VIOLENCE

Shoot Down This Theory

By Kurt Soller | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 20, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/14/2009 1:21:02 PM

    Mass killings are caused by idiots. They are not caused by guns or money.

    • Posted By: rpearlston @ 04/15/2009 3:29:15 PM

      Then please explain this one to me, please, and to quote Denzel Washington's character in "Philadelpia", explain to me like I'm a five-year old.

      How does a person who is so angry and frustrated as to be capable of going to their local coffee shop and shoot ing up the place do si if they can't get access to a gun? Remember that these are not schemes that are planned ahead, so that the idea of building a bomb to do the job isn't a part of this equation. These are pretty much spur-of-the-moment acts, and that precludes the idea of a bomb,. So, how does one, out of frustration over losing a job or being unable to secure a loan, manage to kill everyone at their local coffee shop or whatever without access to a gun?

      There is no other type of weapon that kills in those numbers in one relatively brief period of time.

      • Posted By: NeoBlackdog @ 04/23/2009 9:18:59 AM

        So.... we should probably outlaw cars and knives, either one of those could be used to kill/maim a bunch of people in short order. Maybe instead we should each take responsibility for protecting ourselves and our fellow man. If we lived in a society where one in ten citezens took it upon themselves to carry a weapon for personal defense, how many of these lunatics would be stopped? Better yet, how many would reconsider their actions entirely. Human beings are an inherantly violent animal and, like it or not, the world is controlled by the CONTROLLED application of violence. I would prefer that the sane be the ones in control. Not the lunatics. Take away my ability to defend myself, and you have simply turned me into a target.

      • Posted By: energyscholar @ 04/15/2009 3:53:01 PM

        Indeed, if a killer can't get access to a gun, then the body count in such horrid events WOULD be lower. However, laws limiting access to guns will not prevent such access, as black market access to guns is, and will remain, cheap and easy. Furthermore, if one studies a little history, one quickly reaches the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by governments against unarmed civilians, not by deranged psychos shooting up a mall. History clearly teaches us to question the motives of any government that attempts to disarm its citizens. Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

        History clearly shows that a well armed public is, overall, safer than a disarmed public.

        • Posted By: rpearlston @ 04/15/2009 5:06:36 PM

          "... a well armed public is, overall, safer than a disarmed public." Really? Just where is that safer but disarmed public? It wasn't that long ago in Texas, for example, that someone started shooting up a church, in the middle of a service, and others in the congregation started shooting back, killing and injuring too many in the process. If the first shooter didn't have access to a gun, how does this happen?

          Safer than a disarmed public - sorry, but history actually tells us that your statement is false. All that you need to do is to look to countries of any size anywhere in the Western world that has real gun control laws. How often, for example, do you see stories of spree killers in Britain, where even the cops don't normally carry guns. How often do you see spree killings in France, in Australia, in Canada (which closely shares just about every part of the US "culture" except for the NRA)?

          Don't, whatever you do, use the Article II arguemnt. For the record, here's the text:

          "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (from http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html)

          I would point out to you that at the time that the US constitution was being written, the country had no organized Armed Forces. The only way to defend the country AT THE TIME was through a "well regulated Militia", something that has long since been supplanted by the US Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Air Force. GIven that, where is the excuse for the widespread gun ownership in the US? And without that widespread gun ownership, it would be difficult for a potential mass murderer to gain access to guns by any means.

          You haven't though twice about any of this, have you? People do kill people, but with the additoin of guns, they can kill many more people in any given place at any given time. Without guns, these same disgruntled people would have to rely on fist fights or knives, which by their very nature, preclude spree killings.

    • Posted By: thinkTwice @ 04/14/2009 5:01:55 PM

      Mass killings are caused by idiots having access to guns. These mass killings are facilitated by idiotic regurgitating of sound bites like "people kill people, guns dont kill people" by morons like you. Grow a brain for once

      • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 04/15/2009 2:03:26 PM

        Yes, because the only way to kill someone is with a gun.

        Idiot.

      • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/15/2009 9:44:53 AM

        Right, let's blame others for the bad choices made my murderers. It couldn't be the fault of the person who went in there and shot everyone, it must be the fault of everyone else who allowed him to make that choice. Let's have a choice free nation, where we have to tell everyone what to do.

        Blaming gun control is ridiculous. If he didn't have the right to buy a gun then he would have made a bomb, or stolen a gun, or any other number of ways to get the same result. And then what would your stance be? That it's everyone else's fault because he was able to choose to do that too?

      • Posted By: ok4u @ 04/14/2009 7:17:30 PM

        These type of killings didn't occur during the Great Depression, which makes today's economic "problems" minor in comparison. But we remember the killers names from back then, because the murders were rare enough to be shocking.
        It has nothing to do with the economy. Ever heard of evil? Or are todays looneys just misunderstood?

  • Posted By: BaileyMblue @ 04/19/2009 11:11:42 AM

    I agree with Wise1. Criminals don't really care about the law- make guns illegal, and they will just get them from the Black Market or gangs. Prohibition, anyone? At least now, the people selling guns are (usually) just average people trying to make a living. So then we will end up with gangs and weapons dealers getting filthy rich, criminals with weapons, and no way to protect ourselves. Sure, many crimes are comitted with guns- but that won't change if we make them illegal, they'll just get them illegally. Violence is already increasing, and I want to know that I can protect myself.

