Why do mass shootings only happen in the US?

Librarian, I shoot small resin discs with my shotgun. I have no interest in hunting birds. I grew up with pet wild ducks, and have trouble even eating peking duck. (This is, in fact, why I learned to shoot, to protect the ducks.) I do it to improve my really, really bad reaction time, my hand-eye coordination, as a fascinating technical exercise, for fun, and for family bonding, because it’s something my whole family can do together.

This is shooting that has nothing to do with hurting, maiming, or killing.

Well, I stuck in something related to the original post, but I think it got swallowed up in the raging “debate,” so I’ll post it again below. I don’t think it MEANS anything, but I think it interesting in light of this week’s incident. There’s more to the story than just the one sentence below, so take a look at the link; the part about hand-grenading families is bizarre:

Woo Bum-kon was a Korean police officer who carried out the worst incident of spree killing in known history, killing 58 (including himself), and wounding 35 in Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea.”

Um, does this mean you were shooting duck hunters? :eek:

While I accept that you shoot to improve your hand-eye coordination and to protect ducks (not sure how that works; but for the sake of argument I’ll take it at face value). Will you agree with me that skeet was originally a way to practice shooting birds? (Which is also legitimate, if you take care of a large piece of land, and a crappy way of killing poultry if you feed the birds to increase population)

You are seriously suggesting that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right? I can see how something like freedom from slavery could be considered a fundamental ‘self-evident’ right, but ownership of a man-made item?

Given that America is fighting for the spread of Democracy around the world, this seems like a very out-dated justification for gun ownership. Maybe firearms were essential in the fight against feudal tyranny, but isn’t this need now negated by the ability to vote one’s rulers out of government, as opposed to the days of violent coup? Are the guns an insurance policy on your much-loved democracy failing?

Nope. We had water rats in the back yard that’d come out at night and eat the ducks as they were sleeping. Couldn’t trap them, too smart. (Tried. Havaharts and normal) Couldn’t poison them, the ducks and dogs might eat it. Shot 'em. Took a few months, but we got 'em all. The main nest was off our property, so we couldn’t dig it up, either. Been 20 years, and they havn’t returned.

Librarian: Nope. Might have been a way to have all the fun of shooting birds, without having to go find a beater and dogs and birds. Not sure about the specific origins of skeet. Got to tell you, though, it’s a lot easier to do it than to put on a hunt.

Further notes: First, I shoot trap, not skeet. It’s possible, if you know the range, and are very good, to shoot skeet entirely blindfolded and get a perfect score. You can’t do that with trap.

Second, after consideration, I would posit that skeet was invented to allow people to show off their abilities to kill birds, as opposed to practice shooting birds. This is a significant difference. (Well, their abilities to fire shotguns in rough and manly ways, as Teddy R. would say. Not so much killing birds, as the ability to do so, being tested.)

On the other hand, so are the Olympics. The Decathlon, wrestling, and so on. Sport pretty much is all about showing off your abilities as a mighty warrior. So is the Marathon. I feel pretty okay about being in company with olympic athletes.

That said, let’s talk briefly about the right to bear arms as a fundamental human right. The government is not my master, it is my civil service, and the employees are civil servants. I am a free citizen of these United States. I am equal to any employee. I do not need to bow before the President, but can face him eye to eye and meet him with plain speech.

The right to bear arms is the nail that keeps that true. It should never be executed, but a right without the ability to reinforce it, is a right that will be violated.

Furthermore, the right to defend ones self is a simple and elementary right. The government will not do it for me. It can not do it for me. I live not far from New York City, in a town with a very famous correctional facility. Every so often, we would get an escapee, of the highly dangerous sort. We lived seven and a half miles from the police department (A new one has opened since then) and they weren’t quite sure where we were. (Geography gets funky in 200+ year old towns.) Further, every so often, we’d get a rabid animal walking down the middle of the street. (Which was one of the first signs they might be rabid. There’s a gait… and the walking down the middle of the street part isn’t normal.)

And every so often, bears. Coyotes, too. This area has been inhabited since NY was colonized by the Dutch. It still has wild animals of the larger sort. Rest of America can be wilder.

Police may or may not show in time. When I grew up, there were three cop cars. Nights of a jail break, ALL of them would be busy responding to random panic calls.

The cops are not here to protect you. They don’t need to, they have no responsibility to. The only person with a responsibility to protect you and yours, is you and yours. The right to own a gun makes that possible.

Were there crooked cops? Hell yes, one should note. Illegal gun sales to criminals, child porn, too. And one or two that colluded with the prisoners. How do you, rationally, keep your family safe when the police can’t be trusted to protect you?

Yes, guns are an insurance policy on democracy failing. “From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
(Note the patriots part.)
God willing, the insurance policy is enough to keep them honest. See the thread by Aiska about the po-pos shooting her 90 year old neighbor down on a completely false warrant. Without respect for the populace, that’s what happens, random fake warrants to increase arrest statistics. I’m sorry it happened. Deeply so. But when the police no longer respect your rights, what do you have left but threats to keep them honest?
If, god forbid, they expected to be met with force, they wouldn’t have busted down the 90 year old woman’s door. I don’t want my police to fear me. I want them to respect me and to treat me as a citizen with rights. When they don’t, what do you do?

Gun ownership seems reasonable in more rural areas for shooting animals, I agree. But isn’t the extension of this into urban settings part of the problem? Presumably those who grow up on a farm and are taught responsible use are less of a danger than those in cities who own a handgun for self-defence.

I don’t understand this. Surely you pay a proportion of your taxes so that the police can be paid to protect you from criminals? What are they for otherwise?

So in a sense you are holding the government to gunpoint? How can the USA be confident in spreading the Word of democracy worldwide if, as well as free and fair elections, democracy also requires an armed populace as a back-up plan?

I am not trying to naively badmouth America - I’ve only visited on holiday. I’m just trying to comprehend the insistence on what seems to my European mind an antiquated (not to say barbaric) use of firearms to uphold civilised values. To me this seems paradoxical.

And? What’s wrong with killing? Or do you think no one should ever eat meat? Even most vegans I know don’t have a moral problem with me eating animal flesh, which of course I can only eat because humans kill animals and conveniently package the meat and distribute it to supermarkets for me to buy.

Killing humans is bad. Killing deer? Not so much. It’s sport, it’s fun, and it’s good eating, too.

Target practice is also fun, and it isn’t anything like “practicing killing.” I’ve actually practiced killing, it isn’t just target shooting. Target shooting has very little in common with a mock combat situation or a real combat situation…it’s target shooting. Target shooting tests accuracy, steadiness, and patience. It’s fun for some people (I don’t do it that often, personally.)

Whether or not a gun has one use is irrelevant, what it boils down to is, just like alcohol, it is dangerous to society, but for a host of reasons people consume alcohol, and for a host of reasons, people own guns. I mainly own guns because I like hunting. Home defense is another issue, I sleep lightly and I very seriously doubt anyone could ever break into my home without me (or one of my dogs) knowing. I have a CC permit but I almost never carry my gun, but I respect the right to do so.

Some people own guns just because they think they’re fun and cool. I have mixed feelings on that. Shooting a gun is definitely fun, but aside for hunting season I usually don’t even touch my guns. Hunting isn’t fun for me because of the shooting and killing, it’s fun because of the challenge, it’s very difficult to kill a deer or a bear–I actually like bow hunting more because it’s even harder. It gives me a lot of respect for the humans, centuries ago, who used to hunt these incredibly skittish, quick animals with crude spears. But despite my mixed feelings on the people who think guns are cool, guess what, that’s their right, the constitution supports the right to own them, people’s individual motivations for it are irrelevant.

The other thing is, in the grand scheme of things, guns don’t kill very many people each year in the United States statistically. To me, if we’re willing to accept ~30,000 dead to feed people’s desire for alcohol, I fail to see why we’re unwilling to accept ~30,000 dead (assuming ALL homicides committed with guns and ALL suicides wouldn’t have happened otherwise) because some people desire to own guns.

I just don’t get why you guys are hung up on bullshit like “intent” or “what the thing is made to do” the simple fact is, no matter what alcohol is “made to do” it kills. Murder is illegal. An object made specifically to murder people would be illegal, guns are not made to murder.

Well, I’m not someone who changes my principles based on a random event with no bearing on society at large because of an emotional gut reaction.

