CNN Breaking News

-- An 18-year-old believed to have shot dead eight people at a Finnish school has died from self-inflicted injuries, police said.

Comments

[Condor]

He must have been pissed about his country having no problems whatsoever... What?

[Brendan Loy]

Guns don't kill people, 18-year-old Finnish schoolchildren kill people.

[ScottF]

I was visiting family today when this came on the news and my brother-in-law and I almost simultaneously said, "I hope it wasn't an American exchange student." I'm not sure what emotions I should feel about thinking that but sadness is certainly one of them.

[Joe Mama]

Wait, I thought they had gun control laws over there.

[Condor]

Joe Mama's Worldview: 1
Decorum: 0

[Brendan Loy]

Correction: Guns don't kill people, YouTube kills people.

[Andrew]

Decorum or not, Joe Mama has a point. Finland doesn't have the strictest gun control laws per se, but they are more strict than what the vast majority of gun control advocates propose here in the States.

Cue David to jump in and rail against American gun freedom as the significant cause of violence here (Columbine, Virginia Tech, et al).

[Condor]

In an ideal world, there would be huge, newsworthy events of gun violence every day. Five minutes after every event, there would be a debate between ideologues on both sides, driven by the emotion caused by the events. And there would be no chance of the debate ever turning rational because everyone would be angry or outraged all of the time. Alas, our world is flawed, but at least one can DREAM!

[Andrew]

Given that the present MO of the media is to inflame the gun control debate when such tragedies occur on American soil by giving immediate voice to gun control advocates, Condor's vision of an ideal world sounds mighty appealing and a lot more even-handed.

In any case, given the separation the pond provides, I don't think anyone here is particularly driven by emotions from this event. Really, why is this news item any more emotional to anyone on this blog than a fire that kills 15 in South Africa or 47 illegal immigrants drowning on their way to the Canary Islands?

"Decorum" = Not facing reality

[Condor]

Actually, "Decorum" = "Not facing reality"

[Joe Mama]

Yawn. My "worldview" acknowledges the obvious fact that gun conrol laws only keep those willing to obey them from owning guns . . . and those people aren't the problem.

[David K.]

Gun control laws, especially strict ones make it more difficult to obtain guns, and while it might not prevent ALL the bad people out there from obtaining guns it will certainly limit the number of people who might do something violent from having them.

Gun control alone is not going to prevent this sort of thign from happening but it could certainly lower the chances.

I certainly don't think we need to make it impossible for people to own guns, but the fact that its harder to get a driver's license than a gun in this country strikes me as just plain stupid.

[Joe Mama]

I couldn't agree less with David. Gun control laws, even strict ones, only make it more difficult to obtain guns if you trouble yourself with obeying them. And as I said, the kind of people who go on shooting sprees probably aren't too concerned with breaking a few gun control laws IMO. Strict anti-drug laws haven't made it any more difficult for people willing to break them to obtain any number of illegal drugs in this country, so why would gun control laws be any different? Not unlike the volume of drugs available, there are more guns in the US than there are people in the US. Good luck making them all go away. Perhaps a "War on Guns"? Those "wars" have worked so well in the past.

Moreover, the available data is at best inconclusive as to whether gun control laws lead to less violent crime. There are ample studies concluding that such laws don't in fact lead to less violent crime, most notably those by economist John Lott. If you think about it, it's hardly surprising that an increase in the number of civilians with guns would reduce violent crime rates, since the possibility of armed victims would reduce the expected benefits and increase the expected costs of criminal activity. And unlike a gun control law just waiting to be broken, such a change in the expected costs of criminal activity is something that a would-be criminal might very well respond to.

Finally, as for driver's licenses being more difficult to obtain than a gun, we've been over this ground before. As I've pointed out, driving is a privilege, whereas gun ownership is a right (like it or not). Moreover, I would argue that the comparison between the difficulty in obtaining a driver's license versus a gun is evidence that the requirements for a driver's license should be stricter (as opposed to those for gun ownership), especially given that far, far more people are killed in car accidents each year than by gunshot wounds.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, the drug situation and the gun situation are not comparable for many many reasons. Beyond that the data DOES in fact show that in industrialized nations more gun control = less violent crime. The U.S. which has the least restrictive laws has by far the most violent gun crimes, where as Japan where it is next to impossible to obtain a gun has some of the safest streets in the world.

In addition while an armed populace might lead the attacker to be more cautious, its also true that very often people are injured with their own guns either through negligence or inexperience, and the idea of giving out MORE guns to some how decrease overall gun violence goes against common sense.

I agree with you that as it stands gun ownership is a right. But using that as a bullwark of your argument is pointless since my argument has nothing to do with that. I'm arguing that it SHOULDN'T be a right. It should in fact be treated the same way as a driver's licencse where you are tested and restricted.

Your final argument is a straw man and you know it. Yes there are more deaths attributed to cars and guns, but when you factor in time of use/exposure guns far outweigh cars in terms of deadliness, beyond which although a car CAN kill someone that is not its purpose and people actively (in most cases) attempt to avoid harming themselves and others while useing motor vehicles. If you were to remove from those car deaths people who were drinking and driving, using drugs and driving, talk on the cellphone while driving etc. the difference between gun related deaths and car related deaths would be further seperated. A gun has one purpose and one purpose alone. To kill. They have been designed and developed throughout history to become more efficient at killing.

One last thing, the limited set of circumstances where defending oneself with a gun are possible, also contain a sizeable number of situations where non-lethal defense methods (tazer, peper spray, etc) would also be effective.

America needs LESS guns not more, and while i don't think we need go as far as Japan in making it next ot impossible to obtain one, it should definitely be more difficult and better regulated closing such obvious loopholes as those that exist at gun shows and re-enacting the assault weapons ban.

