Another mass shooting in the U.S

bnt

Some new reports are calling this "the second-worst school disaster in US history": in case anyone's wondering what the worst was, it was the Bath School bombing in 1927, near Lansing MI. A man named Andrew Kehoe, who was on the school board and had access to do maintenance, had set up a bomb with a timer at the school. It killed 36 children and two teachers when it went off. (Another bomb he set failed to go off.) At around the same time he killed his wife and blew up his house. He then drove to the school and set off explosives in his car, killing himself, two more children, and several others who were helping rescue efforts. All told, 45 people died as a result of his actions. No-one was quite sure why Kehoe did what he did, but he was in debt and was at risk of losing his house.

wonderfullife

Overheal wrote: »

Sorry, but this notion is ridiculous. Let's stop understanding Alzheimer's then, and HIV and Cancer. Who really needs to study thermodynamics for that matter. Sure **** it, what's the point of understand anything, really.

Of course, by all means, research WHY the likes of Lanza, Breivik and the others committed their mass-murders. But understanding why they did it can only do so much to prevent it happening again. There will always, always be unhinged individuals. When high powered semi-automatic weapons are easily, legally available to them it makes it EASIER for them to commit mass-murder. That's all it does. Makes it easier. Nobody is suggesting they won't find other ways if they are hell bent on doing it, but at least make it as hard as possible.

Killer Wench wrote: »

The simple answer isn't guns! There are truly millions of responsible gun owners who have never used their gun on another human life and have been properly trained to use them. Stop making gun-ownership into the scapegoat! It is much more complex than that.

Let's talk more deeply about mental health treatment and the stigma society places on individuals with mental illness.


Let's talk about how people no longer are equipped with the proper tools to address conflict or trauma, and that some of these individuals perceive violence and self-inflicted harm as the only way to address them.

Let's talk about domestic violence because in spite of 26 individuals unrelated to the killer, the mother of the killer was also a victim, and there must have been some issue within the home that caused him to go out into the community and target individuals who were less empowered than himself.

Depression and mental illnesses DO get talked about. Mental health awareness is improving all the time. Stigmas are being eroded. It's ok not to be ok mentally these days.

I fail to see the link between domestic violence and this case. He killed his mother but there is no evidence to suggest she was physically abusing him. That's what domestic violence is. As opposed to an unhinged individual killing his mother, which is just familial homicide. The fact he killed her at home and still went to the school afterward to commit mass-murder speaks for itself.

Talk about all of these issues is good though but, again, yes it's about guns too.

MadsL wrote: »

If teachers were armed in the US they would not be the first country to do so - Israel and Thailand already arm their teachers.

What shining examples to the world those 2 countries are!! Don't get me started on Israel, disgusting bully of a nation. Thailand beautiful country but some horrific problems.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Guns can also be a powerful deterrent against crime. The more likely it is for a criminal to be shot when committing a crime the less likely they are to commit a crime. As Gary Kleck mentions in this survey:



Stricter gun laws would result in less people being able to defend themselves against criminals and as I have pointed out earlier in the thread, there would be more crime to defend themselves.

As for there being no logical argument against tighter gun laws, I can only assume you haven't read any of this thread? I and other posters have posted plenty of evidence to show stricter gun laws don't make a place safer, generally it is the opposite. There is no logical or empirical reason for stricter gun laws.



What it really comes down to is that, anti-gun people don't care about women being raped, the elderly having their homes broken into and they don't care about peoples ability to walk down the street without being robbed, murdered or assaulted.



Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon Martin because he didn't like the look of him, he shot him because he feared for his life due to Trayvon Martin attempting to beat him to death.

The use of a gun is okay on any occasion when one individual seeks to harm a person, their family or their property. It is then up to a court to decide whether the level of force was justified.

How often do people get shot for merely straying onto somebodies garden? I think you are living in some alternate universe when it comes to the outcomes of a society having more guns. For every person that can't be trusted with a gun there are dozens that can and should be trusted with guns.



What makes you think that mandatory psychiatric evaluations wouldn't make things worse? What about the cost involved? What about the increases in crime because less people have guns because a psychiatric evaluation cost too much time or money? Why should mentally ill people have no right to defend themselves just because a couple of mentally ill people did terrible things with guns?

