Introversion

Grandstone wrote:That said, where do people get such weird ideas about the US? Prozac in the water? That's the stuff of conspiracy theory. Half of the country on antidepressants? The only report I find relevant says ten percent of women over 18 and four percent of men (presumably over 18 as well) are on antidepressants in the US. Here's the link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/hus04.htm.

A big part of that particular stereotype is that Americans are very free in talking about and admitting mild mental illnesses like depression. Most of the world still stigmatizes mental illness greatly and thus people tend to believe it doesn't exist while they see Americans talking about going to shrinks and figure it's rampant over here.

Grandstone wrote: I currently lean towards Feud's more libertarian view.

It's been a long time since the last time someone described my views as Libertarian (at least while being serious), brings back old memories.

Just a quick one -

@NeoThermic - didn't the Korean massacre use grenades as well? That's cheating - I said mass "shooting" (by an individual)

And as for the "armed criminal v unarmed law-abiding citizen" scenario. There must be some Nash equilibrium proof out there (it seems common sense) that if only the criminal is armed, it is far less likely that the gun will be used than if both the criminal and the victim are armed. In the latter case, it is preferable to shoot first (the victim because they are acting in self-defense against an armed aggressor, the criminal because they know the victim will shoot first, and so it goes). In the former case, the criminal has much more to lose by shooting (a murder rap) than by not shooting. It's also in the victim's interest to cooperate which reduces the change someone will get killed.

Please note that this presumes the actors are rational. If one of the actors is a psycho, you'd be thanking gun control for stopping him having an uzi ...

Feud wrote:Well, I seem to remember something about a school massacre and a theater massacre in Russia that produced far more bodies then the average American shooting does.

And I seem to recall a certain even in recent American history where the body count was significantly larger than those two combined. Should I mention the date?

Seriously, does anyone want to include terrorist organizations and acts of war on this discussion?

Feud wrote:Well, I seem to remember something about a school massacre and a theater massacre in Russia that produced far more bodies then the average American shooting does.

So? It was done by terrorists, plus non-russians so I fail to understeand this remark. Using your way of thinking I can say about WTC massacre lol

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:

rus|Mike wrote:Medical comission found him absolutely psychologically stable and sane. But surely you know better than professional medics Or you just don't know what do this words mean?

My point was that Russians are just as capable of killing large numbers of people as anyone else (and historically are responsible for many of largest slaughters in history).

As far as mental health, Russia actually has high rates of mental illness. Historically mental illness in Russia was a highly political matter and was covered up as much as possible. This is starting to change however mental illness is still highly stigmatized which accounts for you no knowing of anyone who will admit to it.

I'm sure you don't trust the BBC at all, but for the others here this is a interesting article on mental illness in Russia.

a) We are not talking about mental illnesses in general. We're talking about guys that, for example get fired, become angry and shoot couple dozens people in the supermarket. It never happened in Russia, but judging by the news (not Russian ones, no) happens really often in the US.

b) Somebody said about maniacs, mentioning Pichyshkin. That's another story. This man is perfectly sane and after some thinking came to the conclusions that he is aloud to kill people well, conclusions are OK, but then he started executing his ideology, even knowing that it's against law and because of that he's put into a prison for the rest of his life. That's totaly different from those mass kills by people who are fired, left by a girl/boyfriend etc.

And btw, Pichyshkin is ONE person afterall and I can use search function of some news site to find really MANY of mass kills in US.

c) Oh and that article made me laugh respect for authors for finding this "Peveralsk Psychiatric Hospital outside Yekaterinburg in the Urals". Well surely if you search well, you can find some halfly-abandomed vilage with doctors willing to say some really stupid things.

And once again, ther's no point in discussing gun crimes in general, because a criminal will be able to get a gun EVERYWHERE. Regardless state politics about weapons. Even if you're a citizen of Vatican, you really want a gun=you get it.
However, there's a point in talking about murders commited by those depressed people. They do such things just on the spot, so if there's no a shop with guns nearby, they're likely to end up calming down. That's my view on the problem.

Xocrates wrote:
And I seem to recall a certain even in recent American history where the body count was significantly larger than those two combined. Should I mention the date?

Seriously, does anyone want to include terrorist organizations and acts of war on this discussion?

The point I was trying to make is that no country is immune to violence, we just have different types that we, for lack of a better phrase, get used to. The attacks I mentioned are all examples of domestic violence (unless people here wish to declare Chechnya or North Ireland independent), and were meant to show that while America may have more incidents of violence of certain types, that it in no way has a monopoly on violence.

People can point at the gun statistics all day if they want and decry America as being a violent backwards place (as RC did), but every country has some type of violence which in the end will kill you just as surely. Sure, you might get shot by a gang banger in America, just as you might get beaten by a rioting mob in Paris, blown up by a bomber in Israel, taken hostage in Russia, or what ever.

rus|Mike wrote:a) We are not talking about mental illnesses in general. We're talking about guys that, for example get fired, become angry and shoot couple dozens people in the supermarket. It never happened in Russia, but judging by the news (not Russian ones, no) happens really often in the US.

