Some stories are saying "Thank God Japan has such strict gun laws! What if that madman had had a gun?" I keep thinking "that man killed 8 children with a knife, and injured 15 more. He had to do it up close and personally, getting blood on his hands, not standing at a distance playing a video shoot'em-up. [Sherri]

In other words, he had to be even crazier or blood-thurstier than your average mad gunman? Probably true. And that might also mean that maniacs of that caliber are harder to find, and such masskillings therefore rarer. I hope. So in that respect I can see the advantage of their (or any) gun laws.

But the other side of the story is just too horrible. How mentally disturbed can you get? Slashing up children, jesus...

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 08, 2001

Answers

Well, maybe I didn't get my thought out. Yes, it would have been a lot easier to kill massive numbers of people with a gun (although some part of me says that the sound of gunshots might have served as a warning and an alert, that's no reason to advocate using guns.)

I guess what I meant was that when someone intends to kill, they are going to kill regardless. Trying to mitigate the horror with praise for restraining gun laws seems sort of...well, like telling the parents of those dead children how much worse it COULD have been, and, therefore, how lucky they are in comparison.

I wasn't so much picking on the relative good/bad thing with guns, but rather saying "how can you even bring that up when he managed to take out 20 people with an 11 inch knife?"

In a related story, there was a 17 year old Japanese man who was killing people with a baseball bat.

In yet another direction, I read this story and I feel an INTELLECTUAL revulsion, but emotionally I can't seem to work up much feeling. Just another madman taking out his hate on the world. I think I'd like to feel something about it, but I can't find it. I'm amazed it took place, I can picture the events, but it's as if I've got a thick padding over my feelings and it can't get to me.

-- Sherri (Magdalene@aol.com), June 08, 2001.

"I guess what I meant was that when someone intends to kill, they are going to kill regardless."

I'm not too sure about that. There have been times that I was so incredibly mad and angry that 'accidents' with fire arms would have happened if they had been around. Probably. After all, it only takes a split second of stupidity/weakness to pull a trigger and kill somebody.

But if you want to kill someone and you can only use whatever you've got in your kitchen, you'll think twice. And even if you don't, the first stab at your victim could very well stop you in your tracks. (Eek! The screams! The blood! What the hell am I doing?!?!)

First stabs usually aren't lethal. First bullets usually are.

Of course the "true" killer will go on regardless, but I think the simple fact that a lot of Europeans (or Japanese) don't have guns prevents a lot of otherwise tempting murders. It's a kind of safety net, basically.

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 09, 2001.

"I read this story and I feel an INTELLECTUAL revulsion, but emotionally I can't seem to work up much feeling. Just another madman taking out his hate on the world"

Be glad about it. I don't think you want to experience the pain or horror the victims of each and every news item on your TV are experiencing. You've got to put the shields up or you'll go down. That's my opinion, at least. Not that nobody shouldn't give a shit about anything, but it sure is necessary to be selective.

(Somebody's been editing news here ;-)

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 09, 2001.

It's necessary to be selective but that fact is itself deplorable - that there are so many tragedies going on (and many more unreported) that we have to stifle our natural reaction to it.

One way to do that is to turn it into a debate of knives vs guns.

Having said that...

I cannot fathom how Americans continue to defend their gun culture - in the face of all evidence and logic.

I was once told by an American in a chat room that guns were responsible for my freedom. Well first of all I'm Canadian. What does he know about my freedom and its history? Second of all, when a war is over, we LAY DOWN OUR ARMS. Obviously someone forgot to tell them that.

Sherri said: "Yes, it would have been a lot easier to kill massive numbers of people with a gun (although some part of me says that the sound of gunshots might have served as a warning and an alert, that's no reason to advocate using guns.)"

He could have killed HUNDREDS with guns. And I doubt the gunshots would be more of an alert than the sound of people screaming upon being stabbed. Give me a break!

"I guess what I meant was that when someone intends to kill, they are going to kill regardless."

Sure. When they're intending to kill someone specific, for a specific motivation. With guns, people who just happen to be there go along for the ride; with weapons such as knives that's much less likely to happen. If you're ten feet away from the murderer, he can't touch you.

"Trying to mitigate the horror with praise for restraining gun laws seems sort of...well, like telling the parents of those dead children how much worse it COULD have been, and, therefore, how lucky they are in comparison."

I'd like to tell the parents of the surviving school population how much worse it could have been. It's idiotic to argue that a discussion on gun laws wouldn't comfort a bereaved parent.

