Open fire

The last few months have passed quietly. No shots have rung out in open places. American civilians
have not been targeted for random acts of gun violence.

Today saw the quiet come to an end. The gunman killed (at first reports) only one person, yet he fired 9 shots. Whether those bullets hit anyone else, is unclear.

With the US nation coming up on the elections, and symbols of hope hanging everywhere, it is so sad that someone has used violence to send out a message of pain.

Not a lot of information was available at the time of writing this. You can read the article here

not counted...but should it be?

I have not counted the latest USA shooting because it was committed 'in family'. It was not an random killing spree. Yet the father of three left his mother-in-law, wife, and three sons dead then took his own life. In notes left for the police, he claims full responsibility for the killing. Media suggest the fact the man was unemployed for several months contributed to his actions.

Read the full story here.

Yet should this be added to our list of shootings? While not done randomly, it appears it was done out of desperation. And in total 6 people were left dead...

Open fire in Finland

Finland has had its second mass shooting in a year. Last year Pekka-Eric Auvinen opened fire in a school. This year it was Matti Juhani Saari's turn. He opened fire at his school, killing 10 people then set fires around the building and shot himself in the head. He died later of the injury.

Finland has the third highest gun ownership rate, coming after the United States and Yemen. Finland allows Police discretion when issuing gun licences. Which means that a simple traffic violation could potentially impede your ability to legally own a gun. However police discretion seems to mostly mean they dictate what sort of firearm you can purchase. For instance, there are certain guns that are appropriate for first time gun owners, and others that are available to those with more experience.

Saari purchased his first gun only a month ago. Apparently a beginner's gun does not come with a remote "off" switch.

Shooting

Perhaps i should have been posting more. There has been lots of developments in relation to gun control. (and at some point i'll update everyone...but i'd do that when i'm not on holidays) There has been little on the front of actual shootings.

Today, we had a shooting in Tennessee.

Gun laws are for celebrities too

50 Cent currently has a restraining order held against him by his ex-girlfriend. This means that he has been ordered (by the court) to surrender all hand guns he owns.

His response from his legal team is that he does not own guns or have access to them.

It sounded like he was a bit offended by the apparent suggestion that he might go out and shoot his ex. But the courts are only holding up the newest federal law about gun control--No person with a restraining order against them is meant to retain access to personally owned guns.

At least 50 can take some comfort in the thought that if he ever has to file a restraining order against a crazed fan, they won't be allowed their guns either.

Not just america

As American continues to enjoy its long bout of relative serenity (at least on the mass killings front), Japan has been shaken by its own mass killing.

A 25 year old man, Tomohiro Kato, ran his car into pedestrians, then jumped out and slashed at them with his knife. 7 were killed while 10 still remain in hospital.

Acknowledging that this is a serious situation, i would like to look at it from a different angle. I would like to look at how the media and culture handle these situations. The reason for this attack is not known but many are suggesting it has to do with the way the youth of Japan are feeling isolated and do not know how to communicate with eachother.

The media reports which happened around the Virginia Tech massacre, say a similar thing. The shooter was unable to take responsibility for his own actions, instead seeing everyone else responsible. He was not able to communicate with his peers and remained isolated because of it.

While the motivations of a killer seem to be universal, the reaction to it, is not. America's individual culture leave the shooter the sole person responsible for the killing. In the Japanese media, society shares a part of the blame. (read the articles to examine the similarities and differences)

I do not know if one of these ways is better than the other. I suspect they are merely reflective of the way the society in these parts of the world work.But perhaps they could both learn a little from the other.

To protect the people, bring more guns

I learned in kindergarten that the best way to end violence was not to perpetuate it. If a kid hits you, unless you want it to continue, don't escalate the problem by hitting his head with the lego box. This simple rule has carried over into my adult life. Violence does not solve violence. Just because you carry a bigger block, doesn't mean that no one is going to hit you.

I suppose that is why it amazes me when the USA pass legislation that allows more people to legally carry guns in public places. Currently, Georgia is working on legislation to allow concealed weapons to be brought into restaurants. But don't worry, only those who don't have a criminal history will be allowed to do this.

Apparently, people don't go on shooting sprees unless they have a criminal history.

Needless to say, i am appalled.

