Comments on: Columbine http://www.dylanreed.com/2010/04/20/columbine/ I AM SO AWESOME!!! Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:52:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dylan http://www.dylanreed.com/2010/04/20/columbine/comment-page-1/#comment-45980 Dylan Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:27:48 +0000 http://www.dylanreed.com/?p=1040#comment-45980 People will always find a way to kill other people. I am just not a fan of making it easier for people to get multiple guns. If a kid wants to get all pissed off and steal his dad's sword and go try and hack up people, by all means give it a go. What I think is interesting is that the number of school shootings in America far surpasses that of any other country. I think that is a problem, which I am sure you will agree with. I fear that if we focus all this energy on becoming better at recognizing people who are going to kill others we run into the problem Philip K. Dick wrote about in the Minority Report. If we can say with some certainty that a certain typed of person is going to kill someone at some point, should we imprison them before they commit the crime? Zero Tolerance policies are silly. in fact I don't view them as being related to the problem of kids getting guns and killing their classmates. As someone who is not a fan of guns or weapons in general, unless they are in books, video games or movies, I have to say that I don't view getting rid of guns as taking away just the tools. Without the gun, no matter how pissed off you are at a group of people you are going to have a hard time enacting violence on the group. How would making it more difficult for people to own multiple guns make the problem of school shootings worse? I think that it would force kids to involve more people to get their weapons, which would take longer and would possibly allow law enforcement to get off their asses and look into a report about a kid who is talking about killing his classmates. People will always find a way to kill other people. I am just not a fan of making it easier for people to get multiple guns. If a kid wants to get all pissed off and steal his dad’s sword and go try and hack up people, by all means give it a go. What I think is interesting is that the number of school shootings in America far surpasses that of any other country. I think that is a problem, which I am sure you will agree with. I fear that if we focus all this energy on becoming better at recognizing people who are going to kill others we run into the problem Philip K. Dick wrote about in the Minority Report. If we can say with some certainty that a certain typed of person is going to kill someone at some point, should we imprison them before they commit the crime?

Zero Tolerance policies are silly. in fact I don’t view them as being related to the problem of kids getting guns and killing their classmates. As someone who is not a fan of guns or weapons in general, unless they are in books, video games or movies, I have to say that I don’t view getting rid of guns as taking away just the tools. Without the gun, no matter how pissed off you are at a group of people you are going to have a hard time enacting violence on the group.

How would making it more difficult for people to own multiple guns make the problem of school shootings worse? I think that it would force kids to involve more people to get their weapons, which would take longer and would possibly allow law enforcement to get off their asses and look into a report about a kid who is talking about killing his classmates.

]]> By: David Kopp http://www.dylanreed.com/2010/04/20/columbine/comment-page-1/#comment-45978 David Kopp Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:20:18 +0000 http://www.dylanreed.com/?p=1040#comment-45978 And yet the homicide rate in the US is 5.4/100K, and in the UK it's 2.03/100K. That's nowhere near the difference you see in the numbers you listed. Which means that even absent guns, people will still find ways to kill each other. Hell, look at Brazil, where the murder rate is 25.2/100K. They have MUCH more restrictive gun laws than the US. That alone should be enough proof. Columbine was scary, yes, but so was 9/11. That does NOT excuse trampling people's rights and freedoms in the name of "safety", and it in all likelihood will make us less safe. Consider the zero-tolerance policies of most schools that people have cried out for after incidents like Columbine: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-08-09-zero-tolerance_x.htm The solution is not to ban the tool. It is to get better at recognizing the problems and intercepting them. It's hard work, but it is the ONLY effective thing to do. Everything else is useless or actively making the problem worse. And yet the homicide rate in the US is 5.4/100K, and in the UK it’s 2.03/100K. That’s nowhere near the difference you see in the numbers you listed. Which means that even absent guns, people will still find ways to kill each other. Hell, look at Brazil, where the murder rate is 25.2/100K. They have MUCH more restrictive gun laws than the US. That alone should be enough proof.

Columbine was scary, yes, but so was 9/11. That does NOT excuse trampling people’s rights and freedoms in the name of “safety”, and it in all likelihood will make us less safe. Consider the zero-tolerance policies of most schools that people have cried out for after incidents like Columbine: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-08-09-zero-tolerance_x.htm

The solution is not to ban the tool. It is to get better at recognizing the problems and intercepting them. It’s hard work, but it is the ONLY effective thing to do. Everything else is useless or actively making the problem worse.

]]> By: Dylan http://www.dylanreed.com/2010/04/20/columbine/comment-page-1/#comment-45977 Dylan Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:36:58 +0000 http://www.dylanreed.com/?p=1040#comment-45977 I disagree with the statement that if guns are illegal then only criminals will have them. In the United States there are 3.92 gun homicides per 100,000 people where as in the UK, where guns are very controlled, the rate is .1 per 100,000 people. So apparently when only the criminals have guns they don't kill people with them. I got my figures from http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF10.htm who got them from http://www.iansa.org/documents/index.htm. And while personally I advocate getting rid of guns the world over I realize that that is never going to happen. What I do advocate is making it more difficult for people to get guns and to get multiple guns. I could go to a gun store, apply for the background check and recieve a legal gun of my choosing in very little time. I wager that it would take more time for a non-criminal to find an illegal gun then to purchase on legally. Plus, none of the guns used in Columbine where illegally purchased just illegally provided to minors the problem still lies in how easy it is to get guns. I disagree with the statement that if guns are illegal then only criminals will have them. In the United States there are 3.92 gun homicides per 100,000 people where as in the UK, where guns are very controlled, the rate is .1 per 100,000 people. So apparently when only the criminals have guns they don’t kill people with them. I got my figures from http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF10.htm who got them from http://www.iansa.org/documents/index.htm.

And while personally I advocate getting rid of guns the world over I realize that that is never going to happen. What I do advocate is making it more difficult for people to get guns and to get multiple guns. I could go to a gun store, apply for the background check and recieve a legal gun of my choosing in very little time. I wager that it would take more time for a non-criminal to find an illegal gun then to purchase on legally. Plus, none of the guns used in Columbine where illegally purchased just illegally provided to minors the problem still lies in how easy it is to get guns.

]]> By: David Kopp http://www.dylanreed.com/2010/04/20/columbine/comment-page-1/#comment-45976 David Kopp Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:11:40 +0000 http://www.dylanreed.com/?p=1040#comment-45976 If guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns. Don't forget, drugs are illegal, and kids have a really hard time getting those. The solution, as you started saying, is to recognize the threats and act on them. Anything else is treating the symptom, rather than the disease. If someone is losing weight to a tapeworm, you don't just keep feeding them more food to hide the symptoms. If guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns. Don’t forget, drugs are illegal, and kids have a really hard time getting those.

The solution, as you started saying, is to recognize the threats and act on them. Anything else is treating the symptom, rather than the disease. If someone is losing weight to a tapeworm, you don’t just keep feeding them more food to hide the symptoms.

]]>