?

Armed Resistance to Crime:
The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz*

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

I. INTRODUCTION
Crime victims used to be ignored by criminologists. Then, beginning slowly in the 1940s and more rapidly in the 1970s, interest in the victim's role in crime grew. Yet a tendency to treat the victim as either a passive target of another person's wrongdoing or as a virtual accomplice of the criminal limited this interest. The concept of the victim-precipitated homicide[1] highlighted the possibility that victims were not always blameless and passive targets, but that they sometimes initiated or contributed to the escalation of a violent interaction through their own actions, which they often claimed were defensive.

Perhaps due to an unduly narrow focus on lower-class male-on-male violence, scholars. have shown little openness to the possibility that a good deal of "defensive" violence by persons claiming the moral status of a victim may be just that. Thus, many scholars routinely assumed that a large share of violent inter-actions are "mutual combat" involving two blameworthy parties who each may be regarded as both offender and victim. The notion that much violence is one-sided and that many victims of violence are largely blameless is dismissed as naive.

A few criminologists have rejected the simplistic mutual combat model of violence, though they sometimes limit its rejection to a few special subtypes of violence, especially family violence, rape, and, more generally, violence of men against women and of adults against children.[2] However, the more one looks, the more exceptions become evident, such as felony killings linked with robberies, burglaries, or sexual assaults, contract killings, mass killings, serial murders, and homicides where the violence is one-sided. Indeed, it may be more accurate to see the mutual combat common among lower-class males to be the exception rather than the rule. If this is so, then forceful actions taken by victims are easier to see as genuinely and largely defensive.

Once one turns to defensive actions taken by the victims of property crimes, it is even easier to take this view. There are few robberies, burglaries, larcenies, or auto thefts where it is hard to distinguish offender from victim or to identify one of the parties as the clear initiator of a criminal action and another party as a relatively legitimate responder to those initiatives. The traditional conceptualization of victims as either passive targets or active collaborators overlooks another possible victim role, that of the active resister who does not initiate or accelerate any illegitimate activity, but uses various means of resistance for legitimate purposes, such as avoiding injury or property loss.

Victim resistance can be passive or verbal, but much of it is active and forceful. Potentially, the most consequential form of forceful resistance is armed resistance, especially resistance with a gun. This form of resistance is worthy of special attention for many reasons, both policy-related and scientific. The policy-related reasons are obvious: if self-protection with a gun is commonplace, it means that any form of gun control that disarms large numbers of prospective victims, either altogether, or only in certain times and places where victimization might occur, will carry significant social costs in terms of lost opportunities for self-protection.

I don't have any dramatic stories to tell, but I can give a little incident that happened in my life about a year ago.

First, I have owned guns of all different descriptions all my life. I am a qualified expert with several different types of firearms, from handguns to fully automatic machine guns. I have never pointed a firearm at anyone in my life, EXCEPT during my combat stint in Viet Nam. At the present time, I only own one gun, an accurized, customized 1911 .45 caliber pistol.

Last year, I was sitting at my computer one night, which sets next to the picture window in my living room, when I noticed a police car moving slowly down the street in front of my house. They were shinning a spotlight at and around my house. I knew they were looking for someone. I turned the TV on a local channel and their was an emergency broadcast. A gunman had killed two people at an apartment complex about two blocks from my house. He was seen running by foot into my subdivision, still armed. I wasn't afraid, because I had my .45 in the house and knew how to use it if necessary. I keep the magazine for my pistol loaded, but not in the gun. It stays in the top drawer of the nightstand beside my bed normally. On this occasion, I did load the gun and place it on the end table next to my recliner, just in case. :D Nothing happened and I never heard what happened with the murderer, if he was arrested or not.

The first thing that ran through my mind when I saw the news of the VT massacre was what if some of the professors had recieved firearms training and permission to have a gun in their desk? It certainly wouldn't have saved all the students, but the number of dead and wounded could have been fewer. I can imagine the terror the students and teachers must have felt when they heard the maniac shooting people in the next room, then come pushing against their classroom door with absolutely no protection available to defend themselves.

There's no rising crime problem in Australia. In fact, all evidence says violent crime is on the decrease.

"Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide."

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

American Paranoia.

Australian Delusion?

I was just reading an article as to the results of that buy-back scheme. It cost the government millions and did nothing to hinder the increase in gun related homicides. Most people used it to get money for worthless firearms. It sounds like it was a huge flop.

