Today's Bad Stories !

[Stopwatch]

I'd also like to point out that, even if guns were unavailable, there are other, more deadly methods they could use if they wished.  Including but not limited to home-made bombs.

And how many people can easily make and get hold of the materials for home-made bombs? It's a whole lot easier with an easily accessible gun than almost anything else. Also, in order to figure out how to make them people would have to look it up by which point most people will have had time enough to calm down from the murderous rage stage.
Plus, look at other countries with laws against guns and compare the usage of 'home-made bombs' and all that. Any incidents like that (with the exception of 7-7 iirc which was done by terrorists anyway so it shouldn't factor into this) in the UK at least, are few and still manage to report a lot less people injured or killed overall than the numbers injured or killed by guns in the US every year.
In terms of lesser weapons than guns, there may be an increase in knife crime to an extent (not looked it up yet, but it makes sense) but that still produces a whole lot less dead people than in the US where guns are responsible for more crimes.

Btw, I agree with Miaka on the increased mental healthcare all the way (and in most countries improvement in that is *needed*). Taking the focus off the culprit is also good, but I think that certain people (like police and obviously courts) should still have some access to info about any factors surrounding the culprit (such as mental health issues, family situations, if there were any warning signs and so on) in order to help prevent and look out for more instances of this.

EDIT: RM'd by GinRei

[mangaluva]

I completely agree that the family and mental health backgrounds of these shooters need to be looked into. Healthcare and welfare both leave a lot to be desired in the US.

However, I still think that guns need better regulation. It's not just gun crime that's the problem. It's the small children who find their parents' guns in the house or car and accidentally shoot themselves or their siblings. It's the homeowners whose first response to a suspected burglar is to grab a gun and shoot rather than call the police, whose first response is to try to kill someone. It's the people who keep loaded guns around, have parties and have stupid ideas for party games.

I read about all of the above in the paper while in Oklahoma last year. In a one-week period, there were reports of two separate instances of three-year-old children being left alone in cars, getting out of their car seats, finding a loaded handgun, and managing to shoot themselves. There was a third instance of a four-year-old boy shooting his seven-year-old sister while they were left alone in the car. In the same week, a man thought he heard an intruder, looked out of the window, saw someone in dark clothes in the garden, and fired. When he went outside, he saw that he'd shot and killed his own seventeen-year-old son, who was trying to sneak in after going out with some friends. Another man shot himself in the head at a party when miming shooting himself in the head for a game, forgetting that he kept the gun loaded.

None of these are crime-related. All of these are people being allowed to keep handguns, keep them loaded and assembled, keep them within the reach of children or their own drunken selves. These are people whose first instinct is to kill. This is why who can buy guns and how and where they are stored needs regulation.

[miakakiri]

I'd also like to point out that, even if guns were unavailable, there are other, more deadly methods they could use if they wished.  Including but not limited to home-made bombs.

And how many people can easily make and get hold of the materials for home-made bombs? It's a whole lot easier with an easily accessible gun than almost anything else. Also, in order to figure out how to make them people would have to look it up by which point most people will have had time enough to calm down from the murderous rage stage.
Plus, look at other countries with laws against guns and compare the usage of 'home-made bombs' and all that. Any incidents like that (with the exception of 7-7 iirc which was done by terrorists anyway so it shouldn't factor into this) in the UK at least, are few and still manage to report a lot less people injured or killed overall than the numbers injured or killed by guns in the US every year.
In terms of lesser weapons than guns, there may be an increase in knife crime to an extent (not looked it up yet, but it makes sense) but that still produces a whole lot less dead people than in the US where guns are responsible for more crimes.

Btw, I agree with Miaka on the increased mental healthcare all the way (and in most countries improvement in that is *needed*). Taking the focus off the culprit is also good, but I think that certain people (like police and obviously courts) should still have some access to info about any factors surrounding the culprit (such as mental health issues, family situations, if there were any warning signs and so on) in order to help prevent and look out for more instances of this.

