Another mass shooting in the U.S

Killer Wench

My name is URL wrote: »

I never said anything should be banned. I'd like to see more restrictive laws for gun ownership... simple as that.

Can you imagine how much higher the numbers killed in drink driving incidents would be if people were free to drink and drive?

Bad actors who drink and drive kill innocent people, but we know that the majority of people who drink are doing so responsibly. Bad actors use guns to kill innocent people, but we don't acknowledge that the majority of people who own guns use them responsibly.

Millions of guns are owned in the US yet there were less gun related deaths than drunk driving related deaths, but guns are the problem?


Oh, and I am not directing all of my comments to you - just using your quotes to expand upon.

My name is URL

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why do you want to see more restrictive gun laws?

Oh, just for the craic... and to upset the nuts who believe that owning a gun makes them the freest of people in the world. Damned be the fact that the US has a greater % of its people in jail than anywhere else in the world, and leads the way in many violent crimes.

gandalf

Killer Wench wrote: »

So,more Americans died in alcohol related car accidents then gun deaths in 2011; by some poster's rationale, should we ban cars or alcohol?

So I take it from your comments that you are happy with the Gun laws as they stand Killer Wench?

MadsL

My name is URL wrote: »

Can you imagine how much higher the numbers killed in drink driving incidents would be if people were free to drink and drive?

You are not permitted to wave a gun around you know, there are just as many restrictions on gun use and how and where you can carry a weapon.

In my state, I am allowed to have a weapon at home, and in my car as an extension of my 'property'.
If I wish to carry it in public it must be holstered in plain view - (only a very few do this, motorcyclists for instance) or I must apply and be trained in a concealed carry class to get a concealed carry permit. I must attend refresher courses to renew that permit every three years, and may only carry the calibre for which I hold a permit, nothing larger.

I cannot carry any weapon into schools, university campus, courts, tribal land, buses, airports, state parks or any federal property.

In addition I may not bring a weapon into bars or anywhere where the owner posts a "no guns" sign.


The notion that guns in the US are somehow "unrestricted" is an utter myth.

MadsL

My name is URL wrote: »

Oh, just for the craic... and to upset the nuts who believe that owning a gun makes them the freest of people in the world.

What percentage of gun-owners believe that would you say? As opposed to normal, rational people owing a gun for home defence, hunting and recreation?

Damned be the fact that the US has a greater % of its people in jail than anywhere else in the world, and leads the way in many violent crimes.

What percentage would you say are there for gun-related offences, rather than say drug or gang related ones?

edit: Let me save you a google:
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/09/29/victimless-crime-constitutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/

Drugs 50.7%
Public-order 35.0%,
Violent 7.9%
Property 5.8%
Other .7%

wordsmithi

He had mental problems and found it difficult to mix with people. Bright but remote is how he is described. Only twenty years of age. Horrendous news. The poor children, their families and with Christmas just around the corner. Heartbreaking to see this happening again


Why? Why? Why?

Suryavarman

My name is URL wrote: »

Oh, just for the craic... and to upset the nuts who believe that owning a gun makes them the freest of people in the world. Damned be the fact that the US has a greater % of its people in jail than anywhere else in the world, and leads the way in many violent crimes.

So you just want to restrict peoples human rights so you can be a smart arse?

mike65

Why do Americans do this while the Swiss don't?

Mass shootings that is.. they seem to do other types.

token101

Suryavarman wrote: »

People should have guns to protect themselves no matter where they are. It's just a sad reflection on modern civilisation that only America and a few other countries give people that right.

What exactly is wrong with the gun culture in America?

Most people don't need guns though. As for what's wrong with American gun culture, well I've never even seen a working firearm outside of a gun club or unless it was being held by a soldier and for most Irish and British and many Europeans it's probably the same. I've never felt the compulsion to want to get one because I've never felt that unsafe really. Most people outside of the US don't view stuff like this as interesting or valuable to society. And if stuff like that is your idea of a better modern civilisation, keep it. I'd rather live in a 'backward' civilisation, where it's actually somewhat civilised and we don't have people walking into a school or a hospital and shooting people on a daily basis. If that's what your rights give you, keep it. And when tragic things like Newtown inevitably happen, at least people will have their gun rights to cling to at their relatives' funerals.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Calls for teachers to be allowed bring their legally carried guns to work with them and give them a chance against shooters seem like far more common sense solutions than the policies that would lead to more murder, rape and assault that all the anti-gun people on this thread are advocating.

So controlling firearms will lead to more murder, rape and assault is it? Well they're not well controlled in the States and they're not doing too well. Guy in that hospital in Alabama just shot three people before he was killed. It's only luck or his **** aim that he didn't kill them. People had guns there, didn't stop anyone getting shot though did it? I know that's a logical conclusion too far for the gun nuts and of course they'll twist it to say 'well he could have killed twenty before he was killed' but maybe if he didn't have access to a firearm in the first place it wouldn't have happened at all.

My name is URL

Suryavarman wrote: »

So you just want to restrict peoples human rights so you can be a smart arse?

Since when has owning a gun been a 'human right'?

token101

mike65 wrote: »

Why do Americans do this while the Swiss don't?

Can you see this on Swiss TV?

Manic Moran

My name is URL wrote: »

Since when has owning a gun been a 'human right'?

The basic right to self defence is about as human a right as can exist. It is recognised in pretty much every legal jurisdiction on the planet.

The difference is that in the US they make it much easier for everyone to exercise that right, not only those who are still young and strong enough to be able to swing a hurl or engage in fisticuffs with the average assailant. In the worst case scenario, the victim can be at least as well armed as the assailant. We give ourselves a fighting chance.

Most people don't need guns though

This is probably true. I certainly haven't needed any of my guns yet (Though I did once check out some sketchy noises in my garage with a pistol). But since the time that you discover you do need one is probably too late to rectify the situation, there is merit to the concept of being better to 'have and not need, than need and not have.' Every day in the US there are circumstances where someone needed a gun. You just don't know when you wake up in the morning if you are going to be that person.

NTM

CrazyRabbit

Wow...Scientologists are taking advantage of the grief by handing out leaflets and offering counseling services to the community. They constantly find ways of sinking to a new low.

wordsmithi

There was a mass killing in Norway last year too.

token101

wordsmithi wrote: »

There was a mass killing in Norway last year too.

And one in Britain not so long ago. But once or twice in a decade < countless numbers a year.

snubbleste

What about all the innocent kids killed in the ongoing war in Syria?
Or the 49 kids killed when a train hit their schoolbus in Egypt last month?
Or even the 22 kids slashed by a knife wielding male at a Chinese school yesterday?

Of course, they are not American, so their lives must be worth less.

Tom_Cruise

Guns are designed with one purpose - to kill. Sure, they can be used as protection as well but when it comes down to it they are just a very effective killing tool.

Banning alcohol because it kills thousands every year and banning cars because of road deaths is a different matter of conversation entirely, cars and alcohol were not designed for killing people the last time checked.

I think the entire 'fire arms in America' debate is something that cannot easily or quickly be addressed if it even can be. Nothing is going to come of this, there will be more mass shootings over and over again and more innocent people are going to lose their lives, i cant see it any other way.

Suryavarman

token101 wrote: »

Most people don't need guns though. As for what's wrong with American gun culture, well I've never even seen a working firearm outside of a gun club or unless it was being held by a soldier and for most Irish and British and many Europeans it's probably the same. I've never felt the compulsion to want to get one because I've never felt that unsafe really. Most people outside of the US don't view stuff like this as interesting or valuable to society. And if stuff like that is your idea of a better modern civilisation, keep it. I'd rather live in a 'backward' civilisation, where it's actually somewhat civilised and we don't have people walking into a school or a hospital and shooting people on a daily basis. If that's what your rights give you, keep it. And when tragic things like Newtown inevitably happen, at least people will have their gun rights to cling to at their relatives' funerals.

You've never felt unsafe? I can only assume that you live in the country or you aren't very aware of your surroundings. Have you never had to walk the streets at night on your own? Or maybe you don't know many people that have had their house broken into?

Having more guns in a society makes the law abiding people in that society safer. The more guns there are the greater the chance that a criminal will be shot committing a crime which in turn deters criminals from committing crimes in the first place.

So controlling firearms will lead to more murder, rape and assault is it? Well they're not well controlled in the States and they're not doing too well. Guy in that hospital in Alabama just shot three people before he was killed. It's only luck or his **** aim that he didn't kill them. People had guns there, didn't stop anyone getting shot though did it? I know that's a logical conclusion too far for the gun nuts and of course they'll twist it to say 'well he could have killed twenty before he was killed' but maybe if he didn't have access to a firearm in the first place it wouldn't have happened at all.

Areas that have more guns and more liberal gun laws are doing better than areas that don't. That is an empirically proven FACT. Not the illogical emotionally driven hyperbole that is being spouted by the anti-gun people in this thread. People had guns there and the gun man was kind of shot by one of them. It is interesting to note that this shooting happened at 4 a.m. when there was few people in the hospital and therefore less chance of him being stopped by someone with a concealed weapon.

My name is URL wrote: »

Since when has owning a gun been a 'human right'?

Being able to protect oneself has always been a human right.

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Guns are designed with one purpose - to kill. Sure, they can be used as protection as well but when it comes down to it they are just a very effective killing tool.

Banning alcohol because it kills thousands every year and banning cars because of road deaths is a different matter of conversation entirely, cars and alcohol were not designed for killing people the last time checked.

I think the entire 'fire arms in America' debate is something that cannot easily or quickly be addressed if it even can be. Nothing is going to come of this, there will be more mass shootings over and over again and more innocent people are going to lose their lives, i cant see it any other way.

There are plenty of uses for guns apart from killing people. There are uses for them when hunting, target shooting and the mere brandishing of guns can halt a crime.

mike65

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is probably true. I certainly haven't needed any of my guns yet (Though I did once check out some sketchy noises in my garage with a pistol). But since the time that you discover you do need one is probably too late to rectify the situation, there is merit to the concept of being better to 'have and not need, than need and not have.' Every day in the US there are circumstances where someone needed a gun. You just don't know when you wake up in the morning if you are going to be that person.

NTM

But why? I've never felt the need for a gun and that included when someone was attempting to break in to my home. What's in the American psych that says "I NEED a gun"? that isn't in most other western thought processes?

token101

Suryavarman wrote: »

You've never felt unsafe? I can only assume that you live in the country or you aren't very aware of your surroundings. Have you never had to walk the streets at night on your own? Or maybe you don't know many people that have had their house broken into?

Having more guns in a society makes the law abiding people in that society safer. The more guns there are the greater the chance that a criminal will be shot committing a crime which in turn deters criminals from committing crimes in the first place.



Areas that have more guns and more liberal gun laws are doing better than areas that don't. That is an empirically proven FACT. Not the illogical emotionally driven hyperbole that is being spouted by the anti-gun people in this thread. People had guns there and the gun man was kind of shot by one of them. It is interesting to note that this shooting happened at 4 a.m. when there was few people in the hospital and therefore less chance of him being stopped by someone with a concealed weapon.



Being able to protect oneself has always been a human right.



There are plenty of uses for guns apart from killing people. There are uses for them when hunting, target shooting and the mere brandishing of guns can halt a crime.

I'd love to see some proof of that.

kingtiger

Suryavarman wrote: »

There are plenty of uses for guns apart from killing people. There are uses for them when hunting, target shooting and the mere brandishing of guns can halt a crime.

yes this is true

but who needs an M4 Assault rifle for self defense\hunting\target shooting?

these guns where certainly not around when the "Right to bear Arms" was enshrined in the Constitution, do you think the founding fathers would of included this if they thought such a weapon would one day exist?

Killer Wench

gandalf wrote: »

So I take it from your comments that you are happy with the Gun laws as they stand Killer Wench?

Thank you for asking. I am in favor of tighter gun laws including closing trade show loopholes. But I am not in favor of blaming guns and labeling the entire population as gun crazy.

yoyo

Why do civilians need multiple handguns, would one not do for hunting? Why do people need 30 round plus+ magazines for "hunting", why do civilians need .50c sniper rifles (unbelievably in some states these are legal). Until America cops on to itself and brings in stricter gun laws these things are just going to keep happening. Sad and all as it is, a tragic event similar to this is just waiting to happen. Considering most shooting sprees are done using "legal" weapons, it should make it easier to start an amnesty to get rid of weapons and severe punishment for the owners who fail to comply

Nick

darced

This post has been deleted.

Witcher

yoyo wrote: »

Considering most shooting sprees are done using "legal" weapons, it should make it easier to start an amnesty to get rid of weapons and severe punishment for the owners who fail to comply

Nick

That would contravene the 2nd Amendment, plus people would just tell the gov to fcuk off, if it was that easy it would have been done by now. Fact is there is no easy answer to the question of gun control in the US. The people there won't just give up their firearms..they're ingrained into their culture.

darced wrote: »

Video games just got the blame on CNN,got to love the US are they really that thick.

They got the blame on this thread a couple of pages back..we're ahead of the curve here on Boards:pac:

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

And one in Britain not so long ago. But once or twice in a decade < countless numbers a year.

Really getting tired of posting this link, and rebutting this utter myth.

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

Suryavarman

token101 wrote: »

I'd love to see some proof of that.

I gave proof in this post, I linked to an entire book in this post and I linked to an article discussing the link between homicides and gun crime in other countries in this post

kingtiger wrote: »

yes this is true

but who needs an M4 Assault rifle for self defense\hunting\target shooting?

these guns where certainly not around when the "Right to bear Arms" was enshrined in the Constitution, do you think the founding fathers would of included this if they thought such a weapon would one day exist?

I don't know of the different uses for that exact gun but if a large number of people spend their own money on them and don't then commit crimes with them, then there must be some good use for them. Much like there is plenty of use for a car that can break the speed limit.

yoyo wrote: »

Why do civilians need multiple handguns, would one not do for hunting? Why do people need 30 round plus+ magazines for "hunting", why do civilians need .50c sniper rifles (unbelievably in some states these are legal). Until America cops on to itself and brings in stricter gun laws these things are just going to keep happening. Sad and all as it is, a tragic event similar to this is just waiting to happen. Considering most shooting sprees are done using "legal" weapons, it should make it easier to start an amnesty to get rid of weapons and severe punishment for the owners who fail to comply

Nick

There is plenty of reasons for people to own multiple guns. Presume I lived on my own and I wanted to be safe no matter where I am. It would be logical to have a handgun on my person when outside the home. When I get home I might want to take off that gun for a bit more comfort but I still want to be safe around the house, then it's logical to have a handgun in the kitchen, living room, bedroom and any other room that I spend a great deal of time such as a home office. Then it might be suitable to have 2 or 3 guns for hunting depending on exactly what I'll be hunting. That, I think, is a pretty good explanation of why one person might want 6 or 7 guns. Many might argue that it is too many but I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with having that many guns.

Manic Moran

mike65 wrote: »

But why? I've never felt the need for a gun and that included when someone was attempting to break in to my home.

I do not have the same level of faith as you, it seems, that an individual who has violated the sanctity of my castle is going to respect my other wishes of being left alone. I wish to have every possible advantage, and the best one is a firearm. If you want to give the other guy a sporting chance to win if it turns out that he's not just going to be content with the dining room silver, that's up to you.

but who needs an M4 Assault rifle for self defense\hunting\target shooting?

Well, I'll take the semi-auto version at least, since the assault rifle version isn't legal for me. (And in States where they are legal, they come with a $20,000 price tag, and I can't afford it anyway).

The same qualities which make it the standard carbine for the Army today are the same ones which make them eminently practical for civilian use. It is light, ergonomic, accurate, modular, customisable, adaptable, affordable to purchase and operate, easy to repair, and a large people are already familiar with them through military service. There's a reason the M4 (AR-15) platform is the most commonly sold centerfire rifle in the US.

these guns where certainly not around when the "Right to bear Arms" was enshrined in the Constitution, do you think the founding fathers would of included this if they thought such a weapon would one day exist?

I see no reason why not. Do you think the Founders envisioned the right to free speech on satellite radio or the Internet? The fundamental principle behind the rights are the same.

NTM

Wacker The Attacker

This has happened in the U.K. A country which a different "gun culture" for want of a better expression.

Admittedly, it's nowhere near as common there but it has happened. Tighter gun control may limit this phenomenon in the U.S but may not eliminate it entirely. At the risk of sounding cliched its usually the gunholder thats the problem and not the gun.

bajer100

If you think that you are safer because you arm yourself - you are wrong. Here are the facts:

"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

Src: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html)

The argument about women needing guns to protect themselves from being raped is also nonsense. If this were true - why is the rape figure higher in the US than in countries with tight gun control laws? Up to 90% of rapes are committed by someone the woman knows and trusts.

As for arming teachers - are we forgetting about the teacher who was armed? This supposedly normal, upstanding citizen - the sort of person who it is argued should be allowed arm themselves - was the owner of the guns which were used in this tragedy.

Remove the guns and the number of homicides goes down - it really is that simple. This was proven with the introduction of strict gun control laws in Australia in 1996.
"Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws."

As some others have pointed out, the second Amendment refers to a time when the only weapons available were muskets. This law should not be used to allow someone to possess semi-automatic weapons. If you think it does - then the same logic would dictate that you should also be allowed to possess grenades, RPGs, and chemical and biological weapons.