That doesn’t hold water. Many countries have government funded public news agencies. Does that mean you shouldn’t have a private press?

Of course not. The BBC works pretty damn well as a quasi-governmental news organization. At the same time, everyone recognizes you need independent organizations as well. The police work decentish, but why should you base your survival, your self defense, on the ability of the police to come save you. You do realize that even in a big city, response time on a 911 call about an intruder coming through your window is going to be pretty significant. In a situation like that every second feels like an hour.

In a civilised democratic society, I would ideally (yes, I’m being idealistic) hope to vote in an administration who could provide security for its citizens, without the need for ‘Magnum Force’ in every home.

Did you have any thoughts on my suggestion that the perceived need to own firearms to resist tyranny undermines the belief in democracy per se, that it perhaps shows a distrust in the very political system that the western world promotes?

I am trying to stress the lack of prudency in speaking out now to defend your beloved six-shooter. (you still use a lot of words to say: ‘You can take my gun from cold, dead hands’. Cold statistics are not in favor of guns, don’t try to work them to do so. Leave cars, alcohol and for that matter fluffy bunnies out of it)

What’s wrong with an insurance policy as well as democratic institutions? The US Constitution has 2 main tenents to help keep Americans from succumbing to tyranny:

  1. A free press, to cast light into dark corners tyranny requires to thrive, and
  2. An armed populace, capable of overthrowing a tyrant should it be required.
    Both can (and are) abused; that doesn’t mean they’re not still critical to keeping Americans free.

There’s nothing to say that you can’t keep yourself free (and defend your home) without resorting to military-style rapid-fire assault weapons and hanguns, however, and that’s where I think the law can do something meaningful. Before I moved to England, where all guns are banned, I did both just fine in self-defence, arming myself to protect against tyranny, and hunting areas with a 30-06 bolt-action rifle and a pump shotgun.

As my favourite fictional president once said:

To catch criminals after the fact, and possibly act as a deterrent to crime. Police don’t do much pro-active criminal catching anywhere in the world except in the world of Science Fiction; all policing is reactive.

The right to defend ones self against aggression of authority is a fundamental human right. Government derives power from the consent of the government.
No More Kings.

Love the name, by the way. Is it connected to your feelings on guns? This is a side-discussion.
http://www3.clearlight.com/~acsa/stagroot.htm

I live thirty miles due north of New York City. I live about 15 miles north of Riverdale, where Archie and the Gang are from. I live 2 miles from where the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow took place. (The Old Dutch Church is still there.) My area was settled sometime prior to 1685, where the indians were forced out by… well, giving them money, and then they left, and now they run a very nice casino up north a bit.
We get bears and coyotes. Hell, we get Coyotes in Manhattan and Chicago. What’s urban? There are, by the way, working farms within two miles of me.

The first policemen were 40 men, mid-17th century. The first modern police department, Sir Robert Peel’s Bobbies. 1829. Newer than you think.
Doesn’t say jack about protecting individuals. Just society. And the police, and I wish I could remember the Supreme Court case, cause I don’t, have no positive responsibility to stop crimes.

Not really a good question for a whole bunch of reasons. First, ‘confident in spreading the Word of democracy’ is a whole bunch of policy issues, most of which I disagree with, and a lot of it is freaking stupid neocon verbiage. We’re supposed to lead by example. The failings in that… well. Let’s just say that it’s a whole different thread. Still, the fundamental point of a democracy is that every citizen is a free person, and the state is made up of the collective will of the free persons. Right? What do you do when the state becomes corrupt and begins to ignore the collective will of the people?
What do you do when the police start deciding to get warrants based on nothing at all, to raid random houses?
We have a few phrases here. “Trust, but verify.” “Keep him honest.” “God made man. Smith and Wesson made him equal.” They all wind up meaning the same thing. Guns are called the equalizer for a reason. I don’t like it much, but it’s a good reason.

[/quote]

Well, how would you do it? Appeal to the better nature of man? Have fun. See, the thing is, America isn’t homogenized like Europe. That’s not an insult, I’ve travelled on the Continent. Trust me. Even with the recent immigrant issues, you’re about 200 years behind us. Literally, I mean that. We have no common culture, we have barely a common language. We have no mutual understanding or common character.
That doesn’t mean we distrust each other. America is just very, very big. And very, very different. We look the same as you, but we just aren’t.