EDIT: RM'd by GinRei

Bomb material: considering flour is explosive when packed tight? And a light-bulb firebomb is not that hard to make? (according to an early episode of Criminal Minds)
On the culprit: I don't mean make information any harder for those that absolutely need it (police, courts) to obtain, but don't hand it out to anyone who DOESN'T absolutely need it (news media, random citizenry)
On knife crime: There was an incident in China on the same day, a man with a knife attacked 28 people, killing 2. Yes, knife crimes are bad, but they tend to have lower fatality rates.

I agree with Manga-san about needing better regulation of gun storage because it would drastically reduce accidents. Unfortunately I'm sure the NRA will come up with some argument against such regulation that enough stupid people will think is valid to block the regulations from going through. I do think guns should be kept in a safe, and ammo in a separate location, and there should be fines for failing to unload a gun before putting it away, or for allowing a child under 12 unsupervised access to any firearm. Along with that we should have gun safety classes as part of every elementary school's core curriculum. Any of those likely to happen? Sadly, no.

[miakakiri]

Please excuse the double-post, but this is truly on a completely different topic:

We got hit on the highway near the beginning of November, and the car took some damage, specifically to the right rear door and wheel-well, including the loss of the hubcap. Archi took the car to get an estimate today (things tend to happen slowly in our household; he also got his driver's licence renewed today because it's his birthday and the last time he renewed it was 5 years ago). He's going to find a place to get a second opinion, because the place he went wanted $3,600 (2,754.82 euro; 2,234.36 pound) for the fix. The car itself (a '99 Toyota Camry) is worth no more than $4,000 (3,060.91 euro; 2,482.62 pound). Possibly less, as we haven't checked in a while. If we can't get the repair for half that price or less, we'll just go looking for a new (to us) car.
Although, that would probably mean an added bill, as we'd have a car payment. Currently we don't, as this car was essentially a birthday/Christmas present from his mother several years ago.
The car runs fine, for the most part, it's just the new damage and the fact that we have no shocks/struts (the suspension system that keeps you from feeling all the bumps and keeps speed bumps from being potentially painful). Not that the suspension is likely to get fixed anytime soon, as it's been deemed non-essential. Fortunately wearing a bodice takes care of speed bump-induced ouches, at least for the upper front. Nothing seems to fix ouches for my lower back....

[Stopwatch]

I'd also like to point out that, even if guns were unavailable, there are other, more deadly methods they could use if they wished.  Including but not limited to home-made bombs.

And how many people can easily make and get hold of the materials for home-made bombs? It's a whole lot easier with an easily accessible gun than almost anything else. Also, in order to figure out how to make them people would have to look it up by which point most people will have had time enough to calm down from the murderous rage stage.
Plus, look at other countries with laws against guns and compare the usage of 'home-made bombs' and all that. Any incidents like that (with the exception of 7-7 iirc which was done by terrorists anyway so it shouldn't factor into this) in the UK at least, are few and still manage to report a lot less people injured or killed overall than the numbers injured or killed by guns in the US every year.
In terms of lesser weapons than guns, there may be an increase in knife crime to an extent (not looked it up yet, but it makes sense) but that still produces a whole lot less dead people than in the US where guns are responsible for more crimes.

Btw, I agree with Miaka on the increased mental healthcare all the way (and in most countries improvement in that is *needed*). Taking the focus off the culprit is also good, but I think that certain people (like police and obviously courts) should still have some access to info about any factors surrounding the culprit (such as mental health issues, family situations, if there were any warning signs and so on) in order to help prevent and look out for more instances of this.

EDIT: RM'd by GinRei

Bomb material: considering flour is explosive when packed tight? And a light-bulb firebomb is not that hard to make? (according to an early episode of Criminal Minds)
On the culprit: I don't mean make information any harder for those that absolutely need it (police, courts) to obtain, but don't hand it out to anyone who DOESN'T absolutely need it (news media, random citizenry)
On knife crime: There was an incident in China on the same day, a man with a knife attacked 28 people, killing 2. Yes, knife crimes are bad, but they tend to have lower fatality rates.

