Another school shooting?

[poseidon]

Breaking news out of Japan -- today another school is going through the angst and horror of more violence.

Is it a school shooting? No.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc....03/index.html

It's some lunatic who is running through an elementary school stabbing kids and at least eight children are now dead. He used a six-inch kitchen knife.

Six girls and one boy were killed. The children were first and second graders. Twenty one others were injured.

The man who perpetrated this crime is a mental patient. If there would have been a background check on the guy prior to his purchase of the knife, they could have realized that a mentally unstable person was going to use the knife for non-culinary means.

[conradd]

Jeff, are you trying to use this horrible event to make your point about gun control? If so, it's like comparing apples and cucumbers. Knives have many other uses besides intentional harm. Guns don't. The sole purpose of a gun is to cause injury by aiming, pulling the trigger, and watching the bullet hit or miss the mark.

To suggest that knife control might somehow keep citizens safe is ludicrous. In this case, the assailant was deranged. The weapon could have been anything, although a gun might have caused more death and injury. That wouldn't have happened though since Japan's gun control laws are among the strictest in the world. In fact, their weapons law starts out by stating "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords" Gun ownership is minuscule, and so is gun crime. I'm thinking we could learn something from this model.

Deb

[drmomentum[$]]

Wow - what a terrible tragedy.

Good thing he didn't have a gun!

-JP

[poseidon]

The sole purpose of a gun is to cause injury by aiming, pulling the trigger, and watching the bullet hit or miss the mark.

That statement is so far off the mark (excuse the pun) that I don't even know where to begin to start. That is a purpose of a gun, not the sole purpose of a gun.

Maybe if you hate guns that's what you see because that's how you want to see it. But, you're incorrect either way.

[erik_kosberg]

Other than target practice with cans out on the back 40, the purpose of firearms is to hit someone (a burglar, that guy next door who's playing his stereo too loud, a soldier in combat) or something (a deer, a bear, a wombat) and injure or kill them.

They’re quite useless in the kitchen (granted that a rather impressive flame comes out of a .45, but it would be a rather inefficient way to boil water) but at least I could use a knife there to chop up apples and cucumbers.

{ edited to fix a typo }

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon


That statement is so far off the mark (excuse the pun) that I don't even know where to begin to start. That is a purpose of a gun, not the sole purpose of a gun.

Jeff is right.

Deb, haven't you ever heard the term "pistol whipped?"

Also, anyone who is familiar with westerns knows that guns can also be used to make someone dance by shooting at their feet. Where's the harm in dancing?

Knives are much more dangerous. Look at that scene in "The Magnificent Seven" with James Coburn for all the proof you need. "Haww, haww, haww." I personally know lots of people who have cut themselves in the kitchen. I don't know too many people who have ever shot themselves in a kitchen. Well, none that survived, anyhow.

You anti-gun people are all alike. Sure I could kill someone with a gun. I could also kill someone with weapons-grade plutonium. Next thing you're going to suggest is putting restrictions on *that!*

Sheesh!

-JP

[mnehr]

Something else to chew on....

Why is gun violence at an all time high? It should be at an all time low as there are fewer people who own guns than at any other time in the past 200 years, and guns are harder and harder to get...

Every family used to own guns, and you could buy a gun at a drug store.. Up until a few decades ago it was very easy to purchase a gun, and not many people called for gun control...

It seems to me, people are looking in the wrong place to fix the problem, guns are just an object, one can just as easially kill someone with a brick, a knife, or a match...

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by mnehr
Something else to chew on....

Why is gun violence at an all time high?

Is gun violence at an all-time high per capita? All the stats I've seen have shown gun-involved homicides are definitely off their high in the 80's. Do you have a source? I don't have links but I vaguely remember reports in either Time or Newsweek talking about gun homicides dropping, even related to other homicides.

I'm not necessarily disputing your information - I may be mistaken. I'm just interested to see sources befoe making speculations as to causes.

-JP

[erik_kosberg]

Huh? My grandfather (born in 1901) never owned a gun.

Every family used to own guns

Try showing up at 7th and Hennepin at 11pm on a Saturday night with $400 cash and see how long it takes you to walk away with a nice little 9mm. If you’ve got more time on your hands and want to do it legally, drive out to the ’burbs, whip out your VISA and fill out the paperwork and wait (five days or less) until it‘s been shown that you’re not a convicted felon. Walk away with a nice little 9mm.

guns are harder and harder to get

[magenta321]

I don't think that was a nice segue into a discussion of gun control. Very transparent. If you want to talk about a tragedy, start a thread about the tragedy. If you want to talk about gun control, talk about gun control. Just don't take a tragedy and capitolize on it to make a point.

