steps we can take on gun control

[Kyuusai]

@TinyRedLeaf:
I tend to trust the police and our government, but they are human beings, and therefor total trust can never be assigned.

In the event that the police CAN take care of a situation, I absolutely agree that they should. Not only are they generally better prepared than the average civilian(though not every civilian), they have certain legal immunities and authorities to do their job that civilians don't.

But the police can't take care of every situation. They cannot respond to situations in split seconds--nor can every potential victim call them.

Most police officers, though, don't have active experience with gunfights, and only have a minimum of training for the possibility. And even if all of them saw that sort of action, there's still a first time for every one of them, and we still trust them in that situation.

I guarantee, though, violence against the attacker at Virginia Tech would have stopped more violence. If some one had shot him early on, he couldn't have killed more people. It's that simple. Successful defensive shootings happen very frequently, so there is ample evidence proving that would have been very possible. Ordinary citizens defending themselves and preventing violence against themselves and others is proven to be able to work.

Now, if you believe that the proper solution is to submit to violence and let things be sorted out later, then the debate of logistics isn't relevant, and it's just a matter of differing philosophical opinions. However, I still would not see how the possibility that a police officer might have more active experience would make them more trustworthy than a properly trained citizen.

@ShikaShika:
Sadly, there are no non-lethal weapons that exist which are anywhere near as effective for personal defence as the firearm. Things such as pepper spray or stun guns are good to have as alternatives for dealing with close-range attackers who are not threatening one's life, but they are simply not as reliable as a gun. In life and death situations, one wants to take as few chances as possible.

Of course, that only covers self-defence. The right to military arms that the US constitution protects is another matter, but those are usually pretty darned close to hunting rifles, anyway.

[TinyRedLeaf]

That's your basic "the end justifies the means" argument.

You're right, we're talking very fundamental philosophies here. The tragedy that has unfolded in VT makes philosophical debate rather tasteless to me at this moment, so I won't go further.

With all due respect, I wish only to point this out to you -- by promoting gun proliferation, all you'd be solving is the symptom and not the root of the problem, as I see it.

More guns in the hands of more people will only make it so much harder -- not to mention dangerous -- for your law enforcement officers to do their jobs effectively in the long run. That's my personal opinion.

[Mueti]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I think it's also important for us, as foreigners, to put things in proper perspective. A gun is a lethal weapon, but so is a kitchen knife, or worse, a home-made bomb -- which I hear isn't that hard to build nowadays. The killer in VT was determined to kill. If a gun wasn't available, he would have found other ways to carry out his intentions.

I don't know how easy it is to build lethal bombs, so I can't comment on that. But every other non-gun weapon is so different that it simply can't compare. The psychological barrier you'd have to overcome to thrust a kitchen knife into your victim's body is on a whole different level than simply pointing a gun and pulling the trigger. Without a gun there's no killing spree.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I guarantee, though, violence against the attacker at Virginia Tech would have stopped more violence. If some one had shot him early on, he couldn't have killed more people. It's that simple. Successful defensive shootings happen very frequently, so there is ample evidence proving that would have been very possible. Ordinary citizens defending themselves and preventing violence against themselves and others is proven to be able to work.

I certainly can't argue about the number of victims being reduced by the gunman being shot early on but in the long run more guns mean more violence.
I understand guns are being carried for self-defense. If they weren't as easily available as they are though, there would be nothing (not literally nothing of course, but FAR less) to defend oneself against. If gun-owners aren't willing to trade their immediate safety by carrying a gun for a generally safer country, it can't be helped. However, I prefer living in a country where not every other psycho can get ahold of a gun effortlessly.
I realize that it's too late to enforce a ban in the US though, there are just too many guns around already.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

With all due respect, I wish only to point this out to you -- by promoting gun proliferation, all you'd be solving is the symptom and not the root of the problem, as I see it.

More guns in the hands of more people will only make it so much harder -- not to mention dangerous -- for your law enforcement officers to do their jobs effectively in the long run. That's my personal opinion.