There was a case of two Russian Army recruits deserting and then going on a rampage and killing 7 officers and 2 civilians in 2002.

If you look at it Russians have bigger problems than getting fired. There is far more anxiety over larger issues like politics. Thus you see political assassinations far more than in say the US. The way violence is expressed in a country depends on lots of things. Some countries have more gun crimes, others have more bombings. Some have crimes fueled by personal issues others have crime fueled by national issues.

Statistically Russia has a murder rate more than four times that of the US. You can pretend that is not the case all you want, but all your wishing isn't going to change anything.

rus|Mike wrote:They do such things just on the spot, so if there's no a shop with guns nearby, they're likely to end up calming down. That's my view on the problem.[/b]

Actually many of these massacres are planned well ahead of time.

What I don't understand is, by saying that there are worse countries than the USA for gun crime somehow automagically makes the USA.....good?

I don't think so. Gordon Brown could well turn round and say "AT LEAST IM BETTAR THAN MUGABE LOL" but it won't wash with anybody.

I know a prision riot in Brazil that finished in a massacre

1992 Carandiru Massacre, São Paulo, Brazil, October 1992 - 111 inmates killed. Most of them already surrender or was unarmed and was murdered by the military police

talking about a single person killing spree in Chile, the last happened in the 80' where only one prision guard killed 10 inmates just for the rumor of a riot and wasn't planed, some people says that was superior's orders

shinygerbil wrote:What I don't understand is, by saying that there are worse countries than the USA for gun crime somehow automagically makes the USA.....good?

I don't think so. Gordon Brown could well turn round and say "AT LEAST IM BETTAR THAN MUGABE LOL" but it won't wash with anybody.

I don't know that anyone is arguing that. However some people were arguing that the US was the worst in the world, which clearly isn't the case. They were also arguing that it was some particular defect of Americans, which doesn't seem to be the case either.

If you look at it Russians have bigger problems than getting fired. There is far more anxiety over larger issues like politics.

Probably true.

Statistically Russia has a murder rate more than four times that of the US. You can pretend that is not the case all you want, but all your wishing isn't going to change anything.

Also probably true. But it's all about criminals which have such things as a job.

We just have psychologicaly stable people here

Showing his psychological stability there, with the perfectly logical and sane activity of topless hunting. In cosy Russia

As far as I am concerned, it is a basic civil liberty to be allowed to own a gun (we can't own them here, and they have even severely restricted the sale of AirSoft guns ) I totally agree with Feud on this matter.

Tripper wrote:@NeoThermic - didn't the Korean massacre use grenades as well? That's cheating - I said mass "shooting" (by an individual)

Mass shootings, or "spree killings" as they are "officially" known do not care about the difference between shooting someone to death, stabbing them to death or 'nading them. The Tsuyama massacre was done with Katanas as well. The Port Arthur Massacre was also done with a knife, so if you really want to reject Woo Bum-kon's #1, then you also have to reject Martin Bryant's attempt.

NeoThermic

I originally voted changing the constitution but then realized that when I read the 2nd amendment it seems perfectly reasonable.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed on the people if necessary for a well regulated militia. Which I agree is fair enough, if someone had a gun for the purpose of use when their country need to call upon citizens in defense of the country, then they shouldn't be able to be arrested for carrying one. If America was under threat of possible invasion then this amendment makes perfect sense. No where do I see that you are allowed the right to bear arms outside of "A well regulated militia". As far as I know America has a strong military force for the defense of the country and is not likely to need to call upon citizens if it's military is inadequate. Can any gun owner legitimately claim their gun that they carry is for a well regulated militia. Unless America suddenly finds itself on imminent threat of invasion or lacking military power I see no constitutional reason for them to have a gun.

vanarbulax wrote:I originally voted changing the constitution but then realized that when I read the 2nd amendment it seems perfectly reasonable.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed on the people if necessary for a well regulated militia. Which I agree is fair enough, if someone had a gun for the purpose of use when their country need to call upon citizens in defense of the country, then they shouldn't be able to be arrested for carrying one. If America was under threat of possible invasion then this amendment makes perfect sense. No where do I see that you are allowed the right to bear arms outside of "A well regulated militia". As far as I know America has a strong military force for the defense of the country and is not likely to need to call upon citizens if it's military is inadequate. Can any gun owner legitimately claim their gun that they carry is for a well regulated militia. Unless America suddenly finds itself on imminent threat of invasion or lacking military power I see no constitutional reason for them to have a gun.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick when reading the 2nd amendment. It's more along the lines that by allowing the people to have guns, should a government try to make America a non-free country, the people have the means and weapons to oppose it. Of course, if America had any balls they would have done this a few years ago when Bush started in office, but alas, one can only hope that his replacement this year will be better. Or else....

NeoThermic