My heart goes out to the parents of these slain Japanese children. Why bother banning knives and guns? The real problem is with the person wielding the weapon, not the weapon in and of itself. Having a dangerous, mentally unstable person wandering around free to endanger the public and wreak havok upon small children is truly a failure in society's right to protect itself from undesirable elements.

Therefore, if there's anything we've learned about this tragedy in Japan, it is that we ought to ban the Japanese. One of their own had that knife in his hand as he slashes and tore through the children, and if one could do it, so could the rest of them for all we know.

Have you seen any of their game shows? Man, they're a wacked-up loony bunch. Eating raw fish with rice and seaweed. Every time Godzilla comes out of the harbor, they keep sending tanks and planes after the monster. Has a single tank or plane causes nary a scratch on the hideous nuclear-nightmare beast? No! I'll never understand how a people as kamakazie-happy as that can crowd out our own country's generation of rednecks and dweebs choking through the American college admissions process.

Heck, they're the ones that bombed Pearl Harbor, right? And they still hunt whales... who do they think they are? Norwegians?

[frazzledspice]

Could it be that this incident received international publicity because school violence is so rare in Japan?

Could it be that school violence (and domestic violence) are so rare in Japan because access to guns is very limited?

Do you think that every time there's a school shooting in the US, the Japanese newspapers are splashing it all over the headlines?

I belong to a Toastmaster's group (Toastmasters is a public speaking club.) The President is a member of the John Birch Society (and most of the other members are pretty darn conservative.)

The Club President gave a speech about FBI agents exceeding the bounds of the Constitution, and being let off the hook, after shooting members of an Idaho family who had loose ties to Aryan Nation, and whose father had refused to infiltrate the group as a snitch. The whole thrust of it was usual for him--if we don't defend ourselves against the government, they'll trample on our rights.

"Very interesting speech," I said. "There are so many parallels to this family's ordeal and the ordeal of black Americans in inner cities who have suffered with racial profiling, police brutality, etc. Your speech would have been effective for a much greater audience if you added information about those situations, too."

To my surprise, he agreed with me. Maybe I'm slowly turning them around (can't come soon enough.)

[patach]

Banning knives? Great, next time someone wants some sushi, tell him to try to cut the seaweed with a wooden stick .

Speaking of banning guns, the Columbine shooting occurred with illegially bought guns. If the kids want it, they'll find it no matter the law or not.

[wivabef]

Well, Jeff, I gotta tell you, I read the title and already knew you were going to talk about the Japanese tragedy.

All I can say is imagine how many more would have been killed if this man were armed with the arsenal of our Columbine friends.

I guess, then, because guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands as you have deftly proven with your argument, then that bomb that killed 18 at a Discoteque in Israel shouldn't be illegal -- it was just in the wrong hands.

Why not give everybody tanks? Hey, we're almost there with SUV's, right?

You know, chemical weapons are only dangerous in the wrong hands. Everybody should have a tank of mustard gas handy for a truly effective hunting trip.

And why not nuclear warheads? Hey, they only do damage when they're in the wrong hands. Put a new twist in that old American dream -- "A bomb in every house!"

[bermudabum]

How sad indeed that these poor children have been lost in such tragedy. How sad that so many have gone before them at the malicious hands of others. How sad that so many more will die at the hands of another. How sad indeed that another inocent life has been snuffed out, no matter the weapon used. Be it a boyfriend shaking an infant, a madman with a gun or a cop with an attitude how sad that any should die through malicious intent of another. Be it from a gun, a knife or even a car how sad indeed.

How sad that drug crazed lunatics break into a home to steal and find a witness to molest and kill. How sad that a teenage girl is held at knife point and raped. How sad that someone want something belonging to another so bad they will steal, beat or kill for it. How sad indeed that anyone should feel the need to protect themselves in these times. How sad the bullies of our society shall be when they push the wrong person. When the victim they choose is tired of being a victim. When they become a victim instead of just a bully. How sad these times are when innocent people should be challenged for exercising their right to protect themselves from societies worst who shall be armed with knifes guns or worse.

