Is the shooting of the Australian man in Oklahoma a race issue, a gun issue, both or neither
I'm curious as to what you think. I'm also curious as to some information about you. Please if you would not be shy or sensitive or politically correct or defensive. I will start: My family originated from England in the 1300s then through France then through Germany to the U.S. in the early 1800s. I am 56 years old. I am a pacifist. I do not believe in guns for anyone for any reason. I think the shooting was equally motivated by a hatred of white-skinned people and a complete disregard for human life made possible by easy access to guns.
I believe it was probably race motivated and I do not like guns either. But if guns are comp,etely outlawed then only the outlaws will have them.
I have heard that argument about guns, but isn't that paranoia? Should we all be violent and mistrust everyone because one of "them" might kill us? It seems we go deeper into the hole by arguing everyone must be armed. Kindergarteners too?
No, RealityTalk...it's not paranoia; it's common sense. If the Colonists had not been armed (or had access to arms), this country would never have existed. There's REALITY for you....
Yes it is paranoia, not common sense. If the British had no weapons, the colonists wouldn't need weapons either. You suggest we live the wild, wild west. Let's arm everyone. Hey, you might have a tank, so we all should have tanks too.
The FACT is that governments will ALWAYS be armed. That's the way it is. And as long as corruptible governments have means of using force, the citizens will need to be armed. What do Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc, have in common?
You are correct lesliebyars. Youth learn to live the life broadcast by their parents and environment. These youth appear to have been enjoined through their immoral environment where life is not considered to be sacred. To them it is simply a joke.
There are commonalities, but not guns. Hitler came to power inciting the impoverished masses against the Jews. Mao united the workers. It was persuasion & ideologies, not weapons that brought these leaders to power.
What they have in common is that they murdered their own people through force of government. The the majority of the victims were unarmed.
Apparently, it was a boredom issue. He was an easy target - they were behind him as the cowards they are, and so would never have know what hit him.
So it more likely a GUN issue - you've got bored kids with access to guns, who are implusive (because teenage boys just are), and making really really stupid decisions that cost both the Aussie kid, and the three idiots their lives in two different ways.
I don't believe in gun language. I don't think so is this suitable language to communicate to other person. i m also pacifist person and believe in peaceful language.
In the event that you are ever assaulted by a violent person (God forbid), make sure you tell him you are a pacifist---he'll probably put down the gun, chain, or club and let you go home in peace....
In your world even 5 yr. olds are armed to the teeth. Everyone should be armed to protect everyone from everyone else who is armed. That makes good sense. Don't solve a problem just make it worse.
It is interesting that in cities such as Chicago, Washington DC and Baltimore, where gun laws are strict, there is a far higher percentage of murder than in Kennesaw, Georgia; where every household is required by law to own a firearm.
That's the answer Jeff, arm everyone. I used to love watching those cowboy movies where everyone was armed to the teeth & shot anyone that they didn't like. Let's all live in fear. I'm buying a missile tomorrow; that will keep kids off my lawn.
Live in fear? I don't live in fear. Where does that come from? Can you dispute the Kennesaw results? Kennesaw allows anyone to refuse to own a gun. The law is merely symbolic. Yet, effective. Would a "Gun Free Zone" sign be better, you think?
Let's see, Kennesaw population 29000. Chicago - 2.7 million. Detroit - 707000. D.C. - 601000. Kennesaw also has a high growth rate in jobs, income & education. There are reasons for everything if you look beyond what only you want to see.
I'm speaking of percentages. Why would living in a bigger city make you want to shoot someone more often than if you live in a smaller city? ...what makes someone pick up an inanimate object and kill in Chicago and not in Kennesaw? The gun? No.
Jeff, Kennesaw is not Chicago. There is no comparison; research the demographics & socioeconomic differences. If you think you have the answer to gun problems in this Country then by all means suggest Kennesaw to the Feds. I believe it won't fly
Talk, you response to my comment was just plain exaggeration. No one is advocating the handing out of firearms to 5 yr. olds! The fact is that violent criminals will always be around...and you don't have the right to take self-defense away from peop.
CS, you are advocating arming everyone & one commentator remarked being certified by NRA at age 8. It is not a stretch to parents arming children to "protect" them. More devices designed to kill is not an answer to killings by weapons.
Learning how to use a firearm at a young age is very different than simply handing them a weapon and letting them do whatever they want with it whenever they want.
I assure you Chicago, and all their gun control, is not the answer, either. My point is not so much from a pro gun stance (which I have), but a degradation morals, ethics and values. The gun is the same now as it was 100 years ago. Morals aren't.
Jeff, I don't mean to b argumentative, but guns have changed over the years. An AK-47 is not the same as a one-shot little ball loaded in a musket. And morals have been redefined over & over historically, going from bad-good-bad-good-as defined.
There have been semi-automatic guns for well over 100 years. Yet, gun violence has escalated in the last 15 years or so. You're safe with me and a pistol. You're not safe with a criminal and a pistol. Same pistol, different morals.
The forefathers did not anticipate weaponry like we have today, nor the populations & technology. But I am glad to know I am safe with you.
Whether a rifle is single-shot or semi-auto is not a reason to restrict firearms ownership and use. Thousands of automatic guns are owned in this country...funny that these guns haven't driven their owners mad with blood lust.....
Caleb, lol. We all know guns don't kill, people kill, right? Funny thing, just the other day I saw a gun pick up a person & throw him at someone. Damn near killed the guy. Seriously. A gun is a "people" instrument designed for people to kill.
Neither, Three mischievous punks were responsible. It has nothing to do with racism or firearms, just people with a horrid disregard for human life. We are always going to have such people, reminds me much of the sensational murder of Bobby Franks back in the 1920's by 'bored' thrill seekers such as these.
If you watch television or movies to extent we probably all do, where we see shootings, and bombings and all types of violence day in and day out, is it any wonder that the more gullible and susceptible among us think it the normal, everyday way human life works. Television programmers, news-selectors, indeed just about everyone, seems to focus deliberately on the worst aspects of humanity rather than the best. In a city of 4,000,000 people for example where there might be two shootings and a knifing and perhaps a rape, guess what gets to the news? It's not the 3,999,996 people who had a normal,everyday routine day.
There is a sort of paranoi sweeping the world and it seems to be getting worse, a paranoi of fear. The world is no worse now - in fact probably better - than it was twenty, fifty or a hundred years ago, but the focus always seems to be on those things which will probably never happen to the vast majority of us. You see, good news isn't news. Unless it's something cute like saving a dolphin or a kitten is distress.
Those three kids probably hardly gave the ramifications of their actions a thought. It would have been almost a 'spur of the moment thing' like taking a pot-shot at a rabbit. The really terrible thing is the utter calousness and uncaring nature of this trio. But none of us can stand back and say that we haven't, ourselves, contributed to enabling our society and their world to become the way it is.
I totally agree with the issue of violence on television. When children are seeing killings on television from the time they are young, they think that is normal and think there are no consequences to their actions.
Well written Tom. I cannot disagree with one word you wrote. We are all complicit indirectly. Violence permeates the media & society in general. Ethics in sports & business is second to violence & victory. Why is peace & good news so
There are three sets of explanations coming out
1) They were bored and shot him for fun
2) It was racist since one of the three had made racist tweets
3) It was a gang initiation
As to (1) The police say it was what the kids told them. But In the UK Police have dismissed Race Riots as "mere criminality"
As to (2) One of the group seems to be white which weakens that theory
As to (3) There was allegedly a hit list but why would an Australian be on it? Or do gang initiations simply involve killing someone, and who it is does not matter.
So each theory has weaknesses. Pending further information I would favour (1)
Which makes it a gun issue. In the UK gun crimes plummeted once the 1937 gun control act came into effect.
I will not get into discussing whether gun control, education, or better control of the sale or disposal of guns is the solution.
I agree that guns are at least part of the issue. If a gun was not available to these boys, they could not have shot the man. Why are guns SO important to so many in this country that gun violence is rationalized away.
RealityTalk, perhaps that question is best directed to someone who has used a gun to successfully protect their life; or the life of another, from someone who was trying to harm them. This happens all the time.
So you must be hit by a nuclear weapon to decide nuclear weapons are dangerous? You must be stabbed by a knife to decide a 5 yr old should not carry a knife to school? Your logic leaves much to be desired.
If you speak to someone who has defended themselves with a gun against someone who would have killed them if they hadn't had it; such as a 100 lb woman vs. a 250lb rapist, perhaps she could give you a more relevant answer as why it was so important.
Again Jeff, I'm not going to dispute gun laws w/you. Please re-read the question. I'm asking if the killing of an innocent man was the result of a race or gun issue, not whether you should own a gun. Do you have an answer or not?
you asked why guns were so important. I answered. As for the question you just asked me to re-read, I already answered it.
For Jeff: The question: "Is the shooting of the Australian man in Oklahoma a race issue, a gun issue, both or neither."
Race: yes. One of the killers has social media full of racist hate agaisnt whites. Gun: No. A gun is an inanimate object. We do not have a gun control problem. We have a sin problem. Our morals have gone in the toilet.
I think its an issue of being at the wrong place at a wrong time. Its hard to say if racism play a role but it could have.
I am against gun because it will make you do things that you wont normally do under a given circumstances.
Anyone buying a gun without a good reason should have to undergo a psychological examination. Same for anyone applying for a driving licence.
I think most men who buy guns have issues with the size of their phallus.
“The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. …Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and
I agree that gun availability makes for opportunities that may never have arisen.
cebutouristspot, guns do not MAKE you do anything. That is a cop-out. Easy access to knives or rocks does not make someone "feel" like going out and stabbing or bludgeoning someone.
It is the availability of weapons that make the opportunities a possible practicality. It is naive & cliche to say "guns don't kill, people kill." With no nuclear weapons whole cities wouldn't die, but let's all have nuclear weapons - 2nd Amendme
Talk, weapons will always be available. Government regulations only give them MORE CONTROL over the citizens who try to obey the law. Criminals LIKE gun regulation---it makes them safer. Why won't you see that?
The issue here is neither about guns or race or right or wrong , this thread is mimicking the media in it's sad use of 'playing poker with certain issues !
"Hey lets call it a race issue " but being careful to use only certain acts of violence that seem racial .
"Hey lets use the gun control card " instead of looking at the most important reality , fatherless homes where kids know little about morals .
Every person that I've ever known with a gun are law abiding sportsmen ! Who actually eat what they kill , There's nothing wrong with that .
My family originated in Germany and went to Scotland around 800 they migrated to what would one day become the US in 1743 then to Nova Scotia before settling in California in the mid 1800s.
I grew up around guns and learned to shoot at a very early age 5-6 getting my NRA certificate at 8.
I wouldn't call myself a gun nut, before I sold off some of them I had maybe 12 including both rifles and handguns.
I ran a business in an area considered "very bad" for close to 30 years and carried a gun daily for all of those years.
That fact "saved my bacon" 5 times during that time, I never had to fire a shot but I wouldn't have hesitated. I've been through 2 major race riots (as well as 5 race riots in my high school) that came within 1 block of my business and I was there and armed to protect my business with what the press loves to call an assault rifle with several 20 round clips. A number of my friends and fellow business owners successfully defended their businesses in a like manner firing a number of warning shots but not hitting anyone (intentionally).
I am a very firm believer in gun ownership and the right to carry and always will be. Though I stopped renewing when I went expat I was a long time member of the NRA and ILA (the political action wing of the NRA).
As much as the press loves to speak badly of the NRA they teach gun safety to hundreds of thousands of people young and old for free and have since 1871.
As to the shooting it was racially motivated, like the vast majority of crime was committed by blacks with no moral grounding. I realize that such a statement sounds terribly racist but the fact is that I don't hate anyone, but blacks in the US commit 75+% of crimes while being only around 15-18% of the population. It is unfortunate that these thugs had a gun and they should fry for what they did. At minimum life without. Its bad parenting
There are roughly the same number of guns in the US as the population something like 310 million in about 50% of households.
While the headlines make the US sound like some sort of killing field if you take away gang on gang / criminal on criminal shootings and suicides the number of deaths by gun isn't really very high. In fact if you take out blacks and Hispanics the crime rates are quite low.
Interestingly the states that have liberalized CCWs rights and enacted reasonable self defense laws like "stand your ground" have much lower crime rates than areas with strict gun laws.
Great historical backgnd. I am anti guns, but I understand your view pt. & history. It is interesting that many people grow up poor & don't resort to violence. A poor socioeconomic upbringing is not a valid excuse; it is merely an excuse.
Good explanation, Borsia. I'd like to add that people who advocate restricting constitutional rights (in whatever form) are not the friends of liberty, but of bondage.
The arming of citizens in the 2nd Amendment was at a time when a standing military did not exist. It was meant to defend our nation from other nations, not to defend Americans against Americans. It has little to do with liberty or bondage.
Where does it state in the 2nd that it was meant merely to fend off foreign invaders?
Jeff, I'm not going to argue Constitutional law. Read historical accounts. There is always a reason & intent behind every law whether local, State, Federal or Constitutional. Again, I'm waiting 4 your answer to the question asked.
I bet you don't want to argue the 2nd. Certainly not with the foreign invaders line. Answer what question? I've answered each that's been asked. Read through the answers. It's right there. Goodnight. I'm off to bed. Enjoyed the debate.
I probably should go to bed, but I'm usually up until 2 a.m. Good night to you too, Jeff. Thank you for visiting the site and contributing your comments.
You are partially correct, Talk. Dictators existed during the time of the Founding Fathers. They understood that firearms were necessary to defend themselves from all enemies---whether dictators or foreign armies.
Borsia-you are correct. Those environments that permit the individual to arm themselves legally have much lower crime rates. The criminal always goes after the victim where less risk is involved. Deterring crime requires direct action, not reaction.
Two houses sit side by side. One has a sign next to the front steps that reads "Gun Free Zone". The other has a sign that reads "This House Protected By Smith & Wesson".
Which house do you think gives a criminal pause?
We are so far off the question, but I love your scenario! LOL.
Why a race issue? One attacker was black, another was biracial and another was black.
I think the race argument had to do with tweets of one of the perpetrators that distinctly manifested a hatred towards whites which was the skin color of the victim, not the shooter.
There is talk that they were stopped from attacking another intended victim who was black.
Can white on white be considered a race issue? When a group of individuals attack another individual, the individuals of the group have differing reasons for joining in the action. Race was one of those reasons, so the group is racist.
I believe this act to be an ignorance issue that breeds racism, psychic murder syndrome, and abnormal behavior. Society has become a mental pot filled with harmful false self development due to the enslavement of the poor through welfare systems that omit the local church community. This elimination of moral teaching and devotion to the 10 commandments has created many avenues of despair where youth are left to their own upbringing. Therefore, the youth are taught by the immoral community to follow a path of destruction rather than one of advancement. Without proper leadership, the USA continues to suffer from these horrendous acts because there is little done by the nation to divert such activity. It is the immoral evil community that is constructed by the current politicians that have led to our demonic society. My family originated in the land now known as the USA. My family always preserved and protected the community through moral training of the youth. Our social model requires youth to begin a work program as soon as they are able to handle the project load. Until the child reaches work level they are assigned as a helper to an adult who supervises their training 16 hours a day. Under this process no child has the time to join a gang or perform horrendous acts. Society must restore itself through this type of training control at the local level. The main goal for a moral society is based on the following "water your own tree so that it bears great fruit and you will survive the future."
I think something more than mere bordom had something to do with this. It could have been a gang initiation as one Hubber has mentioned. I do believe in gun control for this country and this type of killing is why. Armed only with knives this boy would have had a better chance of living. I am deeply saddened and embarrassed for my country. I extend my condolences to this boy's family and friends.
Yes, it was a race issue. At least one of the two black youth had social media accounts full of racist comments, which indicated he had been picking fights and assaulting, specifically, white people since the Zimmerman trial.
No, it was not a gun issue. A gun is inanimate. We do not have a gun issue. We have a sin issue. We've had guns for years, and, until recently, we have not witnessed the sort of shootings we've had in very recent history.
Morals have changed. Attitudes about life and what it means have changed. The inanimate object has not changed.
I disagree on the gun issue & there is no question a gun is not organic, but I agree on the race issue and there being a social issue. Allowing nearly anyone in a populous socially interconnected world to arm themselves at will is dangerous.
Chicago, Illinois = very strict gun laws. Very high murder rate.
Kennesaw, Georgia = very pro gun laws. Very very low violent crime rate.
Your right Jeff, more guns are the answer. By the way, this question is not "should we or shouldn't we have gun laws." The question is about why an innocent man was gunned down. This is not the place to promote your agenda for gun advocacy.
You don't want different opinions. Odd you mention this isn't the place for what you call my pro gun advocacy, yet, in the original question, started by you, there's your anti gun stance.
Jeff, if your read my backgrnd to the question as you say you did, I was asking for bkgrnd about commentators as to who they are so we can all understand a little better where comments r coming from. I did not promote anti-gun, but defined me.
In the course of our discussion, I have defined myself as pro-gun. So you should understand where my comments are coming from. It's obvious we aren't going to come to agreement here, so, this back and forth is going nowhere.
Jeff, I appreciate your giving me your backgnd. All I really want to focus on pertaining to this question is the 3 brats, the innocent Australian and why they shot & killed him. I want to hear you. The gun issue itself is something else.
It's has nothing to do with guns...and unless they say it was motivated by race, it will be impossible to know. What I am convinced of is that had the shooter been white and the victim black...The race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson would be there marching already. And the media would be more than happy to report on them stirring up trouble. That is the only real race issue that I have seen for sure. The double standard on how these incidents are portrayed. If they were motivated by racism...it will come out eventually. Although the media won't be quick to cover that anyway. So unless your looking for the info...you won't hear about it.
I believe this is mostly a horrific parenting issue which is usually unaddressed and only worsens as these children age. The cold blooded murder of the Australian should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also believe the parents should be brought up on negligent parenting charges as well because they created/allowed this violent mess for society to deal with. Had they done a better (if not their best) job as parents, this murder would not have occurred.
Further, the possibility of holding parents accountable for the actions of their underage kids will force the NUMEROUS lackluster parents in this country to be more involved and hold their kids accountable lest they be forced into court and or jail right along with them. I am absolutely sick and tired of all of these people who become parents before they are ready mentally and financially, married or not. As for race, while one of the guys said he hated white people online, one of the perps is white or racially mixed. It's possible that the other two perps held this view but it must also be said that it's possible that they don't. The white or mixed kid may hate white people but many consider it less likely. Only each of them can say whether they are racist and that has yet to come out.
I'm an American lady who has had two relatives (my uncles) serve in TWO tours of duty in Vietnam and my grandfather served in WWII. As a little girl I grew up with guns in the home and a healthy respect for them and the rights of others whether or not I liked them as individuals. I have seen, heard, and personally experienced cases where guns are used to save lives. This was the case for my two sisters and myself when we were young girls and a burglar chose to attempt breaking in and my father shot him. If one is staring down the barrel of a gun, they most certainly would like to respond on that level.
I am just sharing my experience, I'd never pull my gun on anyone unless my life was truly in danger and I had absolutely no other choice/route of escape. This line of thinking can potentially save me from making a grievous mistake but also gives the jack arses who like to prey on women a chance to turn away and make a better choice before the situation worsens. Guns should be used against those who refuse to listen to reason AND who put me in physical jeopardy...these types of "people" have always existed and will always exist.
by Audrey Selig 6 years ago
Three bored teens killed Australian college student. Do recent incidents call for better gun controlThe student was on a baseball scholarship in U. S.
by Mike Russo 16 months ago
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
Is the riots in Milwaukee a race issue or a crime issue or an economic issue?Once the details of this police shooting is known, what is your opinion of what went on in the immediate aftermath of riots and mayhem? What do you think is causing this?
by adamknows 7 years ago
What is your standpoint on gun control?
by Adamowen 7 years ago
What's your opinion on gun control in the U.S?
by Don Bobbitt 4 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|