I'd really like someone to explain to me why this idea that guns are good, and the more guns the better, is so deeply entrenched in the American psyche, so that when the subject of murder comes up the entire nations collectively defends guns almost before they're mentioned. Guns don't kill people - people kill people - but guns do it better.

(I don't mean to pick on Sherri personally.. I guess she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.. or something.)

Oh and nice forum, Rien... :/

-- Paulineee (paulineee_@hotmail.com), June 12, 2001.

No problem, Pauleenee. I like the intellectual arguement and I don't take it personally.

The whole idea of guns in the US(and the world) is something I ponder frequently. You raise some valid and interesting issues, but I felt there were points you addressed somewhat simplisticly. Let me take the points I found to be more emotional than reasonable.

"I was once told by an American in a chat room that guns were responsible for my freedom. Well first of all I'm Canadian. What does he know about my freedom and its history? Second of all, when a war is over, we LAY DOWN OUR ARMS. Obviously someone forgot to tell them that. "

Actually, when reviewing history, that is rarely the case. In the 20th century it seems trying to remove a country's standing army seems to be a sure way to spark another war sometime soon. I think precident for the idea can be found further back and across a wide variety of cultures. Fighting seems to be a very popular pastime for humans, which is why weapons have improved so much. While from your point of view, the generic American may appear to be a gun lugging neanderthal, there are people in other nations who have similar feelings about their firearms, that without weapons they would lose what they have. The madness of the Cold War, the arms races (and those date back to the 1800's) and assorted other evidence seems to say that even in peace, governments -- and, by extension, their people -- feel that arms make peace.

"He could have killed HUNDREDS with guns. And I doubt the gunshots would be more of an alert than the sound of people screaming upon being stabbed. Give me a break!"

Yes, you can take out large numbers of people with a gun. I pulled down a research study on mass killings using guns in the US, going back to 1963, using 65 high-profile shootings. While this is a rather horrific statistic, the max number killed and wounded did not exceed 50. I'm NOT, repeat, NOT saying guns are not deadly. I'm pointing out that the above remark may be somewhat exaggerated. If you really plan on taking out massive numbers of people, car bombs, firebombs, and releases of poisonous gas seem to work much better.

(The Study is from the Violence Policy Center. I can send the PDF file to anyone interested. I'm still researching.)

"I'd like to tell the parents of the surviving school population how much worse it could have been. It's idiotic to argue that a discussion on gun laws wouldn't comfort a bereaved parent. "

This is the remark I found the most difficult to understand, and I would like to hear more explanation of your point of view.I think the word "idiotic" should be reviewed for application, as it was incendiary and, honestly, doesn't add much strength to your statement.

I see it this way: How much comfort would a parent mourning the loss of a child find in knowing the child was stabbed rather than shot? That other children were spared while his or her child was not? When that sort of horror happens to someone, there are no words that help. I was directing my remark at the news media story and how inappropriate I thought it was to link the two discussions -- murdered children, killed by guns or knives or bombs, are a horror, and while restricting a particular type of weapon may comfort some peoples' consiences, until the underlying problems -- people who are alienated, disenfranchised, mentally disturbed and inadequately treated, angry and ignored -- is handled, whether there is a gun, a baseball bat, a bomb or a car available, such terrible things will continue.

The true misery of the situation -- in the US or Canada or England or anywhere else -- is that in a dangerous world, people feel the need to protect themselves, and sometimes that need extends to wanting weapons. It's not good, it's not morally defensible, but it is there.

Which leads to a hypothetical -- and perhaps unfair -- question. If you had been standing in the classroom when the Japanese knife murderer came in and started stabbing, and you had a gun at hand, would you have shot him?

I'm not making a judgement about whether guns are good or bad. Guns are things, and as such are neutral. It is people who use them who create good and bad results.

-- Sherri (Magdalene@aol.com), June 13, 2001.

"Oh and nice forum, Rien... :/ "

True, Paulineee, true. You were first ;-) (Another nice forum at http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl? topic=Inertia%20Forum , folks.)

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 13, 2001.

It's not the forum but what goes on in there.. I think of it as bar- hopping between different but overlapping groups of friends. Your clientele should make this one a lot of fun!

As for the discussion at hand:

"Second of all, when a war is over, we LAY DOWN OUR ARMS. Obviously someone forgot to tell them that. "
Actually, when reviewing history, that is rarely the case. In the 20th century it seems trying to remove a country's standing army seems to be a sure way to spark another war sometime soon."

I wasn't talking about a standing army. Armies are (unfortunately) necessary.
I was talking about regular people, average citizens arming themselves.

"While from your point of view, the generic American may appear to be a gun lugging neanderthal, there are people in other nations who have similar feelings about their firearms, that without weapons they would lose what they have."

Of course there is no generic American.. that implied generalization was in response to YOUR request for a flame war :)
But comparing the US to "other nations" isn't necessarily valid.. some "other nations" don't have the freedoms that you have and I don't think you're safeguarding those freedoms (in the case of the US) by keeping a gun in your bedside drawer.

" ...evidence seems to say that even in peace, governments -- and, by extension, their people -- feel that arms make peace."

That's a big extension. Governments have functions that private citizens don't.. such as arresting people, trying them, incarcerating them. Collecting taxes, too. It would be inappropriate for me to tax my neighbours if I lost my job.
I also take exception to the generalization that "arms make peace" when used to justify having one in a private home.

" I'm NOT, repeat, NOT saying guns are not deadly. I'm pointing out that the above remark may be somewhat exaggerated."

It may be.. I didn't do the research, just used my imagination.

As for my use of the word "idiotic".. again, flame war fodder. Of course a bereaved parent has no comfort. The comparison might be used to comfort the parent of a surviving child, not a deceased one. There ARE sickos out there and terrible things will happen with knives, sticks and stones and cars and bombs made out of household cleaners.. do we have to provide them with guns too?

"Which leads to a hypothetical -- and perhaps unfair -- question. If you had been standing in the classroom when the Japanese knife murderer came in and started stabbing, and you had a gun at hand, would you have shot him?"

Good question. The easy answer is YES. But... this is what is more likely to have happened:
I pull out my gun. I've never used it; I'm scared shitless. The killer sees it and before I know what's happening, tackles me and grabs it out of my hand. You can fill in the rest.

"Guns are things, and as such are neutral. It is people who use them who create good and bad results."
But knowing how people ARE, isn't giving them guns ridiculous? he arguments about peace and freedom don't make sense to me. I'd like to know what the REAL reasons are.

-- Paulineee (paulineee_@hotmail.com), June 13, 2001.

Your average citizen is not allowed to own hand-grenades or rocket launchers. The things are bloody dangerous and can kill. So it's sensible to forbid the green grocer to carry one. Even if you may also be able to use them to blast your way out of a collapsed mine shaft (or whatever) and save your life that way.

The same goes for guns in my opinion. Your gun could come in handy when you're being attacked by a mad slasher, but there's a greater chance of it being involved in some sort of lethal 'accident'.

People can't handle the power of a lot of their inventions. Guns are one of these inventions. There are a lot of people out there which are, IMHO, almost too dumb to breathe (or too drunk to fuck, take your pick). And in some countries these people are nevertheless allowed to own a device that can kill dozens in an instant. I will never ever understand that.

When I was a medic in the army (yes, honest) I've seen that even the 'professionals' have their little 'accidents'. (An Uzi slipped, a couple of bullets flew across the room and a guy playing cards received them. Ouch.) So don't tell me the green grocer will never make a mistake too.

These things are fucking lethal but almost everybody can go out and buy one. Irresponsible? Dangerous? An accident waiting to happen?

OF COURSE! WHAT ELSE?!

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 13, 2001.

"These things are fucking lethal but almost everybody can go out and buy one. Irresponsible? Dangerous? An accident waiting to happen? "

Fucking lethal?, yes of course, like most things in life are. An accident waiting to happen?, well look around you; open your eyes guy's and see how many people are murdered in their own safe little homes. How many old people are mugged and kicked to death on a street and robbed of their pensions. How many drivers are punched senseless in road rage incidents...? notice I haven't mentioned any guns here.

Per definition, a weapon is dangerous, but it's also a deterrent - an insurance if you will, to protect the carrier of the weapon from evil fucking bastards who would / might otherwise harm them. That's why police carry guns to enforce the law, that's why the governments of the world invest in missiles and such, that's why I carry a combat knife to persuade my "would be attacker" to go play somewhere else. I have no intention to hand over my digicam, wapphone, creditcards, carkeys or whatever else to someone who happens to take a fancy to my personal property. I have the right to protect myself. I also have a duty to protect my little dog from pitbull terriers walking off the lead and without a muzzle ( illegal in Holland )but whose arrogant owners disregard the law, and allow them to roam freely.....

-- Mark (observing@gmx.net), June 14, 2001.

"that's why I carry a combat knife to persuade my "would be attacker" to go play somewhere else. I have no intention to hand over my digicam, wapphone, creditcards, carkeys or whatever else to someone who happens to take a fancy to my personal property"

Nobody has the intention to hand over his or her stuff, obviously. But if I had to decide between knife-to-knife combat or handing over my wapphone, the choice is easy. Very easy.

Getting into a fight and be beaten up (or worse) to protect my phone? That silly piece of plastic? Never. I value my health and happiness more. They can have the thing, what do I care about 30 grammes of electronics.

I'd rather buy a new phone than crawl to the first aid dept with a knife in my back.

(Cynical PS: I don't know about your experience with man-to-man combat, but just carrying a knife is not enough. You've got to be able to handle it as well. And in general the bad guys are better at that. More experience, you know. So with a bit of bad luck you hand your attacker just the thing he needs. Well, at least it's your own knife in your own back then.)

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 14, 2001.

I'd like to see some stats (but of course am way too lazy to look them up myself) re:
the number of robberies, murders, etc. that are prevented by having a gun in one's home
vs
the number of accidents, chidren getting hold of the guns, children bringing said guns to school, and domestic violence incidents that wound up fatal which wouldn't necessarily have, otherwise.

-- Paulineee (paulineee_@hotmail.com), June 14, 2001.

"I don't know about your experience with man-to-man combat, but just carrying a knife is not enough. You've got to be able to handle it as well"

For your information.. I grew up in the back streets of Liverpool, and in case you didn't already know - you seem to know everything about everything and have opinions and such - those streets were harder and more violent than YOU could ever imagine. I also trained in armed combat in the Air Corps, so, let me assure you, No Fear Here.

"I value my health and happiness more. They can have the thing, what do I care about 30 grammes of electronics"

Typical... well how about showing your ball's and standing up against scum and two bit thugs..! maybe the world would be in a better state, instead of people saying - Oh my god I've just been robbed, what should I do. Duhhh.........

-- Mark (observing@gmx.net), June 14, 2001.

" I also trained in armed combat in the Air Corps"

Point taken.

"you seem to know everything about everything and have opinions and such"

Horrible, isn't it? It bothers me too.

"how about showing your ball's and standing up against scum and two bit thugs"

For a stupid PHONE? If you want me to jump in and be brave you'll have to threaten some innocent *human being* at least. I won't fight and run the risk of getting hurt or killed for the sake of some silly thing that is easily replaced (and doesn't mean a thing in the first place).

It's only bloody plastic. Threaten my (or another person's) life and it's another story, but *stuff*... they can have it. I'll let the police deal with that. That's what I pay them for anyway.

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 14, 2001.

"I'll let the police deal with that. That's what I pay them for anyway"

Okay, and that's how a good citizen should act. But the point is, the cops don't do what they're paid to do.

When my car hifi ( which was a present )was ripped out of the dashboard I called the police. Their response was, 'If you want to make an official report come to the station, but it won't get your hifi back, that's gone, and we really have too much to do right now - fighting crime'. Ha what a joke.

Two weeks ago in the UK a 65 year old man was kicked to DEATH no less, because he'd asked a gang of youths to stop taunting his 30 year old retarded son who had a mental age of 7. The son watched as his poor father died. The police were very sorry with this tragic event. Bullshit. Do you see my point now?.

BTW, the previous posting was maybe a little let's say, hard. But you know Rien, this whole crime issue pisses me right off, and it's getting worse. Your's truly (MK) has never, I repeat never hurt anybody or stole anything, crime record ZERO. But I refuse to be intimidated.

One last thing. A forum is a great place for a debate, a good crunchy discussion :)) But not a place for (verbal) war..!!

-- Mark (observing@gmx.net), June 14, 2001.

Sure, I see your point. I just don't agree. Tragedies like the one(s) you mentioned will always happen, no matter if people carry weapons or not. And that's my whole point: carrying weapons will not, never, ever wipe out crime. And for the lucky sod who does manage to scare his attacker away (or worse) with a gun or knife, another unarmed victim gets the boot. It's just no solution to the problem.

BTW for those who wanted STATS: go check

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

And for those who can't be bothered to copy that huge URL, here are some excerpts:
Number of guns in the US: 223 MILLION
Projected year when deaths from gunfire will surpass death from auto accidents: 2001
Total cost of firearm assault injury and death in 1992: 63 BILLION US DOLLARS

-- Rien (public1@xs4all.nl), June 15, 2001.