Not to mention areas targetted, such as ghetthos, are the areas where people NEED their guns to fend off all the psychos, heh. Man, that's no different than trying to take a soldier's gun away from em in Iraq, WTF.

- N

"Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide."

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

Here's the full study on that:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf

The Failed Experiment
Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada,
Australia, England and Wales

- N

Buffalo Roam:

No, I am stating the fact, that as I have pointed out, in most of the life you lead there is no desperate need for protection, but what would you call what happened on the VT campus? where the police their to protect the 32 student slaughtered by Cho?, as he was firing was their need for protection desperate?, when the human animals of this world come to you for you life, and they do come, what are you going to do? wait for the police? [snip]

You've got a blind spot.

Why could Cho run around the campus shooting people? Answer: because he had easy access to firearms.

If it had not been so effortless for him to get guns and ammunition, there would have been no need for students and teachers to have to defend themselves from his guns.

You know what, there's no point in argueing this anymore, it's quite simple.

There are slaves and there are masters. Leaders and followers. Strong and weak. Slaves would rather their safety put in the hands of masters. Masters handle their own safety.

Buffalo Roam:



You've got a blind spot.

Why could Cho run around the campus shooting people? Answer: because he had easy access to firearms.

If it had not been so effortless for him to get guns and ammunition, there would have been no need for students and teachers to have to defend themselves from his guns.

I am sure that you think that criminals can't get guns and that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from criminals or corrupt governments.

You know what, there's no point in argueing this anymore, it's quite simple.

There are slaves and there are masters. Leaders and followers. Strong and weak. Slaves would rather their safety put in the hands of masters. Masters handle their own safety.

I think you're dreaming. You're a typical American individualist who doesn't trust your fellow human beings and who at the same time imagines himself to be all-powerful because he owns a weapon. But if push ever came to shove, your gun wouldn't help you.

Really, it's just a security blanket for your paranoia.

I am sure that you think that criminals can't get guns and that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from criminals or corrupt governments.

You don't need guns to protect yourself from criminals. Especially when they don't have guns either. Dealing with violent criminals is something you'll rarely, if ever, have to do. Leave it to the professionals.

As for corrupt governments, you would have zero chance against the US army, for instance, with or without your gun.

Cho wasn't a career criminal. He was a student with mental problems. With easy access to guns.

Cho wasn't a career criminal. He was a student with mental problems. With easy access to guns.
so was Charles Whitman.

You know what, there's no point in argueing this anymore, it's quite simple.

There are slaves and there are masters. Leaders and followers. Strong and weak. Slaves would rather their safety put in the hands of masters. Masters handle their own safety.

So how often have you had to 'handle' your own safety? If someone steals your car, what is the first thing you would do? Call the police or go home and get the guns? What if you arrive home late one night and see someone walking around your house stealing your belongings and you have your family with you in your car. What is the first thing you would do? Sneak into your home and try to get to your gun safe or would you call the police and get your family to safety? What if you were in the house when someone broke in? Would you get your family to safety first and foremost and call the police or would you go for your gun first and then prowl around your home looking for the intruder possibly putting your family in danger? There is a reason why the police advise people to not take the law into their own hands. They are trained to deal with criminals. You are not.

I am sure that you think that criminals can't get guns and that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from criminals or corrupt governments.
Oh criminals can get guns. In many instances in the US, they can legally buy guns because the checking mechanisms fail to actually check criminal records. But tell me Meta, do you come into contact with criminals often? And what of a corrupt government? You think the current government is corrupt in regards to the AIDS issue, so why haven't you tried to defend yourself against this corruption? Would you shoot a corrupt president for example? Or would you just whine about it on forums?

http://pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html



729414
Gun defenses since January 1, 2007.
Date and Time Now: Friday, April 20, 2007 6:59:46 PM

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

OK, so do some maths, and you'll see that if gun defense stats are true, there are some hideous consequences;

One, that people who defend themselves using a gun do not report the incident to the Police, because reported crime is lower than the alleged incidents of gun defense. This means people who carry guns are happy to let criminals go on to molest others, and not willing to aid the authorities. So much for being a good citizen.

Second, that if gun defense stats are true, the saying that 'an armed society is apolite society' is false, because it greatly inflates the crime rate, making America far more crime prone than any western nation.

Third, guns must be crime magnets, because people who carry guns report they have used a gun in defense of a crime more than unarmed people report crime. What gives there?

Or we could accept that guns defense stats are the productive of slightly paranoid people who only see the bad side fo human nature, and who think that everyone who approaches them is going to do them wrong, and show their gun when it is not appropriate. This latter point is I think why these so called 'gun defenses' go unreported, as they fear prosecution themselves for threatening innocent people.

Anyway, do the maths before you respond.

I am sure that you think that criminals can't get guns and that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from criminals or corrupt governments.

So where were the NRA when McCarthy et al were trampling on the first amendment? Such consitutional fans of the 2nd Amendment should have been outraged by the government not adhering to the 1st, and shown them they were out of line, and used a show of force, to demonstrate that the Govt cannot trample on the rights of the people.

But no, not a peep. Sat at home, scared to take action unless they Govt they reckon they can overthrow comes and takes away their guns. In fact, the only thing many gun owners seem to care about is their right to own guns.

And no, you don't need a gun to protect yourself against criminals. What you need is a system that stops criminals getting hold of guns and ammunition. As criminals don't obey the law, that means law abiding citizens have to put up with registration and licensing, to exclude the bad guys. But that isn't happening, so the problem is law abiding citizens, not criminals.

..., guns must be crime magnets, because people who carry guns report they have used a gun in defense of a crime more than unarmed people report crime. What gives there?

Wimps who can't and won't protect themselves are unwilling to report to the cops that they're wimps and can't or won't protect themselves. Thus those crimes go unreported. And since the world is more and more filled with fuckin' weak-ass wimps,.....

People who are willing to stand up for themselves, to protect themselves and their families, report the crimes. Thus the difference in crime reports.

Baron Max

Wimps who can't and won't protect themselves are unwilling to report to the cops that they're wimps and can't or won't protect themselves. Thus those crimes go unreported. And since the world is more and more filled with fuckin' weak-ass wimps,.....

People who are willing to stand up for themselves, to protect themselves and their families, report the crimes. Thus the difference in crime reports.

Baron Max

Ghandi was a wimp? A man who brought down the british empire?

jesus was a wimp? To turn the other cheek?

Ghandi was a wimp? A man who brought down the british empire?

It wasn't Ghandi who brought down the British Empire, it was the gazillions of his followers that did it. People like to make Ghandi out to be a great man, but in reality, all he did was talk others into joining him ...thus forming a solid mass of citizenry to back his political aspirations. If you know history, that's exactly what Hitler did ...nice, huh?

jesus was a wimp? To turn the other cheek?

No, Jesus wasn't a wimp. He couldn't be harmed in reality, so he just played along to see what the idiot humans would do.

Baron Max

I thought Jesus was crucified.

I thought Jesus was crucified.

Yeah, but it didn't hurt him. He was just playing a game with the silly humans to she how far they'd go.

Baron Max

Cho wasn't a career criminal. He was a student with mental problems. With easy access to guns.

... and knives, rocks, cars, chainsaws, hammers, screwdrivers, etc.

So, your point is that he was a nutter. Tell us something we don't know. :rolleyes:

I think you're dreaming. You're a typical American individualist who doesn't trust your fellow human beings and who at the same time imagines himself to be all-powerful because he owns a weapon. But if push ever came to shove, your gun wouldn't help you.

Really, it's just a security blanket for your paranoia.



You don't need guns to protect yourself from criminals. Especially when they don't have guns either. Dealing with violent criminals is something you'll rarely, if ever, have to do. Leave it to the professionals.

As for corrupt governments, you would have zero chance against the US army, for instance, with or without your gun.

I'm Canadian. Push HAS COME TO SHOVE and it DID help me.

I think you're dreaming. You're a typical American individualist who doesn't trust your fellow human beings and who at the same time imagines himself to be all-powerful because he owns a weapon. But if push ever came to shove, your gun wouldn't help you.

Relying on officials demands that the officials be efficient. It's well known that police are not very efficient at all.

If, for example, even one of the people harmed in the VT shooting had a gun on them, the chance that so many would have died would have dropped significantly.

Gun ownership is a key part to stability and civilized culture. Relying on GOVERNMENT to do absolutely everything, especially when it's inefficient, is a key part to aristocracy. Or fascism. This is a democracy, and If people want guns, they should be able to have guns to protect themselves.