I do agree that armed citizens is only solving the symptom. Even if it were a perfect deterrent, it still wouldn't solve the real, underlying problems that result in violence in the first place. I just believe that finding a cure without taking care of the symptoms in the meantime is tragic. Of course, once the violence problem is stopped, the ownership of weapons as a safeguard would be as benign as it is in better armed, more peaceful countries.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion regarding the potential impediment of police work. There are many police here who agree with you. Most active, on-the-street police here, though, are actually strong supporters of private firearm ownership.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

However, I still would not see how the possibility that a police officer might have more active experience would make them more trustworthy than a properly trained citizen.

Because I hold my country's law enforcement agency responsible for ensuring that a police officer is more trustworthy with a firearm than an amateur gunman. That's why I pay my taxes after all.

Granted, it doesn't mean that the police officer would necessarily be more effective because I hold him accountable. But if he is not performing the fundamental purpose of his job, he is either incompetent, or being prevented from doing his job properly.

Either way, it comes back to my original observation. If you can't trust your law enforcement agency to protect you, then what's the point of having it?

In any case, it is clear to me that you fundamentally disagree with me. At the risk of sounding distastefully callous, it doesn't matter to me that you don't -- I don't live in America, and I don't have to deal with this issue of gun violence. If you choose to live by the gun, then you'll have to accept dying by the gun as well.

But there are so many other things I like and respect about America, so I personally find it very sad that on stubborn issues such as violence (in whatever form, gun-related or otherwise), so many reasonable Americans fail to see why you can't ultimately solve violence with more violence.

In a situation such as this, I guess the only rational compromise, as you eloquently put it, is to ensure that every gun owner has proper training. I've already pointed out that training alone doesn't ensure that you'd be any more trustworthy a gun user than an untrained gun user. Sound judgement, which comes from adequate field experience, is also needed.

But I'm willing to put that objection aside. I would suggest that "proper training" should not be only a one-off affair. Arms training needs to be conducted constantly and regularly to ensure that the gun-user is properly drilled on how to react to all kinds of situations where he may have to use his gun -- to the extent that in times of high stress, his training will automatically, and reliably, take over. Is this already the case in American states? If not, may I suggest that you take it into consideration?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Either way, it comes back to my original observation. If you can't trust your law enforcement agency to protect you, then what's the point of having it?

I think we see the activity of law enforcement differently. I can generally trust my law enforcment agency to protect me... once they're able to arrive. Law enforcement usually only enters the scene AFTER a crime has been committed. Until they arrive, it's not a matter of whether or not I can trust them--it's a matter of whether or not they are available to do the job at all, assuming I'm able to call them. Life and death risks can be encountered anywhere at any time, though, and are generally decided in a short amount of time.

Right now, it's not so much a matter of trust (although checks and balances are needed), but practicality.

Police are not a special class of persons in the United States, though. There are a few more authorities and protective laws that cover them, but for the most part ordinary citizens share the same powers they do, but merely lack the obligation of employment to insert themselves into those situations. That is to say, all citizens are respected as having the ability to provide for themselves.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In any case, it is clear to me that you fundamentally disagree with me. At the risk of sounding distastefully callous, it doesn't matter to me that you don't -- I don't live in America, and I don't have to deal with this issue of gun violence. If you choose to live by the gun, then you'll have to accept dying by the gun as well.

But there are so many other things I like and respect about America, so I personally find it very sad that on stubborn issues such as violence (in whatever form, gun-related or otherwise), so many reasonable Americans fail to see why you can't ultimately solve violence with more violence.

As I've said, violence is not the ultimate solution to violence. It is merely a sad necessity to protect from immediate threats when fleeing is not practical. The real solutions lie elsewhere.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In a situation such as this, I guess the only rational compromise, as you eloquently put it, is to ensure that every gun owner has proper training. I've already pointed out that training alone doesn't ensure that you'd be any more trustworthy a gun user than an untrained gun user. Sound judgement, which comes from adequate field experience, is also needed.

But I'm willing to put that objection aside. I would suggest that "proper training" should not be only a one-off affair. Arms training needs to be conducted constantly and regularly to ensure that the gun-user is properly drilled on how to react to all kinds of situations where he may have to use his gun -- to the extent that in times of high stress, his training will automatically, and reliably, take over. Is this already the case in American states? If not, may I suggest that you take it into consideration?

I agree completely on this issue, and the fact that it is NOT the case in American states is one of my greater frustrations.