I agree with Manga-san about needing better regulation of gun storage because it would drastically reduce accidents. Unfortunately I'm sure the NRA will come up with some argument against such regulation that enough stupid people will think is valid to block the regulations from going through. I do think guns should be kept in a safe, and ammo in a separate location, and there should be fines for failing to unload a gun before putting it away, or for allowing a child under 12 unsupervised access to any firearm. Along with that we should have gun safety classes as part of every elementary school's core curriculum. Any of those likely to happen? Sadly, no.

The flour thing is a good point actually, I'd totally forgotten about that. However, I don't think that's something that absolutely everyone knows (I mean, we only did it in school last year or something and I'd already utterly forgotten it, people who've not been in school for a while are even more unlikely to) and there are still a few other conditions* that have to be in place for that to work properly. Can't say about the lightbulb one though, I don't watch Criminal Minds :x.

Other than that, I agree with Miaka and Manga

And *hugs* Miaka, that's kinda a lose-lose situation . All I can say is go for what's best in the long term though you're probably already doing that so... :x :/

*

You need *all* of the components in that image for it to work and by confined space, it means a lot more confined than most places. When we did this in class it had to be in a properly sealed tin can and even then it didn't always work. Basically, the flour bomb isn't anywhere as easy as it sounds to make into a weapon.

[sonoci]

Wow, okay, so today sucked.

I've been studying for the last two days for the Calc exam that was scheduled for today. Studied until 2 A.M. last night and woke up at 5:40ish. Obviously not a lot of sleep. It didn't help that I was also feeling stressed and slightly sick. But eventually it gets close to 2 PM so I head to the exam room. I'm there a little early, but no one is there. I wait a bit, then I go and check a computer.

Apparently the exam room was switched...to a room pretty much on the other side of campus. So, I had to run through the buildings to the exit nearest the building I needed to get to and run the rest of the way out in the cold winter weather with nothing but a meager t-shirt on.

Pretty sure I'm going to catch a cold. Also, I'm only barely confident that I passed that final :I

[Callid]

Please excuse the double-post, but this is truly on a completely different topic:

We got hit on the highway near the beginning of November, and the car took some damage, specifically to the right rear door and wheel-well, including the loss of the hubcap. Archi took the car to get an estimate today (things tend to happen slowly in our household; he also got his driver's licence renewed today because it's his birthday and the last time he renewed it was 5 years ago). He's going to find a place to get a second opinion, because the place he went wanted $3,600 (2,754.82 euro; 2,234.36 pound) for the fix. The car itself (a '99 Toyota Camry) is worth no more than $4,000 (3,060.91 euro; 2,482.62 pound). Possibly less, as we haven't checked in a while. If we can't get the repair for half that price or less, we'll just go looking for a new (to us) car.
Although, that would probably mean an added bill, as we'd have a car payment. Currently we don't, as this car was essentially a birthday/Christmas present from his mother several years ago.
The car runs fine, for the most part, it's just the new damage and the fact that we have no shocks/struts (the suspension system that keeps you from feeling all the bumps and keeps speed bumps from being potentially painful). Not that the suspension is likely to get fixed anytime soon, as it's been deemed non-essential. Fortunately wearing a bodice takes care of speed bump-induced ouches, at least for the upper front. Nothing seems to fix ouches for my lower back....

Wouldn't the one who hit you have to pay for the damage? o.O

[miakakiri]

Please excuse the double-post, but this is truly on a completely different topic:

We got hit on the highway near the beginning of November, and the car took some damage, specifically to the right rear door and wheel-well, including the loss of the hubcap. Archi took the car to get an estimate today (things tend to happen slowly in our household; he also got his driver's licence renewed today because it's his birthday and the last time he renewed it was 5 years ago). He's going to find a place to get a second opinion, because the place he went wanted $3,600 (2,754.82 euro; 2,234.36 pound) for the fix. The car itself (a '99 Toyota Camry) is worth no more than $4,000 (3,060.91 euro; 2,482.62 pound). Possibly less, as we haven't checked in a while. If we can't get the repair for half that price or less, we'll just go looking for a new (to us) car.
Although, that would probably mean an added bill, as we'd have a car payment. Currently we don't, as this car was essentially a birthday/Christmas present from his mother several years ago.
The car runs fine, for the most part, it's just the new damage and the fact that we have no shocks/struts (the suspension system that keeps you from feeling all the bumps and keeps speed bumps from being potentially painful). Not that the suspension is likely to get fixed anytime soon, as it's been deemed non-essential. Fortunately wearing a bodice takes care of speed bump-induced ouches, at least for the upper front. Nothing seems to fix ouches for my lower back....

Wouldn't the one who hit you have to pay for the damage? o.O

Considering the weather conditions it was (I think?) ruled no-fault. It was dark and raining and there was hail involved as well. Nasty weather. She lost control of her vehicle and did her best to avoid an accident--thus the reason it was essentially a side-swipe and only damaged the right rear door and wheel well. She could easily have hit me (in the front passenger seat) directly in T-bone impact, which would have been far worse.

((lengthy chain of info about guns and bombs and such))

If you really want to make a bomb, you probably want a book called "The Anarchist's Cookbook" which isn't really all THAT hard to find. You can pick it up for under $20 (12.41 GBP) on Amazon.com in fact. Probably even qualifies for free shipping on orders over $25. No I will not post the link.

[Commi-Ninja]

Re: Guns

Common sense would prevent a lot of incidents like what manga mentioned.  As to stricter gun laws, I think we just need a test.  If you can't pass the test, you can't buy a gun.  You have to re-take the test every time you want to buy a gun/once a year/something like that.  If you can't pass it, your guns are taken away until you can pass it.  Or permanently. Perhaps reimburse the person for the cost of the gun if they aren't allowed to keep it after five failed tests or something, sort of like bail bonds.

[miakakiri]

Re: Guns

Common sense would prevent a lot of incidents like what manga mentioned.  As to stricter gun laws, I think we just need a test.  If you can't pass the test, you can't buy a gun.  You have to re-take the test every time you want to buy a gun/once a year/something like that.  If you can't pass it, your guns are taken away until you can pass it.  Or permanently. Perhaps reimburse the person for the cost of the gun if they aren't allowed to keep it after five failed tests or something, sort of like bail bonds.

Problem being that common sense isn't very common. Especially for young children who haven't yet had a chance to develop it, and drunk people who have destroyed it with alcohol (at least temporarily) which were two of the case types Manga-san mentioned.
A test would probably help.
There is absolutely no possible sane reason for a civilian to have access to an assault rifle, however. These should be flat-out banned.

[Commi-Ninja]

Honestly, it depends on how you define "assault rifle".  Sure, FULLY automatic weapons are not necessary for any regular citizen.  Those should be left entirely up to military/police (which I think they are at the moment).  Now, if you're talking about things like AR-15s, I disagree.  They aren't really "assault rifles", and plenty of people use them for hunting.  

Media likes to consider any "big and scary" looking gun an assault rifle, and they're just plain wrong.

[miakakiri]

Honestly, it depends on how you define "assault rifle".  Sure, FULLY automatic weapons are not necessary for any regular citizen.  Those should be left entirely up to military/police (which I think they are at the moment).  Now, if you're talking about things like AR-15s, I disagree.  They aren't really "assault rifles", and plenty of people use them for hunting. 

Media likes to consider any "big and scary" looking gun an assault rifle, and they're just plain wrong.

Wouldn't be the media defining them, it'd be the gov't and/or military-industrial complex. If it's reasonable for use in hunting animals, then fine, let citizens have access to it but they should be licensed much like cars (I like the test idea). Anything that isn't reasonable for use in hunting isn't acceptable for a civilian to have available.

[Commi-Ninja]

Honestly, it depends on how you define "assault rifle".  Sure, FULLY automatic weapons are not necessary for any regular citizen.  Those should be left entirely up to military/police (which I think they are at the moment).  Now, if you're talking about things like AR-15s, I disagree.  They aren't really "assault rifles", and plenty of people use them for hunting. 

Media likes to consider any "big and scary" looking gun an assault rifle, and they're just plain wrong.

Wouldn't be the media defining them, it'd be the gov't and/or military-industrial complex. If it's reasonable for use in hunting animals, then fine, let citizens have access to it but they should be licensed much like cars (I like the test idea). Anything that isn't reasonable for use in hunting isn't acceptable for a civilian to have available.

The government will define it based on the media.  They have no choice, really, since that's where the ideas are coming from.

As far as "reasonable", what is considered reasonable?  Can nobody own a pistol because few people hunt with them?  Let me just say I disagree with disallowing civilians to own firearms.  Not everyone is a gun-toting psycho; in fact, most people who own guns aren't, otherwise there would be a lot more shootings than there are.  Besides, what about home defense?  If someone breaks into my house and has a gun, I'd rather have a gun of my own to defend myself over a kitchen knife or something.  That phrase, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" comes to mind.

Long story short:  taking away guns from everyone over the few criminals who use them for nefarious purposes is not okay with me.  If a criminal wants to commit a crime with a gun, that criminal will find a way to get a gun no matter what kind of restrictions the government places on gun ownership.

[miakakiri]

Honestly, it depends on how you define "assault rifle".  Sure, FULLY automatic weapons are not necessary for any regular citizen.  Those should be left entirely up to military/police (which I think they are at the moment).  Now, if you're talking about things like AR-15s, I disagree.  They aren't really "assault rifles", and plenty of people use them for hunting. 

Media likes to consider any "big and scary" looking gun an assault rifle, and they're just plain wrong.

Wouldn't be the media defining them, it'd be the gov't and/or military-industrial complex. If it's reasonable for use in hunting animals, then fine, let citizens have access to it but they should be licensed much like cars (I like the test idea). Anything that isn't reasonable for use in hunting isn't acceptable for a civilian to have available.

The government will define it based on the media.  They have no choice, really, since that's where the ideas are coming from.

As far as "reasonable", what is considered reasonable?  Can nobody own a pistol because few people hunt with them?  Let me just say I disagree with disallowing civilians to own firearms.  Not everyone is a gun-toting psycho; in fact, most people who own guns aren't, otherwise there would be a lot more shootings than there are.  Besides, what about home defense?  If someone breaks into my house and has a gun, I'd rather have a gun of my own to defend myself over a kitchen knife or something.  That phrase, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" comes to mind.

Long story short:  taking away guns from everyone over the few criminals who use them for nefarious purposes is not okay with me.  If a criminal wants to commit a crime with a gun, that criminal will find a way to get a gun no matter what kind of restrictions the government places on gun ownership.

I'm not proposing we disallow all firearms, but the assault rifle ban needs to be re-instituted. There is no sane reason for your average joe who isn't in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/whatnot to even have access to an AK-47 (for example). There was a rule against this, but it got repealed some while back (not that Loud-san would believe me on this, but considering the TV was talking this evening about reinstating that rule, it's apparently not in effect at the moment).

This is all I will say on guns, I am DONE with the subject and will no longer respond. Thank you for your understanding.

[mangaluva]

I'm all for the ban on assault rifles, at least. Also, there isn't really a need to keep a hunting rifle in your home unless you live on hunting grounds. In Scotland, almost nobody who has a hunting license keeps their own gun, because hunting estates tend to keep a selection of rifles on-site for hunters to choose from when they arrive. The only person that I've ever known who keeps a gun at home was a farmer, who only carried it around when a fox or badger had been seen on his property.

The thing about the criminal element in the US having so many guns is that greater restrictions on personal ownership of guns would make it harder for them to have guns. Half a million guns are stolen in the US every year, many of them from private residences that keep loaded guns out. It'll be much harder to illegally obtain a gun when you can't steal it out of some schmuck's drawer. Yes, some will still get guns. Gangsters in Glasgow have guns. But they have to purchase them from the black market, which is expensive. As such, guns don't often wind up in the hands of random burglars knocking over houses for coke/vodka money. The last shooting incident I can recall hearing about in Scotland was a gangster shooting a known drug dealer. If nothing else, it'll vastly reduce your chances of getting shot unless you start dealing cocaine, in which case, IMO, you're asking for it a bit.

Also, I agree with the idea of some kind of aptitude test to make sure that people are going to store and use their gun properly.