Either from corrupt government, or psycho's with guns. This being said, I believe that a national vote should be called on the issue, since it's apparently a big issue. On issues that concern the people, the government should not interfere. It should let the people decide. That's democracy. Deciding FOR the people is not democracy.


Really, it's just a security blanket for your paranoia.

It is not paranoia that drives me to allow people to have guns. It's a simple logical principle.


You don't need guns to protect yourself from criminals. Especially when they don't have guns either. Dealing with violent criminals is something you'll rarely, if ever, have to do. Leave it to the professionals.

If they did not have guns, they'd get bombs. Or knives. Or start planning things much more in-depth than a simple shooting. That creates new problems, and solves none.

With a gun, you would be capable of protecting yourself from all sorts of criminals. It would successfully (assuming gun ownership meant you needed a psychology evaluation, etc, to determine how dangerous you are) drop the crime rate.

If you were a criminal, how likely would you be to try and hold someone up when everyone around you had a gun? Not very likely.


As for corrupt governments, you would have zero chance against the US army, for instance, with or without your gun.

Revolutions usually go in a bloody way because of this fact. That is why I long since held the idea that separation of government-military is required, so the government doesn't have a big red button to call every time a few thousand people assemble outside the white-house.

If the populace disagree's with a governments actions, or if the populace is ignorant of why a government acts a certain way, it is the governments fault for not educating them/doing what the people want.
-------------end part 1--------------

In part two, I'd like to discuss the "Right to bear arms".

In a quote from wikipedia on the subject: "In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . . As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceeduings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia."

This is a common sentiment. Although I disagree with it for simple reasons. One of which being that a militia is not an official military or government group. it's an organized group with a goal of defense, offense, or forcing themselves to be heard.

A militia is almost always composed of the common populace. This militia, in general, has a large number of uses. One of which, is Self Defense.

To define Militia, lets use Answers.com:
"An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."

Therefore, civilians have a right to organize into a militia, and bear arms. This means that if there was a militia organized on the doorstep of the whitehouse, NOBODY can be arrested for possessing a gun without a license. Funny, isn't it?

For whatever reasons. However this does not, directly, mean for personal defense. It means organized defense/offense by way of a civilian group. Yet nearly everyone during the 1800's owned a gun of some sort, in almost all places.

If guns were allowed, for personal use, in such a large manner: Why does anyone think the constitution would make it exclusive to only military/militia? Common sense suggests that this was not the purpose of this constitutional right.

One other point, is that the constitution is for the people, by the people, to SERVE the people. It's the same with the government, the government serves the people, and should not be serving itself.
If it says "the right to bear arms", it includes the people. "the people" is not, in any way, referencing to a military or government organization.

James R

As for corrupt governments, you would have zero chance against the US army, for instance, with or without your gun.

Sorry JamesR, but there was a survey done in the 90tys, under the Clinton administration, and it was found that the Military of the U.S. would side with the Citizens of the United States.

But Clinton has a huge weapon.

James R

Sorry JamesR, but there was a survey done in the 90tys, under the Clinton administration, and it was found that the Military of the U.S. would side with the Citizens of the United States.

wait, what? Really? Now THAT is surprising. I guess the military isn't that much of a dog after all. :cool:

Do provide a link and some evidence for this, though. If you please.

http://www.oneclickshooting.com/

anyone?

i would be pro gun control IF we could get rid of ALL of them.
but what if we did? what then? the people of the planet would live in peace and harmony? fat chance.

So how often have you had to 'handle' your own safety? If someone steals your car, what is the first thing you would do? Call the police or go home and get the guns? What if you arrive home late one night and see someone walking around your house stealing your belongings and you have your family with you in your car. What is the first thing you would do? Sneak into your home and try to get to your gun safe or would you call the police and get your family to safety? What if you were in the house when someone broke in? Would you get your family to safety first and foremost and call the police or would you go for your gun first and then prowl around your home looking for the intruder possibly putting your family in danger? There is a reason why the police advise people to not take the law into their own hands. They are trained to deal with criminals. You are not.


Bells, if there is anything that is remotely clear from any study of crime and punishment it is that "serve and protect" is a fallacy. The Law can only punish, it cannot protect. I am glad for you that you seem to have never aquired a serious enemy in your life. If you had, you would know there is precious little the "law" can do for you until AFTER they commit a crime.

i would be pro gun control IF we could get rid of ALL of them.
but what if we did? what then? the people of the planet would live in peace and harmony? fat chance.

aliens anyone?

Wimps who can't and won't protect themselves are unwilling to report to the cops that they're wimps and can't or won't protect themselves. Thus those crimes go unreported. And since the world is more and more filled with fuckin' weak-ass wimps,.....

People who are willing to stand up for themselves, to protect themselves and their families, report the crimes. Thus the difference in crime reports.

Baron Max

Er, Max, you are talking crap, read and understand;

Gun defense stats are higher than reported crimes. People who allege they use their gun for defense therefore do no report the event to the Police, but do claim at a later date, they have used their gun for defense.

Do you get it now, Max? It's Gun owners not reporting crimes, but instead reporting gun defenses, and the numbers don't add up. Gun defence stats are bogus. We had some guy right here on Sciforum claim he had to pull his piece 13 times in one day when he went to Gary, Indiana. I call bullshit.

Bells, if there is anything that is remotely clear from any study of crime and punishment it is that "serve and protect" is a fallacy. The Law can only punish, it cannot protect.

Well, why don't you post us the reference to a peer reviewed study then on this topic.

If you had, you would know there is precious little the "law" can do for you until AFTER they commit a crime.
"restraining order" comes to mind.

It's called a "peace bond" in Canada and you pretty much need tape of a threat to get one. Even being assaulted does not guarantee one.

Also, how does a restraining order stop punches stabbings and bullets?

Jeremyhfht, excellent post, but you forgot one point, as militia, in the America you were required to have your own arms and ammunition to report with, if i remember for my reading the caliber and amount of ammunition were specified as being of military caliber and 60 rounds of ammunition, so the owning of personnel arms was a integral part of the 2nd amendment, also the reason for owning personnel fire arms was to defend your home, as part of the, (In common law), hue and cry (Latin, hutesium et clamor) a process by which bystanders were summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who had been witnessed in the act of committing a felony.

By the statute of Winchester, 13 Edw. I cc. 1 and 4, (1285) it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a felony shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing felon from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal, which makes it comparable to the posse comitatus. It was moreover provided that a hundred that failed to give pursuit on the hue and cry would become liable in case of any theft or robbery. Those who raised a hue and cry falsely were themselves guilty of a felony.

It's called a "peace bond" in Canada and you pretty much need tape of a threat to get one. Even being assaulted does not guarantee one.

Also, how does a restraining order stop punches stabbings and bullets?
exactly my point.
a restraining order is absolutely worthless. it WILL NOT keep someone at bay.

Ahhh yes, ok.

Well, I continue to jump through the hoops of gun laws in Canada. What annoys me, is that because of what happens in the U.S, Canadian gun laws can change. Things that make you go "what the FUCK"!

JamesR

You've got a blind spot.

Why could Cho run around the campus shooting people? Answer: because he had easy access to firearms.

No you are the one with blind spot.

The reason that Cho was running around campus killing people was that in his delusional temper tantrum, he chose to kill to make himself feel better.

Now with just one armed person, how long do you think Cho could have run around campus killing people, and you say let the police protect you, well how long did they let Cho run around campus? How long did the POLICE let Cho run around Campus? LONG ENOUGH TO KILL 32 PEOPLE, did they do any thing to stop Cho, were they capable of doing anything to stop Cho? the answer is no, and it is the same in any shooting around the world, and many of the mass killing are by the government them selves, China is famous for such, but it still comes back to that even with out a gun Cho would have killed, with a knife, baseball bat, car, or any other thing he could improvise, and innocent people would die, the number doesn't matter innocent people were going to die because a self centered little prick decided they were going to die, one dieing is a tragedy, and you are using 32 as a statistic to back your argument as to why I should sit back and let some little self absorbed bastered kill me, my wife, my children, or my friends, it could have been stopped or minimized by just one citizen with the ability to defend the population of the school.

JamesR
No you are the one with blind spot.
The reason that Cho was running around campus killing people was that in his delusional temper tantrum, he chose to kill to make himself feel better.

wrong.
the only reason he was able to murder those people is because americans have no backbone. they have turned into gutless cowards that run instead of fighting back.

wrong.
the only reason he was able to murder those people is because americans have no backbone. they have turned into gutless cowards that run instead of fighting back.