I intend to contribute to helping to fix this problem. During the earlier days of the country, the constitutional obligation of the government to ensure that every citizen was properly and continuously trained was neglected, likely because most citizens had adequate experience in their daily lives from the living conditions of the day (since most of the country was rural and riflemanship was a basic skill then). However, since this has been neglected for centuries now, it is an uphill battle.

[ShikaShika]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

@ShikaShika:
Sadly, there are no non-lethal weapons that exist which are anywhere near as effective for personal defence as the firearm. Things such as pepper spray or stun guns are good to have as alternatives for dealing with close-range attackers who are not threatening one's life, but they are simply not as reliable as a gun. In life and death situations, one wants to take as few chances as possible.

But in this day and age, you do not think that we ought to be able to invent some kind of semi long range weapon that isn't lethal (if such a thing really doesn't exist)? Just how long range are we talking about here? For most cases of self defense I don't really see such a wide use for long distance weapons anyway.

And I won't argue against any other arguements save self defense, because I find them all quite outdated in these modern societies that we live in.

[Lost]

-- sorry, stupid post -- please delete

//wait wait, I'll quote a relevant scripture and one that sums up my thoughts.

Spoiler for Mat 26:52, NIV:

"...all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by ShikaShika

But in this day and age, you do not think that we ought to be able to invent some kind of semi long range weapon that isn't lethal (if such a thing really doesn't exist)? Just how long range are we talking about here? For most cases of self defense I don't really see such a wide use for long distance weapons anyway.

And I won't argue against any other arguements save self defense, because I find them all quite outdated in these modern societies that we live in.

I don't know how feasible it would be to create such a device, but I certainly think we should be trying to create one. As for range, there is something called the "21 foot rule", which states that, in general, if an aggressive person is 21 feet away, they are close enough to stand a significant chance of reaching you before you would be able to use your long-range weapon against them. It's not a hard rule, of course, just a guideline for teaching people appropriate use of weapons, but it provides a good idea that it would need to be significantly farther than that to really be useful. Most encounters take place at very close range, but many have been warded off by a even only display of force (if not the use of it) at much farther.

I do acknowledge that an armed militia serves little use in this day and age. However, I'm personally of the opinion that it should be there for a time when we might not be so fortunate as we are now.

I've posted a lot here. It's not been my intention to argue with any one, so I hope I haven't come across that way. I realize from the outset that most people have such strong emotions about the issue that they will stick to their opinions no matter what is said.

My purpose, rather has been to illustrate that the stereotypes many people have about weapon-owners and those who support the right to bear arms may not be correct. Even if people disagree, my hope is that they understand that such opinions can be formed by peaceful people through logical analysis, and the desire to protect rather than the desire to kill, instead of just from culture of violence, as many assume.

[TinyRedLeaf]

...unlawful possession of firearms is punishable by death. So is attempting to use a firearm in public.

That, to be frank, is hardly acceptable on moral grounds. A death penalty shouldn't even exist at all. No one -- not even a government -- ought to have the right to take someone's life.

Before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, let me be the first to point out that Singapore has one of the highest number of legal executions per capita in the world, if not the highest. That is not a statistic that I am personally proud of.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I think we see the activity of law enforcement differently. I can generally trust my law enforcment agency to protect me... once they're able to arrive. Law enforcement usually only enters the scene AFTER a crime has been committed.

That...is actually a very important point I haven't considered. It's easy to forget that America is the size of a continent, while Singapore is a tiny country where it's much easier for the police to react quickly to a reported incident.

That does indeed force me to re-think the options available to an ordinary American.......what is the comparable situation in Australia? As hobbes_fan has pointed out, there is also a sizeable rural community in the Australian outback that uses firearms regularly. Is gun crime in Australia any more or less prevalent than in the US? What is the missing link here?

[Lost]

Granted, TinyRedLeaf, but I am also happy for the fact that we can go to school without fear of a random gun crime being carried out.

[TinyRedLeaf]

For that, we can thank an effective police force that we can hold accountable, rather than a brutal death penalty to deter violent crime. A killer who is intent on killing would hardly care whether he would eventually pay for his crime with his life.

Add to that the fact that we generally trust our authorities to do their jobs right, however much we grumble about their high-handedness in public, and not so public forums.