Mental illness is a large umbrella of different things. Anything from anxiety to depression to bi-polar to schizophrenia. And no, not all mentally ill people should be able to walk into a shop and buy a gun. That needs no elaboration.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I asked for a rational argument or rebuttal. The best you can come up with is satire.

Razor wit is only a term of phrase, it does not actually provide any practical defense against those who would do harm to you or those in your care.

When you suggest a premise so RIDICULOUS that it beggars belief, it is not up to anybody else to debate it rationally.

If you suggested something similar, like "we should all live on the moon", then most people would reply with sarcasm "off you go so" instead of a rational argument for not doing so.

Arming teachers is outlandish, stupid and sadly you are serious.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.



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

Generally speaking when gun control in a nation is tight, you don't need to worry about having a gun under your pillow or in your house for "self-defence".

If someone attempts to steal your car outside your house what would you do? Because i'm guessing from the tone of your posts it would involve a gun. Most irish people, myself included, would ring the cops. Cars are insured, if they take it whatever it's not the end of the world. No point going out like John Wayne waving a gun and potentially having to take a human life over a car.

Sadly, cultural problem over there is that a lot of you gun nuts would rather grab your gun and potentially shoot someone than let him drive off in a replaceable car. I.e. you would rather shoot someone than call the cops and fill in some insurance paperwork.

Sad.

Killer Wench

bnt wrote: »

Some new reports are calling this "the second-worst school disaster in US history": in case anyone's wondering what the worst was, it was the Bath School bombing in 1927, near Lansing MI. A man named Andrew Kehoe, who was on the school board and had access to do maintenance, had set up a bomb with a timer at the school. It killed 36 children and two teachers when it went off. (Another bomb he set failed to go off.) At around the same time he killed his wife and blew up his house. He then drove to the school and set off explosives in his car, killing himself, two more children, and several others who were helping rescue efforts. All told, 45 people died as a result of his actions. No-one was quite sure why Kehoe did what he did, but he was in debt and was at risk of losing his house.

I think most reporters are considering the Virginia Tech shooting to be the worst.

Personally, I hate the fact that they are labeling them as "the worst" or "the second worst". I think that actually adds fuel to some of these mentally ill individuals who want to make it to "the worst".

Witcher

Killer Wench wrote: »

I think most reporters are considering the Virginia Tech shooting to be the worst.

Personally, I hate the fact that they are labeling them as "the worst" or "the second worst". I think that actually adds fuel to some of these mentally ill individuals who want to make it to "the worst".

Sky News are calling this one the worst and it's true what ya say it only encourages new individuals to seek infamy by being the worst yet.

Bruthal

Killer Wench wrote: »

Personally, I hate the fact that they are labeling them as "the worst" or "the second worst". I think that actually adds fuel to some of these mentally ill individuals who want to make it to "the worst".

I was thinking the exact same earlier myself.

Snickers Man

MadsL wrote: »

If teachers were armed in the US they would not be the first country to do so - Israel and Thailand already arm their teachers.

I don't know much about Thailand; I've never been there.

I have been to Israel and know full well that they arm more than their teachers. They arm just about everybody. Except their indigenous minorities, of course. For them being seen with a stone in their hands is grounds for a good thumping.

If you're advocating Israeli society as one to emulate then I humbly beg to demur. It's a country whose existence is questioned, to say the least by a large minority living within its jurisdiction, which engages in extra-judicial assassination of foreign nationals, which is increasingly friendless and which impresses every 18 year old, male or female, into its army for a full time stint lasting years and an annual part time stretch of a few weeks until they are in advanced middle age. And that's only in peacetime!

You might argue that Sweden and Switzerland have similar conscription regimes but when was the last time one of those countries committed a surgical assassination with a helicopter gunship of the resident of a neighbouring jurisdiction?

It is no disrespect to Israel's democratic institutions to say that its society is is not one any sane country would choose to emulate.

Skylinehead

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't know much about Thailand; I've never been there.

I have been to Israel and know full well that they arm more than their teachers. They arm just about everybody. Except their indigenous minorities, of course. For them being seen with a stone in their hands is grounds for a good thumping.

If you're advocating Israeli society as one to emulate then I humbly beg to demur. It's a country whose existence is questioned, to say the least by a large minority living within its jurisdiction, which engages in extra-judicial assassination of foreign nationals, which is increasingly friendless and which impresses every 18 year old, male or female, into its army for a full time stint lasting years and an annual part time stretch of a few weeks until they are in advanced middle age. And that's only in peacetime!

You might argue that Sweden and Switzerland have similar conscription regimes but when was the last time one of those countries committed a surgical assassination with a helicopter gunship of the resident of a neighbouring jurisdiction?

It is no disrespect to Israel's democratic institutions to say that its society is is not one any sane country would choose to emulate.

Israel actually has strict gun laws. Teachers are indeed allowed to carry guns, but only if they have IDF experience (which most do). You can't just give anybody a gun and expect them to use it correctly.

Killer Wench

wonderfullife wrote: »

Depression and mental illnesses DO get talked about. Mental health awareness is improving all the time. Stigmas are being eroded. It's ok not to be ok mentally these days.

I fail to see the link between domestic violence and this case. He killed his mother but there is no evidence to suggest she was physically abusing him. That's what domestic violence is. As opposed to an unhinged individual killing his mother, which is just familial homicide. The fact he killed her at home and still went to the school afterward to commit mass-murder speaks for itself.

Talk about all of these issues is good though but, again, yes it's about guns too.

Actually, domestic violence is defined by statute, and according to Connecticut Statutes (where this crime was committed), this is an act of family violence. It does not have to be ongoing, but simply an incident.

"Family violence: “means an incident resulting in physical harm, bodily injury or assault, or an act of threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault between family or household members. Verbal abuse or argument shall not constitute family violence unless there is present danger and the likelihood that physical violence will occur.” CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46b-38a (1) (2011)."

Two weeks ago, a NFL player kills himself after killing his girlfriend. Today, a man kills himself after killing a woman at a Las Vegas hotel; my bet, they were probably in some kind of relationship. I'll be waiting for the details regarding the Alabama shooting to see if there was a connection between the shooter and one of the victims. Yes, let's talk about domestic violence.

Man City 10

I am not being bad or rude I am just telling the Qs. That go through my mind when ever I see this type of news
That always keeps troubling me so please none of ye i mean out of my best not to offend ye in any way and if i have i am terribly sorry
And i am not Racist just telling the Truth
Had this been a Arab/Pakistan/Indian/Afghanistan, they would have IMMEDIATELY called him a terrorist
Had this been a Black man, they would have IMMEDIATELY called him a gang member thug.
But since it was a White kid instead, OH hes just a mentally disturbed and troubled kid, Other than that he was completely harmless and innocent ROFL!

Could any one explain why this is the case ???
For Example the likes of Hitler who killed 1,000,000,000 of people excluding the torture to the people
But no one brings hatred towards the Germans
And America+Britian who wanted to get ''weapons of mass destruction'' in Iraq the whole campaign the death toll of Iraq harmless civilians was 500,000+Counting and after they don't find it it America and Britian say ''Oh we are sorry'' Pffft...
People would say tell me about 911
Did you know the amount of people that got killed during twin towers?
3,000
Do you know how many people died during the bombings of Afghanistan?
More then 15,000
My point is that there are many people out there in this world who say these things Terrorists/Gang violance/Blacks/Illegals
And They never come to realise what they're countries have done
I love America and Britian i have no hatred at all to any country but its just unfair that the world goes on like this

Snickers Man

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah, I mean it's not like Ireland ever was bound by it's constitution to prevent things like divorce, contraception or abortion. Oh wait. Sorry, you were saying?

I don't recall there ever being a "constitutional" ban on contraceptives. A simple change in the law sorted that out.

The constitutional ban on divorce has gone and divorce has been legislated for in Ireland for more than a decade.

Abortion is not in fact banned by our constitution. Despite the Pro Life Amendment of the 1980s, the Supreme Court found in the wake of the X case that abortion is permitted under the constitution if the mother's life is in danger. The fact that no government has legislated to bring clarity to the legal boundaries within which doctors may operate has been brought to the fore by the recent Savita case. It is likely that some legislative moves will be made soon.

All of the examples you cited actually undermine your position; they are all cases in which the electorate and/or the government moved to amend legal situations which we agreed were out dated.

If America really wanted to restrict and regulate guns more effectively it could do so. We changed out-dated laws. Are we just that much cleverer than you?

MadsL wrote:

If banning guns prevents shootings, banning alcohol prevents drunk drivers. Tell me where the logic fails?

If you support a total gun ban, why do you not support an alcohol ban?

This was not asked of me but I'm happy to take it up.

I don't favour an outright ban on guns. I think in Ireland we have the balance about right. You MAY own a gun; you just can't shoot anyone with it.

Foxes, geese, rabbits, pheasants, deer (at the appropriate times)...that's all fine.

Some kid coming back to his dad's house from the candy store that you don't like the look of? No. You can't pick a fight with him and then shoot him when he gets the better of it.

The more guns are restricted to legitimate sporting pursuits and neutered the fewer people are likely to be killed.

I base my views on the experience of most normal democracies who do NOT allow their citizens by default to walk around carrying a loaded firearm. Germany doesn't allow it, Britain doesn't allow it, Canada doesn't allow it. America is, I believe unique among normal democracies in allowing this indulgence to its citizenry.

(Israel is not a normal country, however democratic its elective process may be. See earlier post)

By the same token, I actually believe in a greater liberalisation of our alcohol laws, including a reduced tax on alcohol products because I don't believe our current pricing and availability regime encourages a healthy attitude to alcohol consumption. By contrast, many of our neighbouring countries with cheaper and more available alcohol do not have the same problems that we do whereas countries with even stricter rules than us have even greater problems.

In short, I believe countries with less government interference in alcohol pricing and availability have better attitudes and less social problems than those who have paranoid legal restrictions.

These countries also tend to have tighter gun controls and lower homicide rates than the US.

So tight gun control! Good!!
Looser alcohol controls! Better!!!

Bruthal

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?

No, ban driving while drunk.

yoyo

MadsL wrote: »

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

Is there much difference between two 9mm SA pistols? People seem to "collect" firearms in the USA, I was just pointing out I don't see why people should require more than one handgun.
The fact that some people have a gun in every room in the house says it all, I do think that is a bit ridiculous in fairness.

MadsL wrote: »

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.

True, so sure it must be grand, people are dying all over the place due to different reasons, so why not have legal military grade firearms and lax laws surrounding them.

MadsL wrote: »

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

Someone posted a bar chart earlier in this page where over 80% on firearm homicides were done with legal firearms.

MadsL wrote: »

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?

For hunting vermin as I said previously I doubt military grade SA firearms with 30+ round magazines is necessary, if other countries can make do with bolt action rifles and shotguns, I can't see why the us is any different.

Nick

EZ24GET

Man City 10 wrote: »

I am not being bad or rude I am just telling the Qs. That go through my mind when ever I see this type of news
That always keeps troubling me so please none of ye i mean out of my best not to offend ye in any way and if i have i am terribly sorry
And i am not Racist just telling the Truth
Had this been a Arab/Pakistan/Indian/Afghanistan, they would have IMMEDIATELY called him a terrorist
Had this been a Black man, they would have IMMEDIATELY called him a gang member thug.
But since it was a White kid instead, OH hes just a mentally disturbed and troubled kid, Other than that he was completely harmless and innocent ROFL!

Could any one explain why this is the case ???
For Example the likes of Hitler who killed 1,000,000,000 of people excluding the torture to the people
But no one brings hatred towards the Germans
And America+Britian who wanted to get ''weapons of mass destruction'' in Iraq the whole campaign the death toll of Iraq harmless civilians was 500,000+Counting and after they don't find it it America and Britian say ''Oh we are sorry'' Pffft...
People would say tell me about 911
Did you know the amount of people that got killed during twin towers?
3,000
Do you know how many people died during the bombings of Afghanistan?
More then 15,000
My point is that there are many people out there in this world who say these things Terrorists/Gang violance/Blacks/Illegals
And They never come to realise what they're countries have done
I love America and Britian i have no hatred at all to any country but its just unfair that the world goes on like this

Who would have called him a terrorist, or gang member? Do you mean the media? I am not hearing anyone make excuses for this murderer.
I do feel that there are few resources for families of mentally disturbed people, you can not force an adult into a program - if you can even find one. Unless there is reason to believe the person is a threat to their-self or others there is nothing you can do. Even if you can it must be determined in court by a judge and that takes time.
It is still early to know the reasons behind this event. A few days ago there was a thread here that asked if some people are just simply evil, I would say this is an example of evil.
And at the end of the day after so much pointing of fingers and endless talk and conjecture nothing is accomplished and the only comfort is in forgetfulness - until the next time.

bnt

Killer Wench wrote: »

I think most reporters are considering the Virginia Tech shooting to be the worst.