[Joe Mama]

If the drug situation and the gun situation are not comparable for "many many reasons," then I'm sure you can provide at least one of them. And I'd love to know what data you're referring to that oh-so conclusively proves that more gun control = less violent crime. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that whatever study you've seen which shows that Japan's lower rate of violent crime versus the US is attributable to lax US gun control laws completely ignores the cultural, sociological and historical differences between American and Japanese society. There is a big difference between correlation and causation.

And I recall you've tried this ingenious "factor in how much you are exposed to each" rationalization before to argue that guns are somehow more dangerous than cars (nevermind the "purpose" canard, which it completely irrelevant). As Brendan correctly pointed out, that analysis is fundamentally flawed because it distorts the data.

[David K.]

Off the top of my head drugs are easier to distribute and easier to smuggle.

I'm searching for the study, and you are right it doesn't prove that cultural differences don't play a part, but the study data showed that countries around the world with stricter laws came lower violent crime rates. Japan is just an example of the one with the lowest.

Finally, the problem with Brendan's point is that everything he listed was, like guns, a deadly or dangerous item with no other purpose. Cars have a significant purpose and unfortunately can have negative effects in some situations. The amount of time that cars are used in which they do NOT cause death and even more are not intentionally used to cause death is significant to any discussion. Guns have one purpose and one purpose alone, and the more people who have them, the more people are around them the more likely they are to be injured or killed, injured or killed by something that is unnecessary and should be better regulated.

[Joe Mama]

Saying "that the only purpose of guns is to kill" is silly. By that logic, anyone who owns a gun can only have one purpose in mind, and that is to kill someone with it. That is just absurd on its face.

[Joe Mama]

Cars have a significant purpose and unfortunately can have negative effects in some situations.

Likewise, guns have a significant purpose (self-defense) and unfortunately can have negative effects in some situations. I'm prepared to accept however many tens of thousands deaths that arise from car accidents each year as the price for using cars, just as I'm prepared to accept however many deaths (thousands? it's far fewer than cars) that arise from accidental gunshot wounds as the price for the ability to defend myself (knowing full well that I could be one of those accidental gun deaths . . . of course, statistically speaking, I'm much, much more likely to die in a car accident than from my firearm).

[David K.]

Here's one study, not the same one I have seen before, but similar data:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/GlobalGunEpidemicRev07.pdf

More guns = more gun deaths per capita

Here's one that talks about the danger to children and how much higher it is in the U.S.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

[David K.]

The difference Joe Mama, is that we can live life without guns, our society would still function. Without cars? Not true. It would be great to take away all sources of pain and death, but the benefit cars provide far exceeds their cost. With guns the same is not true. Guns PRIMARY purpose is causing death and can sometimes be used to defend, but they are not the only ways to defend yourself, and again as I pointed out, i am NOT against allowing people, such as yourself, who are willing to go through background checks and take training to own a personal handgun. Not everyone who favors improved gun control wants to ban them completely. There is a balance that can be reached where responsible people can own guns that are well regulated. But the idea that more guns will create a safer society is just not backed up by the evidence.

[Joe Mama]

The idea that more guns will create a safer society is just not backed up by the evidence.

Except that it is:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, by John R. Lott Jr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 225 pages, $23.00

Now, I'm sure Lott's study isn't without errors. I'm sure the data could be interpreted in a multitude of different ways, corrected to account for various factors that might skew the ultimate conclusions, etc. What I'm simply pointing out -- in direct contravention of your assertion that the evidence points only one way, and that is less guns = less crime -- is that, as I said above, the data is at best inconclusive.

[Joe Mama]

the benefit cars provide far exceeds their cost. With guns the same is not true.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Of course, you always know when you'll need a car, so the benefit is easy to see, whereas you never know when you'll need a gun (hopefully you never will), so the benefit is not as readily apparent and you have to think about it a little more to realize it.

[Joe Mama]

Like they say, it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it. It's like insurance. If your house never burns down, that doesn't mean you fire insurance didn't provide an important benefit.

[Brian Foster]

"But the idea that more guns will create a safer society is just not backed up by the evidence."

This is, of course, why police departments across the nation have stopped carrying sidearms. After all, it's illegal for the police to kill suspects, and since "[g]uns have one purpose and one purpose alone," i.e. to kill, clearly it follows that police officers should not have them.

Public safety is expected to increase in proportion to the number of guns thus removed from the streets. Because, of course, if "More guns = more gun deaths per capita," then obviously less guns = less gun deaths per capita.

The utopia is imminent!

[Joe Mama]

LOL

[David K.]

I didn't think I had to spell out the difference between trained law enforcement officers and the general public Brian, I thought it was self evident. But again those are people who go through extensive training using well regulated fire arms with additional laws surrounding their use. If the average gun owner had to go through the certification and regular checks that police officers had to the situation would be much improved. Your "point" is a red herring that distracts from the overall discussion. As I have said I am not for banning guns completely, just more effective limitations and regulations, which I fully admit under the current constitutional structure are not practical. As it stands now the system I'd like to see in place would be thrown out. I happen to think the 2nd ammendment is unnecssary and anachronistic (not to mention misunderstood) and would need to be removed or modified before we can make real progress on this issue.

I understand and acknowledge that people like Joe Mama and presumeably yourself disagree on this. Of course the primary purpose of the 2nd ammendment was national defense and protection from government tyranny, which made sense when the firearms that soldiers carried were about the same as the firearms that civilians carried. Now a days foreign invaders who really wanted to do damage or if our government wanted to turn completely tyrannical overnight would be using tanks, jet fighters, bombs, etc. that doesn't make much sense anymore as a detterent. The other option being we could start letting civilians buy tanks, but somehow I think that would just be a bad idea.