[Vexx]

America has the problem of:
1) size and disparity of environments. Where I live, for example, the best emergency response time I can hope for is 15 minutes (average is 30 minutes). That's unacceptable if my family's lives are in immediate danger not to have adequate self-defense measures.
2) Even in cities... time from call to arrival is almost never less than 10 minutes. Sit down and watch 10 minutes pass and consider how much can happen.

Australia really isn't an equivalent example as they have some rather interesting gun laws and their culture is fairly homogenous (shared value system) as well - though they are an individualist culture like the US so some comparision can be made.

The recent VT tragedy, in my mind, points directly to our failure in creating a decent mental healthcare system and educating the public *NOT* to ignore or walk by the sort of danger signals this guy was emitting. Rules should be adjusted so that people don't feel like they're over-reacting for expressing their concern and (this is most annoying) authorities should REACT to such concerns rather than wait for the crime to be committed.
Naturally, the problem with that is that it directly conflicts with inherency of our individualist culture.

Asian cultures are *too* collectivist for my taste (e.g. the bullying syndrome in Japan that extends from school into the workplace and accounts for many suicides) but American culture is *too* individualistic (the VT shooter throwing enough signals to blow out fuses but people both don't have a reporting mechanism that works and they tend to defer to individual differences) --- there's a happy medium that I wish both cultures would embrace.

I know many fairly isolated teens are now fearful that their natural personality and habits will again (like in previous shootings) draw negative attention. (He doesn't talk much and he dresses funny --- omigodz he's a psycho!!!)... rather like otaku in Japan still suffer as a group because of the actions of a handful of nutcases.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Australia really isn't an equivalent example as they have some rather interesting gun laws and their culture is fairly homogenous (shared value system).

I wouldn't be so sure about Australia's supposed racial homogenity. I take it that you are not familiar with Australia's harsh immigration policies, and also with Australia's rising trend of racially-motivated crime.

[TinyRedLeaf]

I would also add that bullying in Japan is a reflection of far more complex social issues than I can possibly understand. And I'm Asian.

The collectivism that Westerners regularly accuse Asians of....I regretfully feel that while valid to a certain extent, stems from fundamental misunderstanding about how our culture works. And please, Chinese do not approach social issues in the same way as Japanese -- at least not on every issue. Asia is not a homogenous continent any more than the US.

We don't condone wrong behaviour any more than an "individualistic" Western society does. It's just that our ethical approach to problem-solving is different, and relies more heavily on consensus, and a respect for authority, than on individual action.

Speaking as a Chinese, I would also point out that that respect must be earned. It's not necessarily a given at all times.

[Kyuusai]

TinyRedLeaf, I'm not vehemently against the death penalty (not that I like it--I don't), but I do agree that the death penalty itself does very, very little to deter crime.

I submit, though, that most killers don't feel the freedom to kill because they're willing to die, but because they believe they won't get caught.

Singapore's punishments (death penalty or not) probably are more effective in deterring crime than in the US, though. Even in the US, people who visit Singapore are frequenlty warned before they leave to be SURE they adhere to the law.
The US being a larger, sparser country where escape is easier and having an inefficient judicial and punishment means that people who want to break the law feel a bit freer to do so. I imagine that in Singapore the population in general is much better trained to strictly follow the law!

It's true, in the US law enforcement response can take a long time. Anywhere on earth, even in the cities the police response would take several minutes whereas danger can strike in seconds, but in the US, expecially in rural areas, it can be frighteningly long. To give an idea, I've been in areas where, should I dial for the police, the call would be routed to another city which had available operators, who would then relay a radio call back to perhaps one or two officers available in my area, who would likely be a minimum of half an hour away, assuming they weren't already dealing with another situation. And if it required more than that small available force, backup might be hours away.

Even at Virginia Tech, the police that responded quickly were still waiting on better armed and armored officers that didn't arrive until much later.

The police here do their best to stop situations before they result in tragedy, but more often than not they just can't show up in time.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I would also add that bullying in Japan is a reflection of far more complex social issues than I can possibly understand. And I'm Asian.

The collectivism that Westerners regularly accuse Asians of....I regretfully feel that while valid to a certain extent, stems from fundamental misunderstanding about how our culture works. And please, Chinese do not approach social issues in the same way as Japanese -- at least not on every issue. Asia is not a homogenous continent any more than the US.

We don't condone wrong behaviour any more than an "individualistic" Western society does. It's just that our ethical approach to problem-solving is different, and relies more heavily on consensus than on individual action.

I think Vexx probably understands the cultural issues better than most westerners, but you're quite correct: Most westerners have zero idea aside from seeing masses of people somehow move in what, on the outside, seems to be a unified force. That's not something most westerners--US citizens, especially--are familiar with seeing, so it's easy for most of them to think that what they see on the outside reflects the individuals that compose the whole they're seeing.

As I've had to tell some people, if you want to find out how different Asian countries are, call an Asian person by the wrong nationality and watch the reaction.

Your statement on the different ethical approach to problem solving is one of the most profound I've read on the issue of eastern versus western thinking. While it's something I recognized, I hadn't seen it articulated so well. I sincerely thank you for putting it that way.

I think that one of the keys to eastern and western cultures communicating is to recognize that difference and understand that, though we may have different thinking processes, we are all focused on the goal of bettering ourselves and society. When that's kept in mind, we can share and learn about each other better, as well as learn from each other.

[Vexx]

Hmmm, as usual I wrote in shorthand... Australia has a fairly homogenous "advantaged" class (partially due to their strict immigration policies and marginalization of the natives). Part of that appears to be in reaction to the growing problems in Europe relating to the non-integration of immigrant groups and resulting isolation/disenfranchisement.

Asian cultures are usually referred to as collectivist even by Asian scholars. Again, its a shorthand description for a complex community structure used to categorize societies. It is not a political description. Probably "community-focused" may be a better description? Americans just tend to think "what is good for ME" first (which is odd given our penchant for team sports but more understandable given the destruction of the employer-employee social contract that existed for a while in the 20th C.).

Yes... many of my friends are from a variety of Pacific Rim and Chinese locations. Every once in a while one of them will insist that you can tell a Korean from a Japanese or a Chinese. I respond that there are archetype "looks" for which that might be true but the nearer you get to the borders the harder it is to tell. Indignancy follows.
Culturally (sometimes as simple as the way one stands) one can gather clues to tell a nationality ... but on pure looks??
My wife is pure Japanese (but 3rd gen American) ... but her looks can get her identified as japanese, chinese, vietnamese, hawaiian, polynesian, filipino, and even mexican depending on the season -- the mistakes usually being made by people FROM those locales.

She's a pharmacist and her favorites are the Korean grandmas who bang on her counter yelling at her in Korean because they insist she's Korean and just ignoring them (she has to call a Korean friend pharmacist to explain to them over the phone in Korean).

The shorthand analysis of bullying in Japan is a reflection of the "strike the nail that sticks out" ... not fitting in does not help the village/tribe/etc. Its not exclusive to Japan but Japan sometimes is the posterchild for the meme. Though often there's a scapegoat, peck the weakest mentality -- its also viewed as helpful to the victim so that they will "succeed" better in the group... a nasty variation of "stay on the game trail or you will be eaten".

In China, there is a lot of social pressure to respect the hierarchy of authority simply because things run smoother (even if not necessarily more just). As you say though.... respect should be earned. But I think the default is to respect until burned whereas in America it tends to run the opposite (assuming idiocy or malevolence before giving respect). Anyone who works in customer service knows that

Note: I'm finding the conversation here quite enjoyable ... but I do come here primarily for anime/manga talk. Forgive me if I don't respond quite as often as I might.

[ibreatheanime]

Most americans are not wandering the streets with guns in their hands claiming to take law enforcement into their own hands. Most buildings and public places do not allow guns inside. In front of every school, library, pool there are signs saying that bringing guns in is prohibited. If someone was walking down the street with a gun, the police would be notified.

Sadly the events at Virgina Tech are extremly sad. Every year there are around 14 school shootings in the United States.

However do not make blunt assumptions about the country. The united states is a vast place, full of people in all sorts of enviorments and cultures. In more rural areas most people own guns to hunt. However in more urban and suburban cultures guns are not a norm. If I wanted to get a gun, I would not know where to purchase/get one.

[felix]

Not for long ibreatheanime...
American "Humanitarian" organisations are on the move..

Spoiler:

I hope this is just a bad jocke on the net U_U