I suppose it depends on how they define "school", since VT is a College. If you include VT then the latest incident would be "third worst". I agree that they ought not do that - it's not a competition ... :mad:

AdamD

I'm not really sure how 'tightening the gun laws' could actually help. These people don't care that they are breaking gun laws when they go into schools etc.
The real issue is the amount of guns in circulation and how easy it is for virtually anyone to get their hands on one, because after that all the laws in the world wouldn't make a difference to somebody about to commit mass murder.

wordsmithi

snubbleste wrote: »

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? a
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.

No way. It is horrendous when any atrocity occurs. War is never the answer to anything. This dreadful event in the US was the worst mass shooting in a school with pupils ranging from ages five to ten. Anyone of those people could be your child, niece or nephew. It is not because it happened in America. I saw the way people coped with the Dunblane massacre in Scotland and the dignity with which the Norwegians treated Breivik in his trial for killing almost eighty people in an hour and a half. All those that died are important people and are lives that can never be replaced, lost, gone forever. There is nothing left just devastation, anger, pain, despair and depression. Families left in grief mourning and left shattered. No life is worthless, it is precious, sacred. Treasure it. It is such a shame that some people don't and destroy lives and their own.

UCDVet

AdamD wrote: »

I'm not really sure how 'tightening the gun laws' could actually help. These people don't care that they are breaking gun laws when they go into schools etc.
The real issue is the amount of guns in circulation and how easy it is for virtually anyone to get their hands on one, because after that all the laws in the world wouldn't make a difference to somebody about to commit mass murder.

Even if you could restrict guns (and you can't, not effectively - look at how easy it is to get illegal drugs)....people would just resort to other methods. Like bombs.

And bombs can be easily made from readily available materials.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing; American's love guns so they want to incorporate them into their killing? In other countries were terrorist acts are more common, they typically don't use guns as they are unreliable and result in fewer total deaths. Instead they use bombs. Suicide or otherwise.

robluvshandegg

Can anyone tell me why Americans feel the need to own guns? (Just well thought out and reasonable answers please)

AdamD

UCDVet wrote: »

Even if you could restrict guns (and you can't, not effectively - look at how easy it is to get illegal drugs)....people would just resort to other methods. Like bombs.

And bombs can be easily made from readily available materials.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing; American's love guns so they want to incorporate them into their killing? In other countries were terrorist acts are more common, they typically don't use guns as they are unreliable and result in fewer total deaths. Instead they use bombs. Suicide or otherwise.

In what Western countries are bombs often used in though? By random civilians...there's a big difference between making a bomb or simply picking up a gun and pulling the trigger. Guns are too easy to kill people with.

Witcher

robluvshandegg wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why Americans feel the need to own guns? (Just well thought out and reasonable answers please)

For the same reasons every other country's citizens want them. The only difference is that Americans have a constitutional right to them.

robluvshandegg

Blay wrote: »

For the same reasons every other country's citizens want them. Th eonly difference is that Americans have a constitutional right to them.

And those reasons are? Not trying to be smart, I just want to try to get to grips with the mindset here.

Witcher

robluvshandegg wrote: »

And those reasons are? Not trying to be smart, I just want to try to get to grips with the mindset here.

Hunting, target shooting and home defence, the last one isn't common to all countries..can't get a firearm here for home defence for instance.

Manic Moran

wonderfullife wrote: »

When you suggest a premise so RIDICULOUS that it beggars belief, it is not up to anybody else to debate it rationally.

Not at all, it's "ridiculous" in your mind because you don't like it.

If you suggested something similar, like "we should all live on the moon", then most people would reply with sarcasm "off you go so" instead of a rational argument for not doing so.

Under the current state of the economy and technological progress, going to live on the moon is an unrealistic statement. Allowing teachers to do in the classroom what they already do outside the classroom is hardly a logistical, scientific, or even fiscal leap.

Arming teachers is outlandish, stupid and sadly you are serious.

For the third time, I ask that the rational basis for this statement be explained. Further, even if you don't particularly like the solution, and believe it not to be the perfect solution, I have yet to hear anyone expound a better one, which is both feasible and practical.

Generally speaking when gun control in a nation is tight, you don't need to worry about having a gun under your pillow or in your house for "self-defence".

No, you just sleep in the blissful belief that the news articles you may read when you wake up the next morning will have someone else's name in the article and not yours. Such events many not happen as often in Ireland, but they do happen. That's assuming you actually are able to wake up and are not the statistical oddity who has been killed overnight who everyone else is reading about on the RTE website, thinking how fortunate they are to live in a peaceful society where self defence isn't an issue.

If someone attempts to steal your car outside your house what would you do? Because i'm guessing from the tone of your posts it would involve a gun. Most irish people, myself included, would ring the cops. Cars are insured, if they take it whatever it's not the end of the world. No point going out like John Wayne waving a gun and potentially having to take a human life over a car.

An interesting guess. Where have I ever, on this thread, or any other thread, suggested the use of a firearm against another person for other than defense against threats to personal safety?


NTM

EZ24GET

In my little part of the country, most of my neighbors own guns. They own guns to hunt with, guns for target practice guns that are antiques and guns that are designed to kill people. Of the three murders that have occurred in last 20 years not one involved a gun.They were actually beaten to death in robbery or rape/robbery attempts. I do remember 2 that happened here when I was quite young that involved guns one was never solved and the other was a shot gun. One reason they want guns handy is that this area is still rather rural and there are only 5 policemen in the town and then most on duty at a time is two. The sheriff is nearly 20 miles away. I personally don't own a gun nor do I want one.

robluvshandegg

Blay wrote: »

Hunting, target shooting and home defence, the last one isn't common to all countries..can't get a firearm here for home defence for instance.

Taking these activities into account, what field do the assault type weaponry lie in? and is it right that any individual ordinary citizen has that much fire power, regardless if they're qualified or claim to be responsible?

wordsmithi

Listening to SKY NEWS tonight, it seems that Americans feel more independent buying a gun. It is because they see themselves as always being capable of solving any crisis that comes. They don't believe in a welfare system and see themselves as 100% in control of their lives and

---

they like guns. They still hunt bears. If a madman gets any sort of weapon he will use it. Any unbalanced nutjob can get a knife etc if he really wants to.

token101

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.

I don't know if people are happy with the coverage but the media are hardly going to highlight their role. A quick search through Twitter and they are getting destroyed, especially CNN for their train wreck of a job they've done here. They might never get gun control laws tightened, but they should definitely impose some sort of regulation where reporters can't approach these people in the immediate aftermath of these things.

Manic Moran

yoyo wrote: »

Is there much difference between two 9mm SA pistols? People seem to "collect" firearms in the USA, I was just pointing out I don't see why people should require more than one handgun.

Well, let's say I shoot IPSC. So that's commonly a fairly long-barreled pistol with a compensator. Then let's say I carry concealed, so I'd take a normal-sized 9mm pistol for that. And if I carry in the summer in a hot place like California or the South, maybe a compact 9mm as concealing a normally-sized one may be difficult under just a T-shirt. If I were really dedicated, I might also take a Beretta 92 to practice with, as it's the same as the Army's M9 I'm issued with. More practice even off-duty is not a bad thing. So that's four right there.

For hunting vermin as I said previously I doubt military grade SA firearms with 30+ round magazines is necessary, if other countries can make do with bolt action rifles and shotguns, I can't see why the us is any different.

It's a lot more convenient. We also have a lot more vermin

Taking these activities into account, what field do the assault type weaponry lie in? and is it right that any individual ordinary citizen has that much fire power, regardless if they're qualified or claim to be responsible

Insofar as the term exists ("Assault weapon" was coined by the California Legislature in 1989 as they didn't think "Scary-looking semi-automatic rifle" was quite going to fly), they lie in all fields. That's the beauty of the modern semi-auto, they can do all sorts of functions and part of the reason that the AR-15 in particular is so successful.

wordsmithi

This gunman forced his way into the school. He was impossible to stop.

Witcher

robluvshandegg wrote: »

Taking these activities into account, what field do the assault type weaponry lie in? and is it right that any individual ordinary citizen has that much fire power, regardless if they're qualified or claim to be responsible?

They can be used for any of those. An assault rifle is fully automatic..the rifles you buy in the US are not assault rifles..AR15's and other semi auto's are being targeted for how they look despite being no more dangerous than a Ruger Mini 14, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand or any other semi auto but those rifles are never mentioned as being demon rifles like the AR15. As I must have stated about 50 times, people here hold semi automatic centrefire rifles..it's not just Americans that have them.