Those of you thinking you’re armed up in defense of your freedom from tyranny are way deluded. Why don’t you explain how your guns are going to do anything but get you killed.

Should our government become something that’s unacceptable, say GWB and a group of fundementalist christian military decide that stepping down now is not in “mericas interest” and round up every moderate in congress, sumarily execute them and assume control of state police agencies. Then what? How will you and your semi automatic hunting rifle restore democracy?

See, to me, this sounds like paranoia. I was working under the assumption that once a democratic state is reached, the political administration is chosen by the populace, and can be sacked if not to the majority’s taste (not that that can necessarily be trusted I suppose…). I was also assuming that there were mechanisms in place which would prevent the government becoming tyrannical. Maybe you’re paranoid and I’m naive…

This immediately reminds me of Margaret Thatcher’s famous “There is no such thing as society” bit. Maybe this is another US/UK divide - to me it is individuals who make up a society.

It’s just from the grisly Nick Cave song of that name. My name isn’t Lee. I feel hypocritical arguing against gun ownership - I kicked myself for not going to a shooting range when on holiday in Chicago, and I’m sure I would enjoy shooting given the opportunity. But there’s a difference between good fun and good public policy I reckon.

I don’t know if we are 200 years ‘behind’ you. Isn’t just that the USA was built on colonialism, then slavery and mass immigration? And don’t we both speak English? But I’ll agree on the mutual lack of understanding… :wink:

Um, like guns and a free press as the weapons of last resort against tyranny if all the other protections fail? Kind of like those mechanisms?

Because between an armed population and a citizen Army (i.e. National Guard), the chance of a tyrant gaining or keeping control is nil.

If George and the fundies were the only ones pulling the triggers, then I would think our boys in Green and Brown would have something to say about it. If it’s George + fundies + our boys, then our armed populace would have something to say about it. See how that works? Because there ain’t enough bullets to stop everyone.

But your straw man is ludicrous, because we have an armed populace, it would never happen.

Well said indeed. Living here has certainly shown that to me in spades.

200 years of random immigration behind us. You started out with a standardized mix of people before the era of mass transit. We started off with a load of random people who got thrown out of their previous countries for causing a ruckus.
For the last 200 years, it’s been possible to migrate from country to country with comparative ease, but we had a head start of a diverse population to start with.

As for paranoia, it’s not paranoia. I certainly don’t feel like that, all the time. I’m discussing the philosophical point behind our national stance on guns. We’ve had issues. I’ve had ancestors hung for witches, ancestors thrown out of the church that the Pilgrims started because they were Irish, ancestors who fought in the Revolution, then turned around and started a second rebellion against the new government. (Whiskey Rebellion. Taxes.)
Sure, they can be sacked in the broad perspective, but that doesn’t stop the short issue, nor does it stop local corruption worth a damn. Remember, we get towns literally hundreds of miles from anywhere else.
There are mechanisms to stop the government from being tyrants. One of them is that we have such a large military… and a whole lot of people who are former soldiers. How many ex-soldiers do you know? I only didn’t join up because I’d be 4-F. (Lungs, knees, eyes.) It would have been good for me. Around me, about one out of four or five people is probably a veteran, on a daily basis. Or a cop or ex-cop.
Youtube “No More Kings” and “Shot Heard Round The World” for some of our civics lessons we used to feed through the telly.

Note: Aggression of Authority can be a thug with a gun trying to mug you, local police and government, or the feds. Or the local church, the local businessmen, or the local ‘legitimate businessmen.’

“local police and government, or the feds. Or the local church, the local businessmen, or the local 'legitimate businessmen.” And if you use a gun to protect what you perceive to be your rights against them you’ll be going to jail or worse.

You know, there’s stories of cops in Philly blocking off a street, going into a store, taking what they wanted, and then reporting it as a theft.

There’s cops in NY who were hitmen for the mob.

There’s a lot of things. Sometimes the awareness that someone can stand up to them is all it takes. You don’t need to use a weapon to stand tall. But the fact that they exist is a reason for ‘them’ not to ignore you out of hand.

Respect the citizens. Because if you don’t, you’re going to have to fear them, and that’s a lot worse.