I agree these are sad times, YES.
Do I own a gun, NO.
Will I own a gun, not likely but who knows f I felt a need maybe.
Will I give up my right to own one, NEVER.

Even though I feel guns are dangerous and for the most part are not a requirement for gathering food or protecting ourselves from wildlife any longer, I am unwilling to give up this right. Our founding fathers were very far sighted to develope such a grand scheme of laws that held the rights of individuals, not just the criminals, but every individual above the threat of another. The fact I can own a gun is more deterent to a would be criminal that would attack me or one I love.

"Guard dog on duty", "Protected by S&W", or even something as simple as "Brinks" is a deterent too. This is true not because a would be criminal is worried of being caught, but rather the consequences of their actions. If there is a dog they could be bit, they don't want that. If there is an alarm they are not likely to get in and out without getting caught and going to jail. And the thought of an armed person prepared to take their life in an effort to protect their own are some serious consequences. Take away the risk or minimalize it further and the problem will just escalate because the benefit exceeds the risk. The problem is already too high, lets not take away any deterents please.

Yes these children dying in our schools is sad, and I blame this in the deterioration of our societies moral fibers. Yes guns are dangerous. yes there should be regulation of guns, no need for fully automatic machine guns able to take out a unit of 100 men in 2.2 seconds, well at least not in a civilians hands at any rate.

I know several of you disagree and feel that guns are not necessary and belief that if you simply get rid of them that it will stop the reactionary killings. To a degree this is true, but the cost of surrendering these weapons, these arms, is not only in dollars, or lives saved even. It would also cost lives and livelyhoods to many many many more than you could possibly imagine. that cost to me is too high. lose the weapons of mass destruction, preserve the weapons of self preservation.

[cristina1]

I dont even know where to start here. Reading this story made me just want to grab my kids and give them a big hug. Some psycho ran after babies , killing them, and we have to have a gun control discussion?

If this man had a gun, do you really think the death toll would have stopped at 8? I doubt it. So maybe, you are proving the gun control issue with this link. He is obviously a sick man, that didnt go out and get a gun illegally. In a country where guns are so hard to obtain, a criminal with malicious intent didnt have one. Hmmmmm, that might blow the "the criminals would get one no matter what" argument. Maybe we should hope that this man never comes to America where he would be able to get his gun of choice so easily. And then he wouldnt have to pick on the babies.

Seriously, I am not for banning guns, but proper education for people owning one. With all of the accidental deaths by gunshot, obviously more education is needed. Let's face it, everyone is for seatbelt usage to save lives, yet when someone brings up safety issues on guns people freak out. I wont ever kill anyone but myself if I dont buckle up, but these people that are uneducated in gun use are killing themselves and others every day.

But as my first paragraph stated, the issue here isnt gun control, but the fact that some person ran around stabbing babies. So excuse me while I go hug my kids again.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by cristina1
Seriously, I am not for banning guns, but proper education for people owning one. With all of the accidental deaths by gunshot, obviously more education is needed. Let's face it, everyone is for seatbelt usage to save lives, yet when someone brings up safety issues on guns people freak out. I wont ever kill anyone but myself if I dont buckle up, but these people that are uneducated in gun use are killing themselves and others every day.

I'm willing to bet that most if not all people here in the Soapbox are not for banning guns, so it always confuses me when people are arguing against "banning guns" or "taking our guns away."

However, on the safety belt issue, you'll find a lot of people who don't agree with you, and consider it a hot-button issue. But I'd like to ask that if someone wants to start a discussion about seatbelt usage, please start it in another thread.

As for this thread, I think we can all agree that:
1) This isn't a school shooting.
2) It's a tragedy.
3) That guy is nuts.
4) "What if" scenarios are inconclusive here (what if a teacher had been able to stop him with a howitzer, what if he had used a banana instead of a knife, what if he had gone after the royal family instead?)

-JP

[pluckyduck]

I've restrained myself from responding to this thread because I didn't trust myself to be civil....I'll do my best here.

I don't see any connection between the tragedy that happened yesterday, the loss of those beautiful young lives, the weeping mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters.... I don't see any connection between that tragedy and the American gun control debate. Trying to use that tragedy to prove some kind of political point with a tongue in cheek poll leaves me cold.

Guns are an American problem. I think we should leave the Japanese to bury their dead without dragging them into our s**t.