Gun laws and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in the USA has rarely taken a stand on the issue of individual's rights to own a gun. This is about to be changed, however when the Supreme Court hears a case about a security guard in Washington DC who would like to own a gun at his house for "protection". Currently Washington DC has a gun ban in the area, saying that it is an urban area with no need for guns. Surprisingly, there has been no mass shootings in Washington DC, although there was a scare when a man with a shotgun and a sword walked towards the White House.

This case could set a precident for gun laws in the USA. While many states have their own gun laws that would mean that the new laws would have little or no effect, the possibility is definitely there for change.

Not too surprisingly, the Vice President who famously shot his hunting partner, supports gun ownership with very few restrictions.

Sadly, we have to give respect for the rest of the administration who has managed a semi-realistic view on gun ownership and rights. (it just always feels dirty to support Bush)

We'll keep posting as the case continues.

The march of death begins

Today is March the third (in the usa, anyway) and there has already been another shooting. This time a gun man opened fire in a Wendy's restaurant in Florida. He managed to kill two people including himself and injure another five others.

Children in the line of fire

Another shooting has taken place. This time there were 8 injuries but no fatalities thus far. Three children are in critical condition, however. Those responsible for this shooting have not yet been found. Officially the police are not naming any suspects.

Read the story here

what's it worth?

I somehow doubt these numbers take into consideration the mass shootings that are becoming part of our society on a daily basis. So far this month there have been 6 mass shootings in the USA that have made international headlines. This isn't a problem with outlaws getting guns. This is a problem of ordinary people buying guns legally and then shooting people with that legal gun. If your sick of it like me, do a bit of research and find your state representative's email address online. Send him/her an email and explain your concerns and what you want to be done. I'm not suggesting an all out ban on guns, i'm talking more mandatory education on gun safety, free counselling clinics in EVERY AREA, or better background checks on gun buyers. Some simple steps would save a lot of lives. Are they worth it?

More death

Its always sad to see more deaths from gun violence, especially when the violence breaks out on a campus. So many people attend University to gain a better education, to make more out of their life. It's hard to hear that someone can walk in and snatch that life away without a word.

At a University near Chicago, a man opened fire in a classroom of 140 people. Reports are still coming in, but it looks like there is a total of 5 deaths, including the gunman, and many more causalities, some places reported as many as 17.

This isn't how a higher education is supposed to go. When are we going to see some real problem solving by the government? They feel free to spend trillions of our tax dollars on "keeping peace" in a foreign country, but seem to care nothing about the violence that is plaguing the country on such a regular basis. What sort of budget is the President willing to spend to help stop these weekly episodes of gun violence? Are we willing to talk real solutions yet?

Making the harder choice

Apparently a man gave more than just serious thought to opening fire during pre-game excitement at the Super bowl last week. From the look of things, he stopped himself. I am so proud of him for stopping himself. It took a lot of courage to pull himself up at the last minute, contact his family, and ask for help.

While life was definitely not going his way, and he felt the only way to be heard was through the deaths of others, he was able to make a better decision.

I commend Kurt William Havelock for NOT firing a gun, even when he had the chance and the motive.

Law, anyone?

i recently watched the movie "Shooter". I had a huge problem with the movie because it felt like it was sponsored by the NRA. Not only were guns glorified in almost a god status, the movie encouraged the idea that "guns could solve the problem". I hate this concept because it negates the rights of the public for public justice (and no i don't suggest that public executions are the way to go). People need to have laws in place that *everyone* is held to. If guns solve the problem the only law that is obeyed is "The person with the biggest gun and fastest draw wins". That is not a good basis for society.

Apparently this idea that guns really do solve problems was not just in the movies. 52-year-old Charles Thornton, decided he too could take the law into his own hands. He walked into a council meeting and shot 5 people dead,wounding two others. Apparently his thoughts were shared by his brother who said, ""My brother went to war tonight with the people and government that were putting torment and strife into his life and he ended it," Gerald Thornton said. "I'm OK with it."

If this is the kind of law you want to live by, you will live a dangerous and short life indeed.

More gun violence

The media reports are just starting to come out here. We still don't know for sure how many have died or how many wounded, but we do know there has been another shooting in the USA.

This time it was in suburban Chicago. In a women's clothing store a man opened fire. It has been speculated that this was a robbery. It doesn't really matter though, cause several people have still died. The reason for their death isn't going to be of much comfort for the families.

We had so hoped the gun violence would stop this year.

chainsaw attack

I see that the new gun laws in America are already having an impact. A homeless man in Missouri attacked people in a homeless shelter using a chainsaw and a knife. There were four injuries, but no deaths.

Let this be a lesson to us all...and before you mistake my "lesson" to mean i'm for having more access to guns, let us consider the number of deaths this has incurred, none. And only four injuries...while those four might scoff at the "only four", he had to be close enough to touch people to hurt them which limited the number of people he could harm in a given space of time.

As sad and tragic as this is, its far less tragic than it could have been.

No Shots Fired

I find it seriously hard to believe that a man who intended on actually carrying out some sort of dastardly deed would carry a sword and a shotgun. While carrying a gun around may not raise suspicions, a sword definitely will. Who knows what you're plans are for that SWORD!

So it was no great surprise that police arrested Michael Steven Gorbey. And before you start thinking it was some teenage prank, the man is 38 years old-well and truly old enough to know better.

Still, his shotgun that he carried (along with the sword) was never fired and his destination remains a mystery to the public. Was he planning a massive attack on his own people? We don't know so we will refrain from adding this case to our list of USA gun violence. After all, there was no violence to report...just a normal guy walking around with a big ol' shotgun and his sword.

New Gun Control Regulations for 2008??

With President Bush throwing his support behind the newest Gun Control regulations, its almost enough to think twice about supporting it. Yet, when examined, its pretty amazing that these regulations weren't in practice already. From restrictions on individual ownership of machine guns to prohibiting felons, the mentally ill, and those with restraining orders against them from owning guns, these regulations sound more like common sense rather than radical and new. Still, those against the regulations state that the administration is against individual rights. Sadly, they are probably correct but without actually knowing the intentions of the White House, we can almost assuredly say their motives are suspect if nothing else.

Even with motives that are suspect, i can not see why these regulations aren't being met with dancing in the street. It was only a month ago that there were mass shootings in the states. If December is any sort of example, than it should be clear that when people decide to kill, they aren't getting just one or two deaths in. They are going for as many fatalities as possible. Limiting what sort of fire arms that are available and who they are available to, seems like a great way to prevent these sorts of deaths.

So i am most surprised to find that few in the states seem to be happy about these measures. (Or maybe no one is talking about their support of gun control.) I somehow thought that all these mass deaths related to gun violence would somehow impact the USA in a much bigger way. Yet, in reality it seems that not enough people have died to justify these extreme measures in Gun Control.

If a plane is hijacked and flown into a building, its worth restricting public rights in order to keep more people safe. If a gun is bought and used to open fire in a public place, people feel that they're lives are not at risk, even though the latter scenario is much more common than the former. I am not sure what makes people so sure that it won't happen to them.

If prying the gun out of a gunman's cold dead hand is the only way to limit gun use, than the only way gun violence will drop is by having fewer people around to shoot.

Shocked!

It has been just about a month since the last shooting in the USA to make headlines in Australia. As I paused to reflect on this, I stumbled. It wasn't a massive stumble, but a mere slip of the mouse that brought me to news.google.com. It was here that i found this article.

This article is entitled "Violent Crime Dips in First Half of '07". I was glad to know that these crimes were losing their appeal to perpetrators, so i expectantly opened the article. The article spoke of the FBI statistics for violent crimes (which included gun violence) around America. It sited many places that violent crime had been drastically reduced but the article finished with a paragraph that somewhat disturbed me.

The FBI report did not separate out data for the District, which has reported a 7 percent increase in homicides for 2007, part of an overall surge in gun violence. (bold and italics added by me)

Somehow the overall surge of gun violence hardly rates a mention because fewer people are choosing to bludgeon their victims to death. Hooray for statistical spin! The article itself is cautious to be quite as positive as the Justice Department spokesman Peter A. Carr who said,
"The report suggests that violent crime remains near historic low levels". Instead it points out that in major cities the violent crimes are down, but in rural and suburban areas these crimes are up.

Perhaps that the Justice Department sees the world through rose coloured glasses while us mere mortals have to just stick with the headlines.