Another mass shooting in the U.S

Wacker The Attacker

My name is URL wrote: »

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

It may not be a human right per se, but it is a constitutional right in the U.S.

Overturning this constitutional right of U.S citizens will take decades, if indeed it ever happens at all.

mike65

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

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

Britain has a "rampage" killing spree roughly once a decade over the last 3 decades.

Hungerford 1987/Dunblane 1996/Cumbria 2010

Obviously there are family massacres (the Channel Islands springs to mind) but they as a rule do not involve the general public.

Wacker The Attacker

bajer100 wrote: »

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.

Did she use the guns?

Wacker The Attacker

mike65 wrote: »

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

Britain has a "rampage" killing spree roughly once a decade over the last 3 decades.

Hungerford 1987/Dunblane 1996/Cumbria 2010

Obviously there are family massacres (the Channel Islands springs to mind) but they as a rule do not involve the general public.

What difference does that make?

Whether or not someone is in public or not at the time they are shot is of little or no importance.

Witcher

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

What difference does that make?

Whether or not someone is in public or not at the time they are shot is of little or no importance.

He means they take place within a family unit and don't result in the deaths of strangers.

Wacker The Attacker

Blay wrote: »

He means they take place within a family unit and don't result in the deaths of strangers.

What is the difference? Arent they both innocent victims?

Witcher

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

What is the difference? Arent they both innocent victims?

If someone has a dispute with their family then it's nothing to do with strangers. Like Derek Bird, was having trouble with his twin brother over a will or something so went and killed him and shot a number of other people dead at random..he shot a farmer clipping a hedge..what had the farmer to do with his problems? If you have an issue with someone have it out with them and don't include strangers in it. Not that I condone the murder of anyone.

mike65

The difference is that if I'm walking down the street outside or living next door I'm probably not going to get murdered (unless I try to intervene).

PurpleSt4in

So tragic on so many levels. The right to bear arms is written into their constitution, and the power of capatilistic pro-gun lobbyists seems too great. Shooting after shooting, will gun laws ever change.

Wacker The Attacker

Blay wrote: »

If someone has a dispute with their family then it's nothing to do with strangers. Like Derek Bird, was having trouble with his twin brother over a will or something so went and killed him and shot a number of other people dead at random..he shot a farmer clipping a hedge..what had the farmer to do with his problems? If you have a problem with someone have it out with them and don't include strangers in it. Not that I condone the murder of anyone.

Neither his twin brother nor the guy clipping the hedge deserved to die like this. In fact nobody does. Making a distinction between someones family member and a member of the public is unnecessary

Witcher

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Neither his twin brother nor the guy clipping the hedge deserved to die like this. In fact nobody does. Making a distinction between someones family member and a member of the public is unnecessary

I didn't say they did.

token101

Suryavarman wrote: »

People are more likely to die in the US because it is a more violent country. There's no proof that it is because there are more guns.

If you can't see any logical link between violence and guns then there's little hope really of us even continuing debating is there? I'd sooner trust what's below than any of the 'research' you posted in those links

bajer100 wrote: »

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.

BattleCorp

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Disgusting. Americans need to get their heads out of their asses and ban gun ownership.

That's a dumbass idea. Banning guns? You haven't thought that one through.

There'd be a huge increase in crime as the criminals won't give up their guns. With nobody armed, armed criminals would be fearless.

On a practical note, how do you take the guns from 311,000,000 people?

I think America would do better to address the mental health needs of its people rather than trying to ban guns.

They banned all handguns in the UK after Dunblaine and gun crime has increased since. Fact.

Guns don't cause people to go into a school killing little kids, mental illness does that.

Suryavarman

bajer100 wrote: »

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)

As pointed out in that article people that are more likely to be shot might also be more likely to want to own a gun. This also does nothing to counter all the empirical evidence showing that an increase in gun ownership decreases crime.

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.

From this interview:

For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

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.

She didn't have those weapons on with her at the school though because it was against the law to have them there.

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."

This was far from proven in Australia. If the 1996 law was the cause of less homicides then why didn't the homicide rate start falling until 2002? What reason is there for a six year lag in the drop? This is in contrast to the thousands of data samples in the US showing an increase in handgun ownership or a liberalising of gun laws resulting in a drop in the homicide rate immediately and for that trend to continue for years after.

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.

And as Manic Moran pointed out, the first amendment was written when there was no radio, TV or internet. The law should definitely allow people to own semi and fully automatic weapons because the 2nd amendment was designed to allow people to fight off foreign enemies and their own government should it become too oppressive.

token101 wrote: »

If you can't see any logical link between violence and guns then there's little hope really of us even continuing debating is there? I'd sooner trust what's below than any of the 'research' you posted in those links

If you can't see the logical link between an increase in gun ownership resulting in an increase in the costs associated with committing crimes which in turn results in a decrease in crime then how can a debate even be had?

So you are going to trust a study that probably has its causation the wrong way around and another that doesn't account for a 6 year lag that occurs over various different pieces of research derived from thousands of data samples that I have posted. I think you might be a bit biased and close minded.

gandalf

Medical Examiner has just stated that most were killed by the AR15 SA rifle which contrary to the early reports was found next to Lanzas body.

grizzly

Church service for the grieving families – nice to see the media is keeping a respectful distance.


http://twitter.com/AdamGabbatt/status/280006994516123649/photo/1

Wildlife Actor

Agree with Nick there, but I wonder is focusing on gun laws playing into the hands of the gun lobby. There have to be more factors and a one-faceted response is vulnerable to challenge.

I wonder did this guy play violent video games? I know Boards is probably not a great place to start throwing blame in that direction but it (and also films where killing people is the "solution") surely have a 'normalising' effect. Has anybody done a wide study of all these cases to look at the underlying common factors?

Gun control is a preventative, but how much of an encouragement is a lack of gun control.

Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a significant factor.

Stinicker

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's a dumbass idea. Banning guns? You haven't thought that one through.

There'd be a huge increase in crime as the criminals won't give up their guns. With nobody armed, armed criminals would be fearless.

On a practical note, how do you take the guns from 311,000,000 people?

I think America would do better to address the mental health needs of its people rather than trying to ban guns.

They banned all handguns in the UK after Dunblaine and gun crime has increased since. Fact.

Guns don't cause people to go into a school killing little kids, mental illness does that.

Exactly, well said.They should liberalizing gun laws if anything. If one of those teachers had a gun and knew how to use it then lives could have been saved at that School. People must remember that the Union of the United States is a federal union and people have the right to bear arms and it is a fundamental part of their rule of law. States fought each other in the civil war and there is a massive private militia in the USA each one more heavily armed than the next. This massive armament of the population acts as a massive deterrent to the Federal Government. Basically the people have taken up arms to protect themselves against the Federal Government.

Obama I think is too clever to try and mess with the NRA and its Republican backbone. If he trys to take their guns then I am pretty sure that the blood spilled at this school will be but a mere drop in the ocean of what Americans would fight and die for their guns. He is already the most deeply unpopular President in US History and has destroyed alot of what is good about the USA. A second US civil war is not too incomprehensible when you think of what is at stake there.

America is not Europe, they don't take thrash like people in Europe do, they have guns and they use them. The execute their criminals and they believe in God. It is not for us to lecture White Republican America. What happened was a tragedy and it will most likely happen again as it has happened in Norway, Germany, Finland and the UK before. Guns don't kill, people do.

Skylinehead

Stinicker wrote: »

Exactly, well said.They should liberalizing gun laws if anything. If one of those teachers had a gun and knew how to use it then lives could have been saved at that School. People must remember that the Union of the United States is a federal union and people have the right to bear arms and it is a fundamental part of their rule of law. States fought each other in the civil war and there is a massive private militia in the USA each one more heavily armed than the next. This massive armament of the population acts as a massive deterrent to the Federal Government. Basically the people have taken up arms to protect themselves against the Federal Government.

Obama I think is too clever to try and mess with the NRA and its Republican backbone. If he trys to take their guns then I am pretty sure that the blood spilled at this school will be but a mere drop in the ocean of what Americans would fight and die for their guns. He is already the most deeply unpopular President in US History and has destroyed alot of what is good about the USA. A second US civil war is not too incomprehensible when you think of what is at stake there.

America is not Europe, they don't take thrash like people in Europe do, they have guns and they use them. The execute their criminals and they believe in God. It is not for us to lecture White Republican America. What happened was a tragedy and it will most likely happen again as it has happened in Norway, Germany, Finland and the UK before. Guns don't kill, people do.

Evidence please, otherwise you're talking ****e.

Manic Moran

Love nor Money wrote: »

I wonder did this guy play violent video games? I know Boards is probably not a great place to start throwing blame in that direction but it (and also films where killing people is the "solution") surely have a 'normalising' effect.

Probably the reason that Boards is not a great place to start is that even those of us vehemently on opposite sides of the gun debate generally agree that video games are a red herring

My name is URL

grizzly wrote: »

Church service for the grieving families – nice to see the media is keeping a respectful distance.


http://twitter.com/AdamGabbatt/status/280006994516123649/photo/1

They're such complete scumbags. People should be placing some of the blame on how the media treats these things.. nevermind video games or gun legislation.

They were interviewing kids right after the massacre yesterday. It's bloody mental.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/why-are-cnn-and-nbc-interviewing-students-sandy-hook-elementary/60009/

Yet another thing which doesn't say a lot about the direction in which American society is headed. After all; people are happy enough to swallow the bile being produced.

Mike912

jack presley wrote: »

The mentality over there is if more people had guns and were armed, the shooter would have been stopped before he killed so many. Sad, but that's the way gun activists think over there.

Agree that the pro-gun crowd trumpets this nonsense when defending their position. Whenever I hear it the first thing that comes to mind is the OK Corral shootouts in the old westerns.

The problem, in my opinion, is the culture of fear in America. Everybody is scared of everybody else for god knows what reason...and the media doesn't help with their sensationalist rhetoric to attract viewers. For example: nightly the newscasts are teased with headlines such as "coffee may lead to cancer, or cell phones might kill....more at 11!"

Seldom do the murders in the inner cities make headlines anymore because the populace has grown to expect that sort of mayhem, thus those stories no longer lead to a bump in viewers.

The end result being the 5% of the population that are gun nuts calling for no new gun laws in order to protect themselves from the 5% of the population on the other end of the spectrum that commit crimes. That leaves the remaining 90% of the population stuck in the middle and understandably scared out of their wits.

Within that 90% there are outliers like the deranged devil at the top of the news today.

Taking guns away unilaterally makes sense on it's face but the true problem is much deeper and requires a much more comprehensive solution. What that solution is, is anybody's guess.

MadsL

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).

Look in your kitchen drawer/on your counter. Why do you have so many different knives?

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.

98,000 people die every year in the US through medical error. Yep, doctors kill way, way, more people than rampage killers, drunk drivers, or criminals with guns simply by being crap at their jobs. 7000 people die each year just by being given the wrong medicines.

Yet no-one talks about how something needs to be done.

Considering most shooting sprees are done using "legal" weapons,

Are they???? This 20 year wasn't legally holding these weapons. The Columbine killers broke 21 gun laws in getting their 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

Punish those who haven't done anything other than kill food or vermin? How does that help? Who do you think will turn in guns other than the people who are responsible enough to own them in the first place?

mike65 wrote: »

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

Britain has a "rampage" killing spree roughly once a decade over the last 3 decades.

Hungerford 1987/Dunblane 1996/Cumbria 2010

Obviously there are family massacres (the Channel Islands springs to mind) but they as a rule do not involve the general public.

What's the population of Britain again? Apples with apples? try multiplying that figure by 5 and seeing you still think it is comparatively low.
What happened to Britain's crime rate since they banned guns? Their crime rate using handguns went UP in the years afterwards by 40%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
Knife crime is off the scale in the UK. And even worse in Ireland.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alarming-rise-in-knife-crime-3126470.html

Love nor Money wrote: »

Agree with Nick there, but I wonder is focusing on gun laws playing into the hands of the gun lobby. There have to be more factors and a one-faceted response is vulnerable to challenge

Well, you started well... then said.

I wonder did this guy play violent video games?

Seriously, do shut up. He also saw Tarantino movies, owned black clothing and once heard a Marilyn Manson song. He also ate red meat. Do we have to go down this cul-de-sac again??

aloyisious

I've been away from the 'net for most of the day so I'm kind'a amazed how so many of the postings here seem to be about "bashing the O/P" instead of being about the dead victims of this massacre. The freedom of speech seem's to me to have been taken out of it's original context, the same way the right to keep and bear arms has been in the US. I apologize in advance to anyone who might feel annoyed at my thoughts, it's just the side-effects of having read so much negativity.

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seems some posters here are going down that route. Any chance you could stop confusing 300 million people with one news channel's idiot. I'll try not to judge the entirety of Ireland by Pat Kenny in return.

My name is URL wrote: »

They're such complete scumbags. People should be placing some of the blame on how the media treats these things.. nevermind video games or gun legislation.

They were interviewing kids right after the massacre yesterday. It's bloody mental.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/why-are-cnn-and-nbc-interviewing-students-sandy-hook-elementary/60009/

Yet another thing which doesn't say a lot about the direction in which American society is headed. After all; people are happy enough to swallow the bile being produced.

A local CBS station declared that the would be running Christmas movies today and no news 'teaser' adverts, in order that kids could watch TV today without being shown this stuff. I think the media may slowly be learning. I live in hope.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Look in your kitchen drawer/on your counter. Why do you have so many different knives?

Which do you have more of, guns, or cutlery?

Mike912

aloyisious wrote: »

I've been away from the 'net for most of the day so I'm kind'a amazed how so many of the postings here seem to be about "bashing the O/P" instead of being about the dead victims of this massacre. The freedom of speech seem's to me to have been taken out of it's original context, the same way the right to keep and bear arms has been in the US. I apologize in advance to anyone who might feel annoyed at my thoughts, it's just the side-effects of having read so much negativity.

Focusing on the victims is altogether too painful in every way. I'd burst out if not for cathartically trying to find some way to deflect the pain in order to handle this tragedy.

Run_to_da_hills

Father Damo wrote: »

The sooner Alex Jones croaks it from the amount of KFC the fat fcuk is shovelling down his gullet the better. And besides that we will be entertained by his followers claiming assasination rather than fast food suicide.

Alex Jones would probably be the last person on this planet to indulge in GMO laced Kentucky Fried Rat and you should know better

joydivision wrote: »

Why do you have it in for us presidents so much . What did they ever do to you.

I guess its their double standards and total hypocrisy that gets to me.

Manic Moran

robbie7730 wrote: »

Which do you have more of, guns, or cutlery?

In my case, at least, knives.

MadsL

robbie7730 wrote: »

Which do you have more of, guns, or cutlery?

Point I was making is that one knife is rarely able to do multiple jobs, you need specialised tools to do specific jobs. Same with guns.

Since you asked I don't currently own a gun, I usually rent at the range, but I probably will be buying a shotgun for Quail soon and I'm thinking about buying a target shooting pistol as part of a pistol league at my local range.