Okay. So you run at the man with the guns and near-limitless ammo.

The point is, if they had guns, they wouldn't have been very boneless. But I for one do not want to try dodging bullets.

JamesR

No you are the one with blind spot.

The reason that Cho was running around campus killing people was that in his delusional temper tantrum, he chose to kill to make himself feel better.


I disagree, Buffalo. From a psychology standpoint, I largely blame the circumstances his family put him through. Amongst other people he was referring to.

In almost all cases, the parents hold the full blame for not raising a child properly. Minus genetic mental issues. Which he did not seem to have. Nor, for that matter, did he appear sociopathic.

The media's bias shows true in cases like these, listing such pictures and rantings as "shocking" Shocking? WTF? Now if it was pictures of self mutilation combined with bashing baby heads against the wall, that would be shocking. Holding guns is not shocking at all.

Overall, Cho's mental state was probably one who was fed up with everything. When you're someone without a trained resistance to how bad society is, you end up holding it in. Eventually, you snap, and start killing people, as everyone is your enemy.

I could speculate further on his mental state, but I've no evidence beyond media quites, released photo's, etc.

Jeremyhfht

I disagree, Buffalo. From a psychology standpoint, I largely blame the circumstances his family put him through. Amongst other people he was referring to.

And I would have to disagree, I have seen many young people raised in much worse circumstance and they never even contemplated doing what Cho chose to do, there are thousands of stories about children who over came their circumstances to become successful, so no it is still on Chos shoulders the decisions he made, and his alone.

BTW I don't know if it was mentioned anywhere but The Texas shooter in 66' had a brain tumor and even requested an autopsy done in this murder/suicide note/journal.

The is a multitude of reasons why this kind of thing happens. Some people love to find out all the little details and try to find a way to make it so it can never happen again. They will never be successfull.

Jeremyhfht

Overall, Cho's mental state was probably one who was fed up with everything. When you're someone without a trained resistance to how bad society is, you end up holding it in. Eventually, you snap, and start killing people, as everyone is your enemy.

I could speculate further on his mental state, but I've no evidence beyond media quites, released photo's, etc.

Do you know how may time I have been totally feed up with society? and how many others have been totally feed you with society, it is still the individual that chooses how he will deal with that felling of being feed up, and there were numbers of people who did reach out, and all were rebuffed, so it was Cho's choose, and he chose all the wrong things, why? because he was so self-centered that his family didn't matter, They only sent him to school, and supported him at school, raised and loved him, and worked their ass off trying to give him the best chance for success that they could, and you know why I know this, because, there have been no interviews with any people Cho worked with, why no interviews?, because he didn't have to work, and if he had a job the news media would have been interviewing the people he worked with, so don't blame his parents, it was Cho alone, who choose his path and the destruction of 32 innocent lives.

Jeremyhfht

And I would have to disagree, I have seen many young people raised in much worse circumstance and they never even contemplated doing what Cho chose to do

I request that you study psychology first before you make ignorant assumptions.

You do not even know how Cho was raised. I refuse to make assumptions beyond generalizations because I do not know either.

Aside from this, it fully depends on the type of raising, circumstance, and abuse. Not to mention original mentality. These are all variables to consider. Also consider culture and society itself.


there are thousands of stories about children who over came their circumstances to become successful, so no it is still on Chos shoulders the decisions he made, and his alone.

as much as many people like to believe that, it's only what helps them sleep at night. "coming over your circumstances" never happens. You're always affected by them in some small way. And most are incapable of simply "letting go" or forgetting (memory blocking). In fact many turn to religion for relief, rather than psychology (quite sad really).

The blame is accurately placed by Cho himself. It is the fault of society as a whole, especially education, for not educating people in how to treat others accordingly. Amongst other things, such as his raising circumstances.

EDIT:


Do you know how may time I have been totally feed up with society? and how many others have been totally feed you with society, it is still the individual that chooses how he will deal with that felling of being feed up, and there were numbers of people who did reach out, and all were rebuffed, so it was Cho's choose, and he chose all the wrong things, why?

Wrong by you perhaps. You did not live his life. You do not feel the way he did. You did not have his mindset. You did not have his past.

You are judging him based on What you would do. A good psychologist never does this. Nor a good moralist. we are capable of resisting urges to act upon our hate for society, and other people, because of our past. As it effects how we react in the future. His past made it impossible for him to resist, and led to this result.