Andrea

[mtbat]

I was going to stay out of this one-but I read the article in the paper about this tragedy this morning and one sentance stood out-
Basicly, the comment was that since there are extreamly strict and anti-gun laws in Japan-crimes like this are often committed with knives.

If we regulate and take away the guns, the people who do things like this will find other ways to kill people.-like Knives.

take away the knives, they will use baseball bats

Take away the bats, they will use rocks

Take away the rocks and they will find something else.

The solution isn't in taking things away, its in finding what causes people to do this type of thing in the first place. There are people who NEED to be locked up and STAY locked up. HOnestly, I don't know what the answere is, I wish I did-

I have a 6 year old 1st grader(on her way to second) the thought that someone could do this to HER terrifies me.

[patach]

If this man had a gun, do you really think the death toll would have stopped at 8? I doubt it. So maybe, you are proving the gun control issue with this link. He is obviously a sick man, that didnt go out and get a gun illegally. In a country where guns are so hard to obtain, a criminal with malicious intent didnt have one. Hmmmmm, that might blow the "the criminals would get one no matter what" argument.

Some people use what they have. It's not like he was shopping for a weapon of choice and found out he couldn't get a gun. But unless you find the reason for such killings, how can you find the motive if the guy was wishing for a gun, or if he was just raring for a knife? Some killers don't usually think things through, I doubt anybody that goes on a "stabbing spree" seems to come to know what the hell he's doing and\or has planned it out well.

I'm not supporting the "let's make all guns legal" crap that you hear all the time from Republicans. But "blowing off the criminals would get one no matter what argument's" goal is far from being complete.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

My first impression of this was the same as what many others have been saying -- it's really sad that someone would take this tragedy and use it to make an anti-gun control argument, complete with a flippant poll. It seemed very disrespectful to the people who were killed.

In any case, the argument is nonsensical. No one is claiming that if there were fewer or even no guns in circulation that that would end all violence. So arguing against that doesn't make any sense at all.

What is true is that the more weapons that are available, and the easier they are to use, the more deaths will occur.

Look at prisons. There's a very tight control on weapons there. And no, that doesn't mean that there will be no violence or killing. Prisoners will fight with their bare hands, and they'll make weapons out of whatever materials are available -- even though the materials are tightly controlled so that they don't have access to anything with sharp edges, they may still be able to make a weapon out of their food trays or something like that. So, no, "gun control" in this situation hasn't stopped the violence.

But the violence would be worse if the controls were looser. If every prisoner were given a butcher knife, then obviously there would be many more prisoners killing each other than there are now. And imagine if every prisoner were given a gun -- imagine how many of them would be killing each other then. It would be nonsensical to say that we might as well give them guns because it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people, and if a prisoner is determined to kill someone, he will find a way.

And the same thing is true in the larger world. If someone is insane, as this killer in Japan appears to be, then, yes, he may use whatever weapon is at hand. But add easily available guns into the mix, and the circle of people who are going to kill gets larger.

The kids who did the school shootings here didn't appear to be insane in the way the Japanese killer was. Troubled, yes, but not insane. And there are far more people in the world who are troubled than there are people who are insane.

It's just easier to shoot someone than it is to stab someone. I don't know what's in the minds of the school shooters, but it's easy to imagine that there are people who have gone on shooting sprees who would never have gone on a rampage with a knife -- perhaps they didn't have the physical strength, or they weren't as enraged at the moment as I would think you would need to be to pull something like that off, or because they thought it too messy and too gross, or perhaps they thought that it would be too easy for someone to stop them before they had gotten very far.

And there's something about guns in particular, as opposed to all other weapons, that I think makes them more tempting to use: they're surrounded by an aura of glamor. In movies, all the time we see the good guys shooting away. It's an aura of glamor and power and justice. And I think that's what's appealing to the school shooters, especially those who believe they're taking revenge for wrongs that have been done to them. There's very little like that in the culture for other kinds of weapons. When you see a stabbing in a movie, it's usually a bad guy, a psycho, and I don't think that would have such a strong appeal to an unhappy teen. The same thing with bashing in someone's head with a rock -- what's the glamor in that? What kind of soundtrack would you play behind that scene?

And again, it's so easy. Guns are easy to use. And here, they're easy to get. We're just flooded with them, and whether someone gets them legally or illegally, it's no big problem because they're all over the place.