Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   1) School gunman kills 14 people in 1989. 2) Pass a brazillion gun laws. 3) School gunman kills 19 at same school in 2006. 4) Pretend more gun laws will work   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
88
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

972 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2006 at 6:25 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



88 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Gahbrone
2006-09-14 3:44:15 PM  
http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

/not sub
 
mscrankyangel
2006-09-14 3:48:53 PM  
He didnt KILL 19. he wounded 19 and killed 1 which still sucks of course.
 
FarkinNortherner
2006-09-14 3:49:14 PM  
submitter: 1. School gunman kills 14 people in 1989.
Yes.

2. Pass a brazillion gun laws.
I'll take your word for it.

3. School gunman kills [1 and injures] 19 at same [a different] school in 2006.
F-

4. Pretend more gun laws will work
Gap in logic.
 
z00mz00mz00m
2006-09-14 3:49:33 PM  
How 'bout our Republican controlled government enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

/oh, that's right. They like guns...
//and NRA money...
///lots of NRA money...
 
Pelagius
2006-09-14 3:54:09 PM  
Today's Gun Flame War brought to you by McDonald's - Dah dah dah dah dah I'm Lovin' It!
 
Fjolle
2006-09-14 3:55:00 PM  
Nice flamebait there...

And a little laugh for thoose who wonders how many a brazillion is...
 
Peaceboy [TotalFark]
2006-09-14 3:55:45 PM  
Assumption: numbers wouldn't be significantly worse without the laws.

I'm not subscribing to that newsletter.
 
azmoviez
2006-09-14 4:01:33 PM  
z00mz00mz00m: How 'bout our Republican controlled government enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

You have a Republican controlled gov't in Canada?
 
phomancho
2006-09-14 4:02:21 PM  
z00mz00mz00m: bout our Republican controlled government enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

Considering this all took place in Canada it has zilch to do with our government here in the states.
 
doublesecretprobation
2006-09-14 4:03:16 PM  
how many school shootings have we in the US had in that same time frame?

your dog wants poutine.
 
z00mz00mz00m
2006-09-14 4:06:16 PM  
Sorry, I put this in US context since all the gun nuts fall from the trees when there's a shooting and they fear for their God given right to kill people bear arms.

/my bad
//guns bad
 
phomancho
2006-09-14 4:08:47 PM  
doublesecretprobation: your dog wants poutine.

Damn, now I want poutine.

z00mz00mz00m: I put this in US context since all the gun nuts fall from the trees

but do they make good nut milk?
 
Sarah Jessica Farker [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-09-14 4:09:34 PM  
5. Profit?
 
RocketRod
2006-09-14 4:17:35 PM  
And I always thought "gun contol" meant not dropping your weapon and making sure you hit the target.

And for the record: I do not own any registered guns.
 
El_Swino
2006-09-14 4:19:11 PM  
In both cases the firearms were legal. Looks like the laws worked fine.
 
evilstein
2006-09-14 4:21:38 PM  
Well, it's a valid concern considering the fact that gun control is usually a failure. It hasn't worked in DC (or any other US city that's passed strict gun control laws) - criminals simply ignore the laws anyway. More laws aren't helping anyone except criminals.
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-09-14 4:49:09 PM  
Gun control laws aren't about stopping crime or about stopping deaths. They're about politicians and their constituents doing something so that everyone can feel better about themselves.
 
domussua
2006-09-14 4:59:45 PM  
Murder is illegal. If someone is about to break that law, what makes you think that they will follow a gun law? All gun laws do is take guns out of the hands of those who follow the law. If a couple of people at that college had a gun, there wouldn't be 20 people shot.

/has a gun
//carries it at college
 
brap [TotalFark]
2006-09-14 5:09:21 PM  
I'm sure it's gonna be different when you blow a fuse and climb the clocktower Captain Justice.
 
CraicBaby [OhFark]
2006-09-14 5:14:36 PM  
Guns are only part of the problem. The bigger problem is what made this young man go on a shooting spree in the first place.
 
CanadianCommie
2006-09-14 5:18:00 PM  
domussua: If a couple of people at that college had a gun, there wouldn't be 20 people shot.

/has a gun
//carries it at college

bullshiat. Most shootings involve the gunman having the element of suprise. He walked into a cafeteria and started spraying fire. I'm sure you'd be proficient in both drawing your weapon, aiming, AND doging bullets.

Or maybe he'd just shoot YOU first, since you have the gun.

Not to mention, If you aren't a crack shot, well, then you're almost as likely to kill someone else as he is.

Or. maybe emotion doesn't bother you and you would be able to draw and shoot without anyt sense of panic. If that were the case, then you're either in an action movie or probably shouldn't have a gun either.
 
CraicBaby [OhFark]
2006-09-14 5:19:55 PM  
domussua: If a couple of people at that college had a gun, there wouldn't be 20 people shot.

No, there would have been more dead because the police wouldn't have been able to tell who was the shooter.
 
domussua
2006-09-14 5:30:03 PM  
CanadianCommie, perhaps I should just lay down and let him shoot me? Or maybe wait 10 minutes for the cops to show up. Maybe I could ask him nicely to wait why I do that. I think the will and the ability to defend oneself is paramount, and I have just that.
 
domussua
2006-09-14 5:31:38 PM  
And CrackBaby, that wouldn't happen. There would be a gap of about 10 mintutes before the cops arrived. By then the assailant would be incapacitated, and the parties involved would have re-holstered their weapons.
 
Flab [TotalFark]
2006-09-14 5:31:42 PM  
domussua: If a couple of people at that college had a gun

The guy was chased in the school by an armed cop. so technically, your hypothesis is wrong from the start.

there wouldn't be 20 people shot.

And then it doesn't get any better. Do you honestly think that a couple of armed 17 year-olds would have made a difference?

The word "college" does not mean what you think it does in this case.
 
Flab [TotalFark]
2006-09-14 5:35:26 PM  
domussua: Or maybe wait 10 minutes for the cops to show up.

1) There was already a cop onsite (he litterally walked by the cop's car as he was shooting the people having a smoke outside).

2) two more officers showed up in less than 3 minutes.
 
CanadianCommie
2006-09-14 5:35:32 PM  
domussua: CanadianCommie, perhaps I should just lay down and let him shoot me? Or maybe wait 10 minutes for the cops to show up. Maybe I could ask him nicely to wait why I do that. I think the will and the ability to defend oneself is paramount, and I have just that.

and by doing so you endanger the lives of the innocent people around you. How absolutely arrogant. You believe wholeheartedly that in a volitaile situation that you'd be in enouhg mental nad physical control to kill the shooter, who sprung it on everyone when he walked in and started mowing everyone down? A paper target doesn't shoot back, or shoot first.

Just because you HAVE a gun, doesn't mean you have the capacity to properly use it in a potentially fatal situation. Is your "ability to defend yourself" worth the risk or killing someone that was innocent (n the crossfire), or your own life by foolishly drawing fire to yourself?

I mean, really, what are the chances that you'd go unnoticed while fumbling for your firearm? It'd make you the number one priority if the guy wasn't done, meaning you'd probably be dead before you ever got the safety off.

I know I would feel LESS safe if my classmates were walking around with firearms.
 
CanadianCommie
2006-09-14 5:36:44 PM  
domussua: There would be a gap of about 10 mintutes before the cops arrived. By then the assailant would be incapacitated, and the parties involved would have re-holstered their weapons.

did you even READ the timeline? The cops were IN the building due to an unnrealated drug-related investigation, and the shooter was being pursued through the building.
 
CraicBaby [OhFark]
2006-09-14 5:39:48 PM  
domussua: There would be a gap of about 10 mintutes before the cops arrived.

It took all of 3 minutes for the cops to respond to the Dawson shooting.

By then the assailant would be incapacitated, and the parties involved would have re-holstered their weapons.

Have you ever been in a situation like yesterday's shooting? Shooting a paper target in a controlled environment, like a gun range, is drastically different than shooting at a live moving target that is shooting back at you in an uncontrolled, chaotic environment with people running around and screaming. Unless you've had law enforcement training, you cannot react rationally in an irrational situation like that. Your average gun hobbyist would not be able to take down a suspect who is spraying the place with bullets. And with the adrenaline pumping, said person would not reholster his weapon before the cops arrived.
 
CraicBaby [OhFark]
2006-09-14 5:42:39 PM  
CanadianCommie: I know I would feel LESS safe if my classmates were walking around with firearms.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust 17-20 yr old college kid(which is the age range of the Dawson students) with a handgun.
 
domussua
2006-09-14 5:43:09 PM  
Well, I guess I did miss that part of the timeline.

CandianCommie: and by doing so you endanger the lives of the innocent people around you. How absolutely arrogant. You believe wholeheartedly that in a volitaile situation that you'd be in enouhg mental nad physical control to kill the shooter, who sprung it on everyone when he walked in and started mowing everyone down? A paper target doesn't shoot back, or shoot first.

Gosh, I don't know if I'd be in that much control of myself. It seems he did, and I guess I'd never find out if I were dead, eh?

and by doing so you endanger the lives of the innocent people around you.

Newsflash, their lives are already in danger. While you're sitting there writing poems about the saftey ot f your fellow man, he just killed you and shot everyone around you. How's that for socially responsible?
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-09-14 5:50:38 PM  
CanadianCommie: Just because you HAVE a gun, doesn't mean you have the capacity to properly use it in a potentially fatal situation

Just because you are not a cop doesn't mean that you don't have the capability to use a gun correctly. There are numerous examples of scared, untrained, average citizens who successfully defend themselves with a gun.

I mean, really, what are the chances that you'd go unnoticed while fumbling for your firearm?

On a college campus where everyone is hiding because of the gunshots? About 99.9%

and by doing so you endanger the lives of the innocent people around you.

No, I think the gunman who's aiming at your classmates is doing a bang up job of that already. If you have a gun in that kind of situation, you have no idea when the cops are going to show up. You have no idea if you're going to be randomly next to be shot. You have no idea if the gunman is going to pull out a bomb next. Doing nothing is the only wrong action.

How absolutely arrogant.

How absolutely arrogant of you to assume that cowering in fear is the only action that anyone else could take because it is what you would do.

I know I would feel LESS safe if my classmates were walking around with firearms.

That's because you're afraid of guns and any person who knows how to use them.
 
CraicBaby [OhFark]
2006-09-14 6:00:24 PM  
domussua: It seems he did

Because he wasn't shooting to defend himself and he knew he wasn't getting out of it alive.

While you're sitting there writing poems about the saftey ot f your fellow man, he just killed you and shot everyone around you. How's that for socially responsible?

You think people sit around expecting a crazed gunman to come in at any moment and start shooting? Maybe you're that paranoid, but I'm not. When you're not expecting someone to shoot at you and you're not trained to respond to such a situation, you are not going to be able handle that situation properly. The average gun hobbyist would not be able to hit a live, moving target in a chaotic, uncontrolled environment. And with the police there so quickly, if the shooter didn't get Mr. Hobbyist first, the cops would, because they wouldn't know he wasn't the shooter.
 
CraicBaby [OhFark]
2006-09-14 6:09:27 PM  
Scooby's'pawn: On a college campus where everyone is hiding because of the gunshots?

No, everyone is running around screaming and trying to get out of the building. If you stop to get your gun out, you're likely going to get shot before you can get it out and take the safety off.

Just because you are not a cop doesn't mean that you don't have the capability to use a gun correctly. There are numerous examples of scared, untrained, average citizens who successfully defend themselves with a gun.

Needs sources plzkthx.

No, I think the gunman who's aiming at your classmates is doing a bang up job of that already.

How many times has someone shot at you when you were in school? Saying everyone should be armed in case someone shoots up the school is like saying everyone should wear a parachute on the off-chance they fall off a cliff.

That's because you're afraid of guns and any person who knows how to use them.

I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of all the people out there who have them and only think they know how to use them properly. And do you honestly think a 17 yr old kid is going to know how to use a gun properly?
 
vegetable raygun
2006-09-14 6:32:28 PM  
You gotta be a real pussy to carry a gun to college.
 
ericjohnson0
2006-09-14 6:38:55 PM  
TJ said it best:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was ~240 years ago.
 
LocalCynic
2006-09-14 6:40:51 PM  
This problem could have been solved if each and every student was armed.
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-09-14 6:49:42 PM  
CraicBaby: If you stop to get your gun out, you're likely going to get shot before you can get it out and take the safety off.

So you're theory is that the gunman is going to notice my arm moving and see that I am pulling a pistol out of my waistband while everyone is running around screaming and trying to get away? What if I'm not being stupid and standing right in front of him before I pull my gun? Is his x-ray vision good enough to pick out my small movement when I'm behind a tree? Is his super-hearing going to pick out my cocking of the hammer from 60 feet away? Perhaps he can dodge my bullets and take me out before I can hit him at that range. Maybe I just bought the people running away a couple of seconds. Maybe he has to close with me to actually hit me and they get a minute or more. Maybe he ducks and runs himself. Either way, I made the situation better for those who are getting shot at, not worse.

Saying everyone should be armed in case someone shoots up the school is like saying everyone should wear a parachute on the off-chance they fall off a cliff.

I never said that. I'm challenging the assertion that someone who has a concealed weapon's license is only making the situation worse. Or that they wouldn't be able to make a difference.

I'm afraid of all the people out there who have them and only think they know how to use them properly.

And taking away everyone's guns makes you safer? How?

And do you honestly think a 17 yr old kid is going to know how to use a gun properly?

Because we all know that there were only underage freshmen on that campus. No faculty, no older students, no visitors...
 
Lionel Mandrake
2006-09-14 6:53:41 PM  
The headline is a rant, and an inaccurate one. Article says nothing about gun laws whatsoever - or the 1989 incident. And of course, only one was killed.

Pathetic.
 
jbuist
2006-09-14 7:14:15 PM  
Just because you are not a cop doesn't mean that you don't have the capability to use a gun correctly. There are numerous examples of scared, untrained, average citizens who successfully defend themselves with a gun.

Needs sources plzkthx

One
Two
Three

Those are just from this week -- and only looking at one source.

Go here if you'd like a couple hundred more.

And I'm not sure what's wrong with this guy's blog but he keeps tabs on them also. However, in his case they only count when the shooter actually kills the bad guy, so his numbers are a bit lower. Only 105 in the past few years.

Now, home invasions and armed robbery situations are mostly what I've linked to so far. How about a story of a guy that returned fire on a guy outside a courthouse shooting people with an AK-47 clone. That's pretty intense. He hit intended target, but the madman was wearing body armor which stopped the bullet. He lost his own life when the man returned fire with the AK-47, but he did keep the gunman occupied for a while.

So, with police right around the corner (they were on the courhouse steps) who was the first one to get their pistol out and deliver shots on target? An "untrained" CHL holder.
 
RocketRod
2006-09-14 7:14:42 PM  
Lionel Mandrake: And of course, only one was killed.

Pathetic.


You're right. American shooters would've at least had a dozen kills. Lazy Canadians.

/Hell, please... first class.
 
ToeKnee666
2006-09-14 7:18:50 PM  
domussua: If a couple of people at that college had a gun, there wouldn't be 20 people shot.
/has a gun
//carries it at college

brap: I'm sure it's gonna be different when you blow a fuse and climb the clocktower Captain Justice.

This is the humor I read Fark for.
 
monster87
2006-09-14 7:30:07 PM  
CanadianCommie

You're argument is rather arrogant to assume that every person shiats their pants when they enter a crisis situation. I was fired upon before, and I handled myself rather well. Most people do. I didn't have a weapon, and it was a random shooting so I didn't need one then. Duck and cover was enough then.

Gun control and freaks like this have nothing to do with each other. Gun control is about having personal control of you property, and the ability to deter adverse action against your family. It also fills up the deep freeze.

Gun control does not stop the criminal that needs a gun to accomplish his aim. Gun control is not going to keep the meth fiend from trying to acquire one so that he can rob the convience store to score cash. Wild ass 17 year olds who have mental disorders can acquire anything they want.

Man, I was scoring weed at 17, and you can't get much more illegal than that. What's the point of making guns illegal? All it will do is make good people criminals.
 
Downbound
2006-09-14 8:27:55 PM  
Move to Minneaplis, go to the UofMN and see what you think about guns and gun control. It's legal to conceal and carry in mpls. It's not legal for students or staff of the UofMN. How easy is it for someone to get a gun? Well, guns are nearly always banned in bars, so you have to leave them in your car.

To make this clear, I'm NOT promoting less gun control, I'm just saying it's all done wrong. People are going to do weird things like this kid did, it's just going to happen. However, adding more guns to the situation doesn't help. I love this little teaching scenario because it makes a lot of sense. War. guns = more people die. Good people, bad people, animals, etc. I don't care how Clint Eastwood you get with your gun under fire. I don't care if you're a cop or a fark'n green baret, guns so often wound and kill the wrong person. Especially in a place where there are surfaces bullets bounce off. Look at the statistcs for police who accidently shoot an innocent. Look at the statistics on people who shoot themselves or their friends with guns.

Owning a handgun or assult rifle should is stupid and should be illegal. The 2nd ammendment be damned. You and the entire state of Michigan (I think still the highest gun per capita) would still have zero chance against the US military even now, with it stretched bare thin. Thus the intire concept of the 2nd ammendment is irrelevant. Yea, hunting, whatever. I'm not a big fan of it because of the number of sport hunters and I personally think it's kinda sick but. . . If you're gonna do it, you don't need an assult rifle or handgun. You just don't.
 
Downbound
2006-09-14 8:32:12 PM  
monster87: All it will do is make good people criminals.

That assumes you think that people who buy guns 'to defend themselves' are good people.
 
Downbound
2006-09-14 8:35:42 PM  
Sorry, hit post a bit too soon there. I should explain. I think these people are not thinking things through well enough when you look at how many kids hurt themselves with these guns and how many times they end up being involved in crimes (the guns)

Beyond that. . If assult guns and hand guns were illegal and you couldn't buy them. . anywhere legally, they'd stop being made. Time and patience would solve the problem of them being easily available for criminals.
 
Lehk
2006-09-14 8:36:35 PM  
monster87: All it will do is make good people criminals.


one of the primary functions is to ensure that most good people are criminals, that way you have something on them if they become inconvenient
 
MrNiceGuy
2006-09-14 8:38:46 PM  
CraicBaby There are numerous examples of scared, untrained, average citizens who successfully defend themselves with a gun.

Needs sources plzkthx.


Don't you watch all the Holleywood movies where the good guy just jumps, picks up the gun and shoots the bad guy without anyone being killed? That is happening almost everyday in one or two Holleywood movies. How many more examples do you need? :-)
 
MrNiceGuy
2006-09-14 8:49:50 PM  
monster87 Gun control is not going to keep the meth fiend from trying to acquire one so that he can rob the convience store to score cash. Wild ass 17 year olds who have mental disorders can acquire anything they want.

The reason gun control does not work here in Canada is that all the illegal guns are simply smuggled from USA. If USA had a gun control as well, we wouldn't have illegal gun problem in the first place. In fact if the sale of guns would have entirely stopped, we wouldn't have instances like this either where legal guns were used to kill people.

You guys carry gun because you are pussey and are scared and want to feel safe. The irony is that when everyone has a gun then no one is safe anymore.
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-09-14 8:59:04 PM  
You and the entire state of Michigan (I think still the highest gun per capita) would still have zero chance against the US military even now, with it stretched bare thin.

You're assuming that the entire US military would fight their own friends, family and neighbors. You're also assuming that the gun-owning people line up and fight man to man instead of gorilla style. An armed populace is the best way to prevent the government from becoming too oppressive. It's not the only way, but it is the most effective.

Owning a gun is also the only way that a woman or a small man could possibly even the odds against someone who wishes to do them harm. It is also the only way that any person stands a chance against multiple people who mean them harm.

The reason gun control does not work here in Canada is that all the illegal guns are simply smuggled from USA. Err. No. If guns were illegal in the US, Canada might have less illegal guns, but they would still have them. The only way to get rid of guns is to systematically remove them from the houses and prosecute those who have them brutally.

Are you really up for house-to-house searches and constant surveillance on every street to get rid of guns? Once your guns are completely gone then the government has absolutely no reason not to begin taking away all of your other rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

$10 a month since 19 aught diddly.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.