Thus, his message of "there were thousands of possible ways you could have stopped this". He was referring to those around him, and their ignorance to how he felt.


because he was so self-centered that his family didn't matter, They only sent him to school, and supported him at school, raised and loved him, and worked their ass off trying to give him the best chance for success that they could, and you know why I know this, because, there have been no interviews with any people Cho worked with, why no interviews?

You can get grants. And if your parents are rich, or if they have good jobs, it's not working your ass off. If they get paid minimum wage, and have to work double shifts, THAT is working your ass off.

However, your assertions are all baseless. They're meaningless. Try not to overreact based on your preconceived ideas.


, because he didn't have to work, and if he had a job the news media would have been interviewing the people he worked with, so don't blame his parents, it was Cho alone, who choose his path and the destruction of 32 innocent lives.

see above.

Jeremyhfht

You do not even know how Cho was raised. I refuse to make assumptions beyond generalizations because I do not know either.

And being generalizations what good are they, I stated what I had gathered from the news report, and it can be generalized that his family did care for him as he was not required to hold a job, (the fact in play are that the news media haven't come up with a interview of fellow workers, which has happened with ever other shooter who have done the same), the comments from the family:
The shooter's sister, Cho Sun-Kyung, who works as a contractor at the US State Department, said "We have always been a close, peaceful and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence."

And from his sister:
"This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person," she said.

Says that he was loved, everything that I have read indicates a family doing their level best to help him succeed.

As for

I request that you study psychology first before you make ignorant assumptions.

I am involved with grief counseling for the families of suicide victims, Why because I have lost friend from my military career, from PTSD, from my treatment groups for PTSD, and relatives that have committed suicide, and I have never seen a family that didn't have absolute loss over the choice of their loved one to choose suicide rather than come to them for help, so don't tell me that I don't know anything about the Families of suicide victims.

EDIT: I advise we carry this on in PM's. This is VEHEMENTLY off topic. I apologize to everyone for letting it get so.

Jeremyhfht

And being generalizations what good are they, I stated what I had gathered from the news report, and it can be generalized that his family did care for him as he was not required to hold a job

Yes, but correlation does not imply causation.

My generalizations are psychology ones. They're what I've seen time and again, in almost all cases, and in cases very similar to this one.

It could be generalized that his family did. But then he'd have no motive for this behavior. Which goes against GENERALIZATION. Therefore, what you made is an assertion. Not a generalization.



The shooter's sister, Cho Sun-Kyung, who works as a contractor at the US State Department, said "We have always been a close, peaceful and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence."


The first rule of a good psychologist, or rather a family psychologist: Do not trust the family. Make you're own observations.

It's similar to trusting a child abuser to say that he abused the child. Many, in fact, do not think they ever "abused". Only disciplined.


And from his sister:
"This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person," she said.


His sister, like the other family members, are not very credible or trustable. Most family members wouldn't even know if someone way gay, let alone how their actions affect another.

Family members tend to be the LEAST observing people in the world. And therefore, are not trustworthy enough to make an accurate observation.


Says that he was loved, everything that I have read indicates a family doing their level best to help him succeed.

THEY say so. Again, it's impossible to prove what they say is accurate.


As for

“
I request that you study psychology first before you make ignorant assumptions.
”

I am involved with grief counseling for the families of suicide victims

Then you SHOULD know best of all that family members do not accurately describe the situation. I've met countless people that say "He always SEEMED happy though!".


Why because I have lost friend from my military career, from PTSD, from my treatment groups for PTSD, and relatives that have committed suicide, and I have never seen a family that didn't have absolute loss over the choice of their loved one to choose suicide rather than come to them for help

And? This has nothing to do with what I've said. This is an Appeal to Emotions, and has no adding content to the discussion.


so don't tell me that I don't know anything about the Families of suicide victims.


I never said you didn't know anything about Suicides. Merely my claim that you appear ignorant of even basic psychology generalizations.

More often than not, family members contribute to suicides. Even in small ways, or in more obvious ones. Like depriving privacy, friends, etc. Or simply raising the kid incorrectly, so the person can't handle depression.

There are many factors to consider.

My last comment on this site for this subject, Psychobabble Bullshit.

My last commet on this site.
*Crosses fingers*

Hee, funny nickel.