Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Fuck You Guns

Journal Entry: Fri Dec 14, 2012, 2:33 PM

Article -->…

I agree wholeheartedly with this particular article.

Not only is it time to talk about gun control, it is long, long past due, to talk about gun control.

'Guns don't kill people; people kill people' - yeah sure, but guns make it obscenely easy for people that kill people, to kill a whole fucking lot of people, in a disgustingly short amount of time and with no effort at all.

An ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.  Elementary school.


People are sick.

CSS Journal Coded by FleX177

  • Listening to: Alex Day
  • Watching: Top Gear
  • Playing: Final Fantasy Tatics
  • Drinking: Vanilla Chai
Add a Comment:
DRa90NBoi Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm late to the discussion, but I'd like to throw in my opinion if I may. Tragic incident indeed.

Sure, let's talk about guns (not necessarily about gun control). Let's talk about how they can be used to kill and that they are serious business and not a toy. Let's talk about the different ways guns are portrayed in different cultures and forms of media. Let's talk about them so we are not ignorant about the effects of guns, both fact and fiction. I'm all about talking about something we all don't understand--that's cool.

What I'm not for is about punishing every law-abiding citizen for the mistake of a few. That's too much of mob-rule democracy and leg-jerk reaction. I would take the more logical approach and find the source of the issue than to jump to conclusions. Who was the shooter, find out about him. Where did he live, what were the conditions he was under. Was he on psychotropic drugs? (Drugs are usually a huge cause of incidents such as this, but the media tends to pay no mind to it and propagates the issue more about guns--Big Pharma has a huge grip on our medical culture, hint, hint.) We seriously need to look at the use and adverse effects of intense pharmaceutical drugs to treat mental illnesses--put more research into psychological disorders and how to treat them properly, and less on issuing the drugs to solve all the problems (because they usually cause more troubles than fix them).

Instead of celebrating, glorifying and perverting the shooter in the media, why don't we make note of all the victims by name and face, then make the investigation of the shooter as boring as possible? The problem is that there's too much attention on the shooter that other potential shooters may be influenced by this and you'll get more and more cases of tragic mass shooting events. The solution is to prevent it from happening, not punish everyone and expect it to go away. It's just as frivolous as the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism"--you seriously would rather have a war on non-tangible ideas that can't fight back? So a "war on guns" is a reasonable answer? I honestly don't think so.

If you have studied history, you'll know that the Prohibition of Alcohol did not stop the alcohol-related crime, but created a boom in the illegal smuggling rings of alcohol products. That resulted in more violent crimes, more corruption in authority, and a growth in the criminal mob culture. The same will happen if guns are banned--one modern example of that is Mexico. Mexico has harsh gun ban laws and yet have you heard the incidents of mass shootings and gang-related gun warfare due to the drug and weapons trafficking down there? Maybe not, the news doesn't report on it much, if at all anymore.

What if we take this tragic situation and turned it around--What if all the teachers were trained in the use of firearms and had licenses to conceal carry? If the shooter came in, he wouldn't have had a chance to have such a high body count and the teachers didn't have to result in turning into a human shield to protect their kids. Yet, if teachers with guns are too extreme for some people, let's say there was actually armed security in the school. From what I've heard, the school was built very securely, with buzzer locks, gates, and everything--where was the security during the shooting anyway? Who gave the okay to let the guy in? Obviously a school built like a fortress can't keep gun wielders out. I've also heard there were multiple suspects, multiple potential shooters. Having a lone gunman is always a common "official story" when a story first "breaks"--I put these terms in quotations because sometimes the media likes to play the public for fools, so and "official story" could be a made-up lie or and otherwise confused take on what actually happened and stories don't usually break within a few minutes of the incident, it usually takes some time for the info to get around and retains it's accuracy. Either way, it's so easy to blame one guy to glorify him in the news than it is to show that it was a coordinated effort by multiple people--they don't want us to start connecting the dots because we'll end up finding the source of the problem, so they ignore certain details so we only get less than half of what happened and make up the rest of the story in our heads. So with all the information, will you still blame the gun?

Blaming the gun is a really easy cop-out to looking and actually investigating the situation. Putting a gun in a person's hands does not make that person a killer with mass-murder on their mind. That's like blaming the source of the problem of overeating is spoons and forks, knives and napkins--that's just silly. Obesity is cause by the foods the person eats and the person themselves making the decision to each such foods, how often, etc. So in that respect, it's who is holding the gun that's the issue. Take some accountability, please. Guns don't kill people--people kill people. We are all responsible for our actions, we can prevent such incidents from happening without having to throw away our own security and ultimately, our Constitutional rights. Once all our rights go, what else will go?

I encourage everyone to open their minds and look into this more before jumping to a final decision blindly. There will be consequences to every action you take and this is no exception. In my opinion, there will be more mass shootings because of how hyped-up this shooter is in the media (making the body count number more important than the name of each innocent victim) and the public will be so afraid, so paranoid, that they will allow the gun bans. Once the gun bans happen, it'll only get worse from there. No one will be able to protect themselves from the new illegal guns that will suddenly pop up everywhere, toted by criminals and power-abusive authorities. Remember, making something illegal isn't always for your benefit, whether you'd like to think it does.
Izz-noxfox Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
There was that young man on Batman's release day, now this one --plus all the others before, Colombine, etc...
Seen from Europe it sounds just crazy, but we know all these deaths won't change the things, that Southerners won't give up their weapons so easily.
But seriously, here it's much more difficult to get a firearm and obviously, we don't have such problems so often. We had some Jew children killed in their primary school last year in France, the killer was a young man too but he was also a trained islamist terrorist who wanted to affiliate with Al Qaida somehow. There was also an attack in Belgium that killed two teens and a granny, but there it was a criminal's last "fuck you society", the man was dealing weapons... and used them.

But if a stupid young dude feels that his life is shitty, that people don't give him enough attention, he can't just take a riffle and go kill people like in a video game. They want to be famous, to mark history even if it's with blood of the innocent. Those people should be mocked even after their death, nationally humiliated to discourage other stupid young people to do the same thing, because it's becoming a fashion! There's no honor in such acts, only horror and shame, such acts are only the proof that you failed as human being. And you'll be remember as nothing but a looser.
Batichi Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
In my opinion, I believe that there is a good difference between a weapon and a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool that can be used as a weapon, and a pistol is a weapon that can be used as a tool in a desperate situation. I believe all responsible individuals should have access to these, but in moderation and with proper training. Guns are an easy way to kill things, but should only be reserved for hunting animals. At most there should only be one handgun per qualified adult per residence. It can be a pain in the ass to even get a drivers license, why isn't' it the same way with guns? Every citizen should have an access to a defensive weapon, but there is a line between defense and paranoia. And yes, I know most crimes are committed with unregistered guns and that sort of stuff, but at the same time it seems like there are too many guns already to keep track of them all.
prettyflour Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I hope that bastard rots in hell. Actually, I wish he was still alive so that I could hand him over to all of the parents of the deceased children so that they could torture him violently.
Izz-noxfox Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I wouldn't suggest torture but humiliation. Torture would make him a martyr and that's what he wanted, to be famous. Humiliation, denial and mocking is what would really hurt him, to be labeled as a failure, a looser, because that's all he is. Also it would be good to do this to discourage other young men to do the same, because it's getting quite trendy. There was the Batman dude few months ago...
Kraschman1111 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually as we learn more it would appear that the shooter in question was one seriously messed up young man with a lot of serious issues.

It's not remotely an excuse for what he chose to do, but for myself even as a right-winger, general proponent of the 2nd Amendment, and believer in stiff sentences for violent crimes, it's at least a serious reminder not to be too quick to pass judgement on others. Who's to say that any of us, were we not from the same situation/life as this guy, wouldn't have snapped and done the same thing ourselves...
prettyflour Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I am going to politely disagree. I look at myself, a woman who overcame a dreadful childhood filled with poverty and two parents who were drug addicts and alcoholics and I CHOSE to do something different with my life.

Regardless of any issues he may have had, the killer invited judgement by making drastic choices that included opening fire in an elementary school and killing 26 people in the process. He knew exactly what would happen if he pointed a gun at a five year old and pulled the trigger repeatedly. And that is exactly what he did and that is exactly why millions of people will judge him harshly, including myself.

Although I can not speak to the mindset and/or problems/life situation of the man who murdered twenty innocent children, I'm just saying that he CHOSE to commit murder and I believe that he took the easy way out by taking his own life.

He was a fucking coward.
Kraschman1111 Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
You obviously had the skills to make better choices. Perhaps he didn't. There are some reports I've seen indicating he had serious mental health issues. That might well explain his inability to make appropriate choices compared to say you or I.

Not saying that what he did was in any way forgivable, but it's a mistake to be too quick to judge others when we haven't shared their experiences.
prettyflour Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Sorry, that last line wasn't so polite. My apologies. This happened very close to my home and is obviously a very sensitive subject for me. My apologies for my use of harsh language.
nervene Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
A sick tragedy committed by a sick person.

I don't feel that gun control is such a simple black-and-white issue like the loudest opinions on both sides suggest (and like I used to believe, myself), or that because we can draw similarities between amounts of guns and these kinds of tragedies that they are necessarily interlinked, among other more fundamental factors like the nation's behavioural health trends. Of course these could not happen without guns, there is no denying that guns make killing quite easy, but I also think it must be recognized that it is not the gun that makes someone kill; that it is within the mind that these decisions are made, and that banning/highly limiting guns for everyone to attempt to curb this from happening might not necessarily be treating the actual issue, but more akin to treating a symptom of illness rather than the illness itself. And I certainly understand that that's a lot harder to fix than taking weapons away, but that it may be the only way that addresses the issue directly rather than indirectly.

When people are stabbed we do not say "fuck knives", or at least I have never heard that; we seem to intuitively grasp that it's the person holding the knife that is what the anger should be directed at. No, knives can't slay so many so easily, of course, but despite that the carnage is increased with guns, we are left with similar scenarios of someone harming others with a tool; why do we seem more prone to blame the tool in the case of guns - at what point on the knives <-> guns damage spectrum did a significant amount of the blame switch from the person to the weapon? Can we quantify the damage needed for this change in judgement and perspective? How many people must die in an event for us to treat the tool equally at fault as the person who used it? And does that necessarily make sense? I question this not in an attempt to reveal a solution to crimes that involve knives or guns, but as a psychological game of sorts to reveal how we, ourselves, are thinking.

I feel that the issue is not as simple as either of the most prominent sides at conflict on this topic will tend to accept. I am certainly not saying guns play no role, but I do feel that it makes a lot of sense to consider that it is the people doing these things to blame for why these situations occur. Surely the solution is somewhere in the grey, or perhaps a different color altogether (if we will subscribe to the idea that grey is a color).
Izz-noxfox Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
In Europe it's hard to legally own a gun and we have much less people killed by guns. If you're not a criminal, why would you need a gun? To defend yourself? Well, there are alarms, teargaz, tazer and the police for this. And if someone threatens you with a weapon it's better to let him take your jewels than your life. Also if it appeared that you had a gun (even legally) and shot a robber who wasn't actually threatening your life, you might be the one in trouble because self-defence must be appropriate to the threat.

Here it's the life that matters most and making illegual things that are likely to facilitate killing obviously works. It doesn't take the same guts to shoot someone, than to stab him with a knife.

Also, if the people are not able to control themselves and not kill each other, isn't it the role of the governement to ensure that they respect the law with some repression? Cocaine, heroine and such drugs are illegual because they're bad for society. Do the USA have state that can prove that guns owned by citizen saved more lives than they caused deplorable deaths?
I think USA supports guns because it's in your culture and your culture (which is quite materialistic) isn't really meant for peace, as of now.
nervene Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012
"Also, if the people are not able to control themselves and not kill each other, isn't it the role of the governement to ensure that they respect the law with some repression?"

The overwhelming majority of people who have guns here are not killing people; if they were we would all be dead in a few weeks and other countries would be staking claims to what is left behind.

I think it is great that Europe does not have as many gun-related crimes, but is not the same environment as the U.S. Here, we are completely saturated with guns. From what I recall my neighbor's gun count is at 15 now; to ban them, from my perspective, would be a representation of "too little too late". The opportunity to prevent guns from leaking into every crevasse has long passed; to pretend that they can be rid from us is to pretend the present condition does not exist, and to suppose that we can remove them would be doing so very-primarily to people who have done nothing wrong, and would not do anything wrong.

Freedoms we agree to have will often have associated deaths via exercising that freedom, directly or indirectly; if we must run from/ban everything that gets people killed/can be used to kill then I would expect a future far worse than the present we have now. If body count is what drives our passion to rid society of its vices then alcohol is well, well ahead of guns on the chopping block; except, it isn't - we kind of gave up on that with Prohibition and all. I believe the Benjamin quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." is one to keep in mind rather than writing him off as a long-dead guy living in an old world.

Bear in mind that I am one who would not mind if guns vanished; I've fired them and have found them entertaining, but I have little resembling an attachment. I would like to take the position that trying to get rid of them all could/would be successful and result in the intended outcome, but the reality in front of and around me suggests to me otherwise - that whatever actions are taken must be moderate in nature if they are to have positive effect - that treating the issue as if it is a matter of a yes or no answer, and treating the things we have as being more at fault than the ways we think (and, primarily, act) is delusional.

And I am magnifying the 'other side' of the argument more because I do believe it is important to consider, when most of the responses I'd read were along the same vein of "yeah, fuck guns" (not just in this journal but in other social outlets that have spoken out since the shooting); that it's looking a bit one-sided when I don't feel it is a healthy issue to be so one-sided with - a form of devil's advocate, to stir up some counter-points instead of letting this rather complex issue boil down into what I often feel are two rather empty black-and-white sides that might not fully understand the substance involved in the issue in order to have an sufficiently educated position. I am not accusing any specific person of being uneducated with this issue, but that it's something I feel often occurs with any number of 'hot topics' that people get passionate about.

I do not mind which side people take as long as they truly understand why they take it - that's an important part of supporting the right things and making the right decisions that result in what you initially intended them to; otherwise our good intentions can create bad outcomes.
Izz-noxfox Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I understand your point of view, and I do hope indeed that all US citizens don't go trigger happy, that would be seriously crazy. I've heard about some incidents, that are, I guess isolated facts, but still worrying in the eyes of a European. Such as the murders of some doctors who performed abortion and were killed because of this. American people love to interfere in other people's life and they have means of pressure far beyond what a casual citizen should have I think. It's not normal that some people need to wear a bulletproof shirt to go to work.

I agree with the quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." but is gun owning an essential liberty? Is it so essential to own a gun? If you leave in some wild areas with aggressive wild dogs, coyotes, bears or whatever fauna, I understand it can be seriously useful to have a hunting riffle in case you need to defend your yard. But in a city!? What more than a tazzer or tear gas do you need? What are you going to do with a gun if you are aggressed? Are you sure your agressor won't be able to disarm you and shoot you?
In my eyes it's hard to make aggressive weapons like guns pass for defense arms. You want to defend yourself? Learn krav maga, you'll know how to disarm someone threatening you with a gun, with your bare hands.

Concerning the over amount of arms in USA I don't think fatality is an answer. Sure there will still be some dealing, we have that here too, but seeing a dealer is usually a good way to get in troubles you don't want. If you don't absolutely need a gun you're not gonna get yourself in troubles. And changes can happen more quickly than we think sometimes. I agree it's the bad changes that goes the quickest: millions of jews, gipsies, homosexual, resistants and innocents were murdered within 5 years during WW2, a whole people performed terrible atrocities... But Germany healed its wounds, its cultures, everything. They came back from Nazism in an incredibly short amount of time and I find it amazing.

Now, to play the devil's advocate I'll point Switzerland, a country in which there are army weapons in every home. Switzerland has no full-time army, the men only have to do their military service, they receive their weapons and uniform and keep them at home, with the duty of taking them if they were ever called. But their culture is completely unlike US culture. People in Switzerland are calm, they don't like troubles, they don't have issues with violence and they keep a certain amount of derision that helps to solve conflicts with compromise. Hence it's not a problem to have weapons because they know no one will make use of them out of duty, it would be a betrayal.
If USA could achieve such a state of mind, weapons would not be a problem. But you don't, your culture tells you of winning, success, self-made man, possessions, challenge, competition... and many of your people have a binary vision of life and a tendency to think that there is only one solution to each problem. You, man, are an exception, you see further than most people do on the weapon topic. But do you really trust your society isn't meant to evolve?

Also, conerning the "alcohol, drugs and cars kill more people than guns" I would say "alcohol, drugs and cars's primary use is not to kill things". Sure, you can tie your neighbour to a chair and force him to ingest alcohol and drugs to death, or drive on him with your car, but as much as you can stab him with scissors or a frozen mutton leg from your fridge. What's the first purpose of a gun? Making holes in things without the least refinement. It's first made for killing.
It's always possible to make logical links between that seem similar, but such arguments are easily broken and I still don't see a single argument that support rightfuly gun owning. Some people even have grenades and war weapons, what do they think is going to happen to them? Or are they paranoiac freaks? They say that young man in the school killing was somewhat mentally unstable... we saw what happened.
nervene Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012
Do I trust my society, no; I do not feel ties to my society, I do not feel that I am part of a common collective; I view people as individuals, and as individuals they are diverse. I can make no judgement on someone until I have seen his actions. I will not assume someone is prone to doing bad, but neither will I assume he is prone to do good. But if I do place trust in something, it is in statistics. Statistics give us a picture of what really does happen - this reveals to us if our ignorances may some day come at our expense, or if our paranoias are unjustified.

One can say that a person must be quite paranoid to own a gun, while another could respond that a person must be quite paranoid to want to take guns away from everyone.

There does seem to be consensus between us, though, if I read correctly; that the issue, at root, is in the people and how they think. This is what makes me question trying to remove the tools involved when the underlying issue will still exist - that it is an answer that might not really address what we want to fix.

"Also, conerning the "alcohol, drugs and cars kill more people than guns" I would say "alcohol, drugs and cars's primary use is not to kill things"."

Ask someone who has died from a drunk driver if he thinks his death is more excusable compared to someone who died from a bullet. Ask him if he cares about the intent behind the person who killed him. He won't respond because he is just as dead as anyone else who is dead. All premature death is equal: it all results in the same outcome. And because they are equal, we can quantify what is doing more damage to our society by comparing how many occur. Whatever is killing us the most is killing us the most; changing how we feel about their causes doesn't change how many people are dying because of them.

Maybe it feels common sense to say "But guns are completely unnecessary", but I feel the exact same way with alcohol. By explaining this I'm not suggesting that we should try to fix one and not the other; only in how they compare if I had to rank them by priority - really it does not serve any conventional importance, but was a point toward explaining my logic. But I realize that the alcohol topic is a tangent away from the initial subject.
Izz-noxfox Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I wouldn't take statistics without a grain of salt, numbers are numbers but they can be easily manipulated according to what you want them to say. It can be exagerated like in that Simpsons dialog "Our newspapers contain a percentage of recylcled paper. -What percentage? -Zero. Zero is a percentage." but that's quite the idea. It's easy to include or exclude certain cases of small criminality in safety reports, and things like that.
However, it is true that statistics, when free of lobbyist's pressure, can be a great tool to get an idea of what's going on.

Tonight on TV we saw an interview of pupils in a Texan school and they were saying that they felt safer because their teachers had weapons with them, the headmaster said he didn't want to count on the police if a criminal came and that he'd shoot the person himself if "his" children were threatened. To me it just sounds like this headmaster wants to be a superhero who's above the law, like in the movies. We all know that killing is a bad thing, God said "don't kill", so why are children educated with weapons? Educated to know that people can kill other people randomly and that you must be ready to kill them, not to be killed?
Wouldn't a good Christian decide to never hold any weapon. "WWJD?" that's it? Well I'm not Christian but I think Jesus was some awesome dude, that he would throw down the gun and tell everybody to do the same. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, show your left cheek. Not punch the bastard in the face.

I really think that people who can't behave mustn't access a power they can't control. If people should have the right to own guns just for the sake of liberty, then let them have mines too, it's a good way to get rid of burglars I believe. Isn't there any limit of what should be allowed to defend oneself?

I think a person who was killed doesn't care about anything anymore. But I see that people whose close relatives were killed by a drunk driver are often more angry over alcohol than cars, but usualy still drink and drive (not at the same time), and for sure they grieve. Because pain is pain, yes. But knowing that your son died in a car crash isn't as violent as knowing that your son was murdered, that someone decided that a bullet would be the full stop of his story. On one side it's "it was an accident", on the other side it's "it was not an accident". When there's a real will to kill, it means society failed somewhere. And I'm pretty sure that some of the Newtown parents are thinking "if this woman didn't collect weapons and taught her son how to shoot, my child would probably be still alive".

Yes, that's true. I remember seeing some comments on photos posted by ~HeWhoWalksWithTigers who is involved in saveguarding tigers. Some deviants would say "you care about tigers but there are other species that are much more endangered". And so what? Because one seems in more danger you shouldn't save the other? Because alcohol and tabacco are dangerous too you shouldn't insurge against weapons? Comparisons are just comparisons but in the end it's the acts that matter. What do we say? What do we do?
ato784 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
so if that guy was in your kitchen and was pointing a gun at you, wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?
Athey Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I would rather that guy not have a gun in the first place. That's the point. I don't want a gun to 'defend myself' - I don't want him to have a gun at all. I live in Oregon. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get a gun here? I could go down to Fred Meyer right now, and come home with a gun. Lots of different guns. Hand guns, rifles, semi-automatic guns. Its in the sporting department. The SPORTING DEPARTMENT. I don't even have to wait a day.

It's just STUPID.
Evanatt Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012   Digital Artist
Me as standing outside USA, we really do not get why some over there think it's like a human right to have gun. I mean it's not like it's a freaking kitchen tool, its only purpose is to kill..

So beats me.
Renmiou Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
I find it disheartening how some people comment on this particular article: completely missing the point.
Italy doesn't have the massive problem the US has (even in percentage - it's a smaller country, but it's harder to get guns, although not impossible) so I completely agree with the article.
Wen-M Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
well, a similar thing happened in china today as well, only that man in china was using a knife, and so far no i'll have to agree with you. :hug:
Add a Comment:

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
December 14, 2012