  • Posted By: independantfreeman @ 04/16/2009 12:07:22 PM

    The only link I see is the fact the killers used guns. Get rid of guns (and the NRA as well) and you get rid of the problem. Its so easy, even a gun-toting, second amendment lover can understand it.

    • Posted By: Wise1 @ 04/16/2009 2:42:40 PM

      freeman, take away guns from law abiding citizens and then just the crooks would have them. If you take away my gun and I get held up, or my house gets broke into and the crooks got a gun, what do I have, a golf club? Besides, there are those of us who survive on the game that we shoot. It's cheaper for my family to stock up on deer, dove, quail, and pheseant than to buy beef or other meats. If the economy crashes, and it looks like it might, that might be the only way we survive...just like they did in the old days. Think about that before you spout your mouth with a solution that won't work.

  • Posted By: mainermike @ 04/15/2009 3:34:57 PM

    AS I SEE IT ------- Mike "Mainer Mike" Brown.

    One thing's for sure, if your going through a rough time in your life, whether it be a troubled marriage, a divorce, strained relations with your children, someone wronging you, or something else that's not exactly pleasant, an economy that's hurting doesn't help.

    But struggling financially by itself doesn't cause someone kill a lot of people. It's a combination of factors.

    Also, I don't like when the media makes out that this or that causes someone to go crazy. These people made a conscious decision to commit these horrible crimes. Unless they're out of touch with reality, society should blame the victimizer and the victimizer only. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing some people blaming it on this factor or that factor.

    If you did it, you should pay. You have nobody else to blame but yourself.

  • Posted By: MichaelX @ 04/15/2009 2:10:28 PM

    Yes, who to blame? What to blame? How to blame?
    These, and other exciting questions on the nex edition of "Hey you're an Idiot" , today, on Fox!
    People,{and children} who have never had much dicipline tend to become extreme self-centered and egotistic.
    Then again, some haave had too much. It is still in the will of the person to commit things all by themselves, and still will blame someone/thing, else for their dementia. The publec needs the ability to cut them down at the very start of their rampage to reduce the loss of life. Ready, aim, fire!

  • Posted By: Ellis H @ 04/15/2009 12:32:17 PM

    Abusing the deformity caused by poor local and national standards is the profit of parasites.

  • Posted By: Ellis H @ 04/15/2009 12:14:21 PM

    Bad guys are born out of the hypocrisy of good guys
    Abuse creates abusers

  • Posted By: rbills09 @ 04/15/2009 9:50:12 AM

    The economy is not the biggest down fall that we live and die for. It has more to do with the demoralization of the people. I am beginning to beleive that the more we do for people the less energy and effort they themselves have to put into it and the less they can feel pride in what they have accomplished. During the Great Depression the head of the house didn't walk away from their responsibilities they worked harder to provide for their families. Neighborhoods stuck together doing with what they had. It now seems that when hard times hit we don't explain to our children that they can't have everything they want, we just charge it and make things worst for ourselves. I can see in my family that we don't do for ourselves we have asked others to help us out. Now we spend our time idly doing things we shouldn't.

  • Posted By: mac101 @ 04/15/2009 12:15:01 AM

    Maybe the stress of losing one's job is the final catalyst that pushed some of these people over the edge, but the constant media barrage hasn't helped, either.

  • Posted By: rpearlston @ 04/14/2009 10:18:49 PM

    While job losses due to the economy are stressful, they don't and can't kill anyone. This isn't about the economy but about the almost total lack of gun control laws in the US. So, let's put the "blame" here where is soundly belongs - right on the shulders of the NRA.

  • Posted By: MADisonJames @ 04/13/2009 9:10:07 PM

    It's definitely not the economy. More likely, it is the result of the Obama administration's inability to push forward on gun control, and therefore Obama is employing government agents to target unstable people via drugs, hypnosis, or simple conversations, to commit these crimes. The goal is to galvanize public support for the Obama administration's anti-gun policies.

    • Posted By: thinkTwice @ 04/14/2009 5:03:21 PM

      he, he ... raving, *** i n g lunatic

  • Posted By: kshortSD @ 04/14/2009 12:38:12 PM

    I don't know. We've had several shootings (murder-suicides) in our region, and it seems that the crimes are usually committed by middle-aged men who have recently lost their jobs and are in danger of losing assets as well. I have a hard time believing that there is no connection at all.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 04/14/2009 11:33:17 AM

    When the economy goes down Crime goes up, hasn't failed yet and is not likely to this time either.
    In fact given the economic condition of the country crime is surprisingly low.

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 04/14/2009 9:45:36 AM

    NOT the economy!!!

    This is a return to Clinton policy before the idiotic ban on semi-automamatic firearms....
    he needed a certain amount of crime and violence to be taking place as a way to justify the ban.
    REMEMBER!!! This ban was almost imposible to get passed into law,, intil the Wacco situation occured,plus news media hyp...and it BARELY passed by one vote. It's point was and is to be a gimmick aimed at American firearms owners as a springboard to sieze firearms rights.And bring all gun regulations into dictatorship format!
    It's not the economy. It's manipulated!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse