Another mass shooting in the U.S

Smidge · 15-12-2012 4:58am

I have relatives in the US and tbh some of the things the post on FB( and these are people in their 40's)or email etc are down right bizarre with relation to guns.
It seems to be an ingrained obsession with certain people who have taken the right of the constitution to bear arms for something other than what it was written for(during the civil war 1861-1865).

IMO no nation should have the ability to have gun ownership as in the US, it has not worked out( compare other nations gun crime). It does not solve anything to be armed to the teeth.

Killer Wench · 15-12-2012 5:00am

Smidge wrote: »

.
It seems to be an ingrained obsession with certain people who have taken the right of the constitution to bear arms for something other than what it was written for(during the civil war 1861-1865).

long range shooter · 15-12-2012 5:00am

wonderfullife wrote: »

Nationwide ban on legal ownership of any semi-automatic weapon, limits on the legal amount of ammo purchasable, mandatory psychiatric evaluation before getting a gun license. Start there.

And yes, yawn, people can still kill people with less powerful guns or knives or they can make bombs as someone above suggested. The difference is it's infinitely harder for someone to mass-murder with a knife and making a bomb is a lot more difficult than handing over some cash for powerful guns and ammo.

Making it more difficult for nutters to mass-murder people is a good step. If you all truly believe it's your right to defend yourselves with guns, fine, but you don't need semi-automatic weapons to do so unless you're being attacked by a herd of elephants or a tank.

How easy do you think it is to get a semi automatic rifle illegal,or a pistol.?
If you want to go on a rampage and kill people you will do it no matter what,and get it no matter what.
Anders Behring Breivik planned it for years before he went on a rampage;)

wonderfullife · 15-12-2012 5:01am

Aciiiiiiiiiiid wrote: »

No it's not. As you said if I flipped and wanted to kill 30 people I'd just drive my car at 100km/h up Grafton st on a Saturday afternoon. Do you honestly think changing gun laws is a better solution than tackling head on why society is producing so many people with murderous intent and try to change that instead

Which do you think is easier to do? Kill 30 people in 2 mins with a semi-automatic weapon or kill 30 people driving a car?

Bottom line lunatics will always try find a way and if guns didn't exist they might try use a car or a knife or try learn how to make a bomb, all of which are a lot harder to do to commit mass-murder. The gun laws in America make it so much easier to commit these crimes. Surely making it harder is an easy conclusion.

long range shooter · 15-12-2012 5:04am

Rodin wrote: »

interestingtly, the chinese guy had a knife. No gun. And nobody died.
The US needs meaningful gun control

It doesnt matter if he had a pistol,knife or a chainsaw for that matter,its not the pistol,knife or chainsaw that kills,its the man holding it:rolleyes:

Smidge · 15-12-2012 5:10am

Killer Wench wrote: »

I don't know why you appear to be confused at that post it is fairly straight forward.

When the constitution put in the "right to bear arms" it was a completely different era. It was part of their life to hold a fire arm or weapon to protect their land rights or property.

Times have changed and this right has altered.

Most people are not land owners of plantations etc and I would think that almost 200 years would see a different perspective of that right within the constitution considering that every yahoo can own a gun now and there are regular massacres involving firearms.

wonderfullife · 15-12-2012 5:11am

long range shooter wrote: »

How easy do you think it is to get a semi automatic rifle illegal,or a pistol.?
If you want to go on a rampage and kill people you will do it no matter what,and get it no matter what.
Anders Behring Breivik planned it for years before he went on a rampage;)

Yes and with proper gun laws it might just mean people would have to plan ahead if they want to commit such mass-murders. I.e. potentially save a lot of lives for the ones who just snap some day and decide on a whim to kill a lot of people with a nice semi-automatic weapon laying around waiting to be used.

Make it more difficult for them. If someone is determined to rob my house, they will find a way to do it, but i'm at least gonna lock my doors and close the windows, not gonna leave the front door open for them. The existing gun laws are an open front door to nutcases to commit these atrocities.

Killer Wench · 15-12-2012 5:13am

Smidge wrote: »

I don't know why you appear to be confused at that post it is fairly straight forward.

When the constitution put in the "right to bear arms" it was a completely different era. It was part of their life to hold a fire arm or weapon to protect their land rights or property.

Times have changed and this right has altered.

Most people are not land owners of plantations etc and I would think that almost 200 years would see a different perspective of that right within the constitution considering that every yahoo can own a gun now and there are regular massacres involving firearms.

The Civil War was the mid-1800s. The Second Amendment was written in the late 1700s so it predated the Civil War.

To Alcohol · 15-12-2012 5:17am

God damn it you horrible ignorant society USA. Get your fat ignorant backward society into ****EN line and never let this horrible atrocity ever happen again. Shame on USA. Shame on you, your policy your society and you.

Aciiiiiiiiiiid · 15-12-2012 5:17am

wonderfullife wrote: »

Which do you think is easier to do? Kill 30 people in 2 mins with a semi-automatic weapon or kill 30 people driving a car?

Getting a little off topic here but picking the right time and streets you could probably rack up a death toll of close to 100 in a car or Jeep by tearing up pedestrianized streets on a busy day. More if you escape. But the reason behind people wanting to commit mass murder is not important, reducing the tools available to do it is the answer :rolleyes:

long range shooter · 15-12-2012 5:19am

SV wrote: »

yeah that's true, look at the all the countries with proper gun control and how they have the same amount of gun crime as America, ohwaitnvrmind.

As i can see from here its not only in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

And
Another reported similarity is that most of the perpetrators had been taking antidepressant drugs, which have a documented history of producing violence and aggression as a side effect.

71% of school shooters reported or left evidence of being bullied.

Now what have this to do with gun laws???

long range shooter · 15-12-2012 5:20am

wonderfullife wrote: »

Yes and with proper gun laws it might just mean people would have to plan ahead if they want to commit such mass-murders. I.e. potentially save a lot of lives for the ones who just snap some day and decide on a whim to kill a lot of people with a nice semi-automatic weapon laying around waiting to be used.

Make it more difficult for them. If someone is determined to rob my house, they will find a way to do it, but i'm at least gonna lock my doors and close the windows, not gonna leave the front door open for them. The existing gun laws are an open front door to nutcases to commit these atrocities.

Why not get a shotgun for self defence instead,problem solved;)

wonderfullife · 15-12-2012 5:22am

Aciiiiiiiiiiid wrote: »

Getting a little off topic here but picking the right time and streets you could probably rack up a death toll of close to 100 in a car or Jeep by tearing up pedestrianized streets on a busy day. More if you escape. But the reason behind people wanting to commit mass murder is not important, reducing the tools available to do it is the answer :rolleyes:

are you american?

You said something about driving up grafton street 100km an hour to commit mass-murder....good luck getting above 30km/hr if you come from the Trinity end there is no way a car can make that bend at any speed and from stephens green end ditto.

Yes reducing the tools to commit mass-murder is more important than understanding why people do it. Make it more difficult for them to do. Simple. It's ridiculous to think understanding the reasons behind it can offer any meaningful solutions to prevent it. There will always be sick, twisted, deranged people out there. Making it harder for them to commit mass murder is a more important step.

Smidge · 15-12-2012 5:22am

Killer Wench wrote: »

The Civil War was the mid-1800s. The Second Amendment was written in the late 1700s so it predated the Civil War.

Yes as I stated the civil war was 1861-1865 which is the mid 1800's and regardless of the amendment written, my argument still stands.

It is an elderly law with current repercussions.

wonderfullife · 15-12-2012 5:27am

long range shooter wrote: »

Why not get a shotgun for self defence instead,problem solved;)

I live in Ireland. I have a 9-iron and a putter and a sand wedge. Even an old Slazenger tennis racket. I've plenty of protection thanks!

long range shooter · 15-12-2012 5:29am

wonderfullife wrote: »

I live in Ireland. I have a 9-iron and a putter and a sand wedge. Even an old Slazenger tennis racket. I've plenty of protection thanks!

Never bring a golf club or tennis racket to a gun fight

To Alcohol · 15-12-2012 5:30am

You idiots talk about the US civil war. Thats ****en history. Who gives a shut. Get your finger out, sort the legislation out and stop murdering your CHILDREN.

Manic Moran · 15-12-2012 5:39am

Killer Wench wrote: »

Wait... your solution is to arm the teachers?

No, my proposal is to allow the same laws to be in effect inside the classroom as are in effect on the sidewalk ten yards away. That would mean that a proportion of teachers would then be armed, because they are armed at other times anyway. They aren't a hazard to anyone on a sidewalk, so I see no reason that should change when they walk in the door.

Nationwide ban on legal ownership of any semi-automatic weapon, limits on the legal amount of ammo purchasable, mandatory psychiatric evaluation before getting a gun license. Start there.

In the unlikely event that any of these have a chance of passing (they don't, so that fails the 'reasonable' criterion), there are some 'practical' issues:

1) What do you propose to do about the odd hundred million guns currently in circulation? Banning them isn't going to remove them, we couldn't even manage to ban alchohol, for pete's sake, though we tried for ten years. And then there's the drug comparison...

2) What's a practical legal amount which will perform the required duties? Bear in mind that even though these individuals may buy thousands of rounds, they can only carry a couple hundred at once unless they're hauling a trailer behind them.

3) Who will pay for the psychiatric evaluation, and what psychiatrist is going to certify -anyone- given that, if that person then snaps, no matter how few signs he was exhibiting, the lawsuits would ruin him?

It is an elderly law with current repercussions.

Was an individual's right to self defence stronger in 1791 than it is in 2012?

Killer Wench · 15-12-2012 5:43am

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, my proposal is to allow the same laws to be in effect inside the classroom as are in effect on the sidewalk ten yards away. That would mean that a proportion of teachers would then be armed, because they are armed at other times anyway. They aren't a hazard to anyone on a sidewalk, so I see no reason that should change when they walk in the door.

As public servants, would you require them to have weapons training on par with law enforcement?

Manic Moran · 15-12-2012 5:49am

Killer Wench wrote: »

As public servants, would you require them to have weapons training on par with law enforcement?

No. As I said, the same laws should apply outside the school grounds and inside. Besides, I'd rather the money and time be spent on education-releated training for the teachers. Our just more teachers. The classroom ratios kind of suck

15-12-2012 5:53am

Manic Moran wrote: »

I presume you are referring to both sides of the argument, the emotional 'guns should be banned' ones, and the less emotional 'well, actually, in the real United States in which we live...'

Case in point:

Why not?

Really, what is the rational argument why not?

Is there some force field which surrounds schools which prohibits people bringing firearms into schools? Do you suggest that schools should become fortified zones, surrounded by barbed wire, guard towers and airport-style metal detectors and X-rays to turn them into a sterile zone?

Given that a large number of teachers are licensed to be armed off school property, do they suddenly turn into dangerous people when they are giving class? I entrust my child entirely to her teachers. I fully expect that every day she returns home to me safe, protected as best as possible against every possible ill which could befall her, from not falling off museum exhibits on the school trip, to not getting food poisoning, through not getting burned in a fire if one starts at the school. For better or worse, shootings are a known hazard in the US, and I want my kid's school to have a mitigation plan against that which is a bit better than cowering in a corner and hoping that the police get to my daughter before the gunman does.

My old platoon sergeant is now a schoolteacher. I know how he reacts under fire, and I know he's a good shot. His carrying a .45 is probably a better insurance of the safety of his wards than a panic alarm and active shooter drill.

NTM

Dont inner city schools have metal detectors?

hatrickpatrick · 15-12-2012 5:57am

Suryavarman wrote: »

Actually it's very rational and backed up by a lot of empirical evidence.

It's sanctioning vigilantism. It leads to a climate of fear and creates a breeding ground for sh!t like Zimmerman vs Martin (some douche took 'neighbourhood watch' too seriously and decided to shoot a guy because he "didn't like the look of him").

Once you start telling people it's ok to use lethal force in a wide array of circumstances, where does it end exactly? Lethal force should be reserved for incidents in which there's absolutely no other alternative whatsoever to prevent loss of life.

Granted, in this case lethal force WOULD in fact have been justified. But with a culture of vigilantism comes the inevitable "get off mah lawn *bang*" crap, because a sad fact of life is that there are an inordinate amount of f*cking idiots in this world who can't be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

hatrickpatrick · 15-12-2012 6:01am

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) What do you propose to do about the odd hundred million guns currently in circulation? Banning them isn't going to remove them, we couldn't even manage to ban alchohol, for pete's sake, though we tried for ten years. And then there's the drug comparison...

Simple, ban them in public. You're caught carrying a weapon, it gets confiscated for a certain period of time and your license to carry one is revoked.
Extra harsh penalties for anyone caught with a firearm in a school, hospital, etc.

Manic Moran · 15-12-2012 6:09am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Simple, ban them in public. You're caught carrying a weapon, it gets confiscated for a certain period of time and your license to carry one is revoked.
Extra harsh penalties for anyone caught with a firearm in a school, hospital, etc.

The problem there is that by the time the fact that they are carrying a weapon has come to the attention of the authorities, it's because they've already started using it. At which point the penalties are probably not the most pressing issue on anyone's mind.

NTM

Manic Moran · 15-12-2012 6:11am

The_Dazzler wrote: »

Dont inner city schools have metal detectors?

Some do, and I think it's a terrible environment.

12gauge dave · 15-12-2012 6:51am

Shocking news:(

Guns are such a huge part of american culture and a hobby for so many and i cant even imagine the profits the goverment are making through sales of firearms alone so banning firearms altogether is never gonna happen but reducing calibres available is an option but then they have huge game like bears elk etc so high powered rifles are needed im not sure there is a solution to availability of such firearms in near future:(
Automatic weapons/assault rifles are banned in some states and are difficult to obtain permits for in most states but the pistols alone they can buy over the counter are mind boggling! There is also huge very powerful gun clubs/ associations which are forever standing up for there gun laws.
A good start would be:
make sure no civilians can in no way own machine guns/assault rifles
Good reason needed for pistol ownership especially higher calibres
High calibre rifles only given to people in areas of big game

My thoughts on it there but sadly these horrible events will more than likely happen sooner than later:(

CoDy1 · 15-12-2012 7:05am

Done reading the thread, So basically its not the gun laws?? Canada have similar laws yet no massacres etc.. so its the Mericans?

seems to easy?

Well it is imo.

Too many apologists for the gun laws spouting 'sure if he didn't do it with a gun he'd find another way'.

Bull****. The whole point of firearms is that it an easier weapon compared to anything else. The ****er wouldn't have been able to stab 28 people to death. He can't just buy a bomb off a shelf! Guns are too easy. Its become a regular occurance but not just any random place, its American schools, colleges etc on repeat. Basically its pyhyco kids who know they can get there hands on firearms and because someone pissed them off in 3rd grade bottle it up go on a rampage.

Remove the access to Daddy's rifle and Mommy's purse pistol and try and educate the mericans that the right to bare arms was dictated 200 yrs ago and simply doesn't fit in todays society and maybe it wouldn't be so easy.

This will happen again.. and again.. and again.

Another shameful day for the USA.

Witcher · 15-12-2012 7:19am

Has anyone see the post about the shooting on Obama's facebook page? There's people in the comments saying that these shootings are taking place because there's no morning prayer in schools anymore..........

haydar · 15-12-2012 7:28am

As bad as things are in Ireland im glad I don't live in a country where primary school children get gunned down at school and then some of the public call for more guns to be available!?

How worried must parents get in the US when things like this happen?

It seems that it can just happen any time in any place.

Overheal · 15-12-2012 7:34am

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Yes and I suppose you are going to tell me that its impossible to drive from one state to another...

so then you agree that its silly and pointless to have "gun free" zones.

Sure, even Ireland has gun violence when there are strict controls on guns. Sure, you can always swim, can't ya. Water doesn't prevent guns making it into Ireland.

Holsten wrote: »

Forget all the talk of guns... how many people have guns in the states and don't go shooting up the place?

This situation, just like the guy in Colorado is a mental health issue. You don't kill your father, drive miles away, kill your mother and a bunch of children unless you have serious mental issues.

Something similar happened to my Stepfather's friend. His landlord drove an hour down the road and butchered him and his cat with a clawhammer.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For the same reason I should visit Ireland before I label you a nation of brooding, lazy drunks.

Don't be daft.

Suryavarman wrote: »

I can only assume that everybody on this thread in favour of stricter gun laws is completely in favour of the War on Drugs? If gun prohibition is going to be so successful at preventing murders then I can only assume that drug prohibition is equally successful at preventing people from selling and consuming drugs?

Agreed. However: Harm Principle = Diminished relevance.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments