Gunman shoots 18 people.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

More helpless than a roomful of kids?

Hospital neonatal care unit full of infants? Building full of paraplegic and elderly. You BET there's more defenseless people than a room full of kids.

Escalates from a gun?

In 1996 in the UK a paranoid schizophrenic took a machete and tried to kill as many 3 - 4 year olds as possible in a crowded classroom. How many did he kill? Er, none. Zero. Not one single one.

How many would he have killed with a gun? Well, how many were there in the class again...?

Machetes are the weapon of choice in the Hutu-Tutsi (if I remember correctly) conflict. How many dead there? Just because one guy lacks the wherewithal to get the job done with a big knife doesn't mean that there aren't a bunch who do.

For goodness sake, I know that it's possible to build a bomb. My point is that nowhere near the number of people who would take a gun and go blasting would take this route, and even fewer would be successful.

Do buses and subway cars in England still have the, "What To Do In Case of a Bomb," placards up on the walls? American nutjobs grab a gun. What do British nutjobs grab?

I suspect that one reason people go after mass targets is because they thing they're going it get BIG TV and radio coverage after the fact. The, "They're gonna remember ME," is, I believe, the primary reason that people chose this method of suicide. Taking the firearms out of the equation doesn't solve the, "self aggrandizing nutjob," part of the problem.

I could construct a device to catapult frozen turnips that would prove pretty lethal but I don't see a need to restrict access to elastic material and heavy root crops prior to addressing the shambles that is US gun control.

...and the Oklahoma City bombing, to follow your agricultural lead, was done primarily with farm fertilizer. What's your point?

 

[LostAngeles]

You mean -

?

First of all I had no idea what Clorox was until I googled it, on account of living in a country which is not the US (yep, it's not just a rumour, these places do exist).

More to the point, are you suggesting that you have some kind of logical argument here that I'm deliberately skipping over because it has me foxed?

Household bleach? If people didn't have access to guns they'd use bleach?

Are you kidding?

I've already communicated my argument against the likelihood of killers using other equally effective methods if guns weren't available. Just because I decided I had better things to do than list all the items that could be used to lesser effect in a gun replacement scenario (e.g. knives, bats, tyre irons, spades, kettles, scarves, tree branches, dictionaries, a frozen rabbit on a rope and yes, household bleach) it doesn't mean they weren't implicit in my argument. I simply quoted a subset of these for ease of presentation.

409 contains ammonia.

Clorox is bleach.

The combination of the two makes a deadly gas and is standard teaching in Home Ec (or at least was 15 or so years ago). Household cleaners can be deadly in combination. Oven cleaner, draino, the list goes on.

Someone who wants to kill themselves and take other people with them and doesn't have a gun can build a bomb of some kind with relative ease out of ordinary objects. It doesn't take MacGuyver. It could just take a science class.

 

[Skibum]

I agree with you. They have an illusion that their guns make them safer... that their guns would never be used to harm a life via accident, mental illness, a sudden rage, poor impulse control etc. They are so sure. But don't all gun owners feel that?

Some gun owners might feel that way, perhaps many, but ALL...no definitely not.

Doesn't a gun have to be loaded and accessible to actually save a life.

It helps.

Isn't that asking for tragedy?

No it isn't. It might slightly increase the odds, though.

That's the same as on the thread where the kid used his fathers legally owned gun to kill his own family. I'm sure both the son and father would have made the same arguments about their gun... and both lives are ruined by that gun that was bought to protect the family...

Plus the father's own sister was killed by a similar tragedy in his own family in his youth and yet he was still deluded into the idea that he was safer with his gun. I think this idea that guns make people safer is a complete fraud believed by fearful (and often irrational) people. It makes an impulse bad mood so readily transformed into a tragedy--suicide, accident, homicide, prison sentence, life long guilt and loss.

Eh, I was going to dissect your whole post then realized it's pointless.

Your type of rhetoric is exactly what makes gun owners and rights arguers dig in and assume a defensive posture instead of willing to work towards a compromise.

It feels like it's impossible to have a dialogue on the subject because they fear people are trying to take away their guns.

See, WE don't have to have a dialogue with your side.

We already have the right to keep and bear arms, you want to restrict that.

It would be much different if we were in Pennsylvania more than 200 years ago, discussing what rights we should put in the Constitution.

Your side is the one that has to come to the table with something other than
argument by anecdote, appeal to emotion and strawmen crawling all over the place.

You want to get me to agree to limit or change my legal rights, bring a better argument.

If you want to even have a meaningful discussion about the topic, drop your rhetoric and combative discussion tactics.

Unlike the "gun-lovers" and "gun-crazy" and "little dick" people your side likes to portray our side as, I'm willing to have a discussion and even possibly change my mind, as long as you drop the garbage.

 

[332nd]

409 contains ammonia.

Clorox is bleach.

The combination of the two makes a deadly gas and is standard teaching in Home Ec (or at least was 15 or so years ago). Household cleaners can be deadly in combination. Oven cleaner, draino, the list goes on.

Someone who wants to kill themselves and take other people with them and doesn't have a gun can build a bomb of some kind with relative ease out of ordinary objects. It doesn't take MacGuyver. It could just take a science class.

In fact when I was in Grad school at UCONN the high school next door to the theatre building someone made the mistake of combining the two and they had to evacuate the entire school.

 

[Autolite]

So what is the source of the black market firearms sold in downtown Toronto? I suspect most of them are smuggled in from the United States.

Personally, I haven't researched the issue but I do beleive that Canadian gun control advocates claim that the majority of illegal guns found here have in fact been smuggled in from the States.

If we assume that every illegal gun in Canada had arrived from the U.S.A., then who is to blame? Both the United States and Canada already have laws in place that prohibit the illegal transfer of firearms across borders.

Perhaps the guns aren't really the problem? Could it be that each country has failed to employ sufficiently effective deterrents? Just a thought...

 

[Autolite]

Someone who wants to kill themselves and take other people with them and doesn't have a gun can build a bomb of some kind with relative ease out of ordinary objects. It doesn't take MacGuyver. It could just take a science class.

I used to work with explosives and part of our training included familiarization with homemade bombs, IEDs and such. I do get the impression that the majority of folks, (thankfully perhaps), are quite unaware of how easily these devices can be constructed with common materials. Homemade firearms are pretty much a "no-brainer" also. The information is out there and easily accessed. Perhaps this all could have been avoided if the government had banned "Meccano Sets" and "Hasbro Chemistry Kits" fifty years ago ...

 

[LostAngeles]

I used to work with explosives and part of our training included familiarization with homemade bombs, IEDs and such. I do get the impression that the majority of folks, (thankfully perhaps), are quite unaware of how easily these devices can be constructed with common materials. Homemade firearms are pretty much a "no-brainer" also. The information is out there are easily accessed. Perhaps this all could have been avoided if the government had banned "Meccano Sets" and "Hasbro Chemistry Kits" fifty years ago ...

In a few of my science classes we had the fertilizer bomb explained and the interesting properties of sodium demonstrated to us with the comment, "Ah, you're Honors students. It's ok. You won't do anything bad with this knowledge..."

 

[articulett]

I don't think anything makes gun owners work towards a compromise from what I see. Their solution always seems to be more guns. They hear things that people aren't saying. They believe they overestimate the likelihood of a gun saving their life and underestimate it being used for tragedy.

I don't think there is a solution. I don't keep a gun because I am well aware that it is more likely to destroy my life in some way than to save it. It makes suicide of myself or a loved one too easy for one. But I have no means of protecting myself from people like the kid in the OP... the man who decides to kill himself and take out a bunch of random people in the process. It is not a comfort to me since the owners of the guns in all the recent tragedies could have argued exactly like you... made the same excuses... used the same rhetoric. No one ever imagines their gun will be used to destroy lives on a whim or accident or suicide or tragedy... no matter how often it happens...

I feel like people in other countries feel when they look at America... but I don't have a solution. The irrational people are the ones that are armed. I just hope that the ever increasing weaponry doesn't intersect with my life. It would be great if gun owners only destroyed the lives of other gun owners... if you could protect your life from being destroyed by guns by not owning one. But we cannot. And I think the gun enthusiasts show why it's so hard to implement something like they've done in Australia and other countries.

I really should avoid these conversations. It heartens me to feel other people who feel as I do, but there are some people who post who make me think about how many "irrational" unpredictable angry people out there who have guns... I don't have any solution and the mentality frightens me.

Don't the gun owners see that from my perspective, all the gun owners in this months' tragedies could give the same assurance... could have felt the same way... could have written the same thing-- right? Couldn't they have? You reassure yourselves that your guns make you safer, but you sure don't reassure the rest of us that such is the case.

Yes, you do have the right to own arms just like the kid in the OP. But you do so knowing that the increased availability of guns makes this kind of thing more frequent.... it makes gun tragedies and ruined lives more likely. That appears to be okay with you because in your mind your guns make you feel safer.

 

[Rolfe]

How covert to do you really have to be to get instructions for a shrapnel bomb off the Internet? Where there's a will there's a way and suicide bombers ruitinely kill a lot more innocent people than the worst shooting rampages.

Of course, we could always ban nails and batteries I guess.

You can of course point to all these shrapnel bombings and mass knife murders and so on that occur in universities and other such places, in countries which don't share the US attitude to guns?

How many?

Within the last year?

Ten years?

Ever?

Rolfe.

 

[articulett]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people... all those other things aren't... and they aren't so readily accessible and deadly either. Guns can turn an impulsive bad mood into a tragedy far quicker and more readily than just about anything--and so they do.

The kids at Columbine didn't kill anyone with their pipebombs. its was bullets that were responsible for all the deaths. I think it's disingenuous to pretend that similar tragedies would fill in where the gun tragedies disappear... the studies show that there are more attempted suicides by other methods... but not as many successful suicides.

 

[Lothian]

I see no where in any of those statements where anyone said they were "happy with mass murder".

People said they are happy with liberal gun laws even though then know that a consequence is that there will be mass murders. My posts have been quite clear in that each time I have questioned people's acceptance of mass murder as a valid trade off against the freedom to own a gun.

I have never suggested that people are happy with mass murders in isolation.

You said "Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence."

You are either mistaken or a liar. Which one are you?

Lets see.

You say that mass murder by firearms is a consequence of liberal gun ownership that you are willing to accept.

So when you said "Who said they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying?" I would argue you did. I personally see no difference in the two statements, however I am happy for you to point out how I am mistaken or where I have lied.

If I have lied it was certainly unintentional and I would happily apologise.

 

[Skibum]

The irrational people are the ones that are armed.

Really? Is that all you have of substance to say? An insult.
Way to convince people, you gonna bring out the "little dick" insult next.

 

[articulett]

It isn't you Lothian. You are correct. The price Americans pay for a plethora of readily obtainable weapons designed to kill people in an instant... is lots of lives destroyed in just such an instant... and the fear of those afraid that their loved one might be next. An American can try to avoid the tragedy of having a gun used to harm a loved one by not having one in their home, but they have no means of protecting themselves from the random guy who decides to die and take out a bunch of people in the process as is increasingly common in America.

It is so rare for a gun to actually be available loaded and ready to save a life, and yet people imagine that their guns are more likely to be used for that... and they can't imagine the horror or accident or suicide or ready tragedies that happen to gun owners who never could have imagined such a thing... gun owners that feel just as protected by their guns... even if they know people who have had their lives destroyed by guns... they feel immune from such tragedies and overly fearful of being being in situations where their gun will save their lives.

This worries me, because when people think guns will save their lives they have to carry around or keep loaded weapons in ready reach. That greatly increases the risk of a tragedy or accident. And that increases the likelihood that me or my loved one will be a victim of that tragedy.

 

[articulett]

I have no delusions about being able to convince or converse with the irrational, skibum. I have seen no evidence that it is effective for anything. I prefer to talk about the irrational and commiserate.

And I have no idea what your issue is with "little dicks", but I'm guessing you are as sensitive in that area as you are in your fear that someone is trying to take away your guns.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

People said they are happy with liberal gun laws even though then know that a consequence is that there will be mass murders. My posts have been quite clear in that each time I have questioned people's acceptance of mass murder as a valid trade off against the freedom to own a gun.

I have never suggested that people are happy with mass murders in isolation.

I have never assumed that you lied. I was just responding to when you said:

Could those who are happy with the mass murders in America please explain why they are happy.

Are you happy for people to be murdered as the price for your freedom to shoot for sport or are you happy for people to commit mass murder so you have the freedom to take them out with your own gun ?

The implication here, at least of the first sentence, was that, and I quote, "those who are happy with the mass murders in America," might mistakenly include me.

 

[Lothian]

It isn't you Lothian. You are correct.

Thanks I am well aware of that. I appreciate that the attitude towards guns in America is very different to the rest of the developed world. I know that the gun culture is such that when weighing up the pros and cons of liberal gun ownership most Americans favour the status quo.

When I see people say that they accept that mass murder is a consequence of liberal gun laws, I presume that they see that as one of the cons. I am interested in what those people see as the pros. I am aware of different arguments for guns whether sporting, for protection, or those that purely like collecting historical weapons.

I expect that the pro's people have when considering the pros and cons of liberal gun laws affects their overall judgement considering the very big downsides.

I expect that someone who is scared and feel they need a gun for protection would be persuaded less by the downsides of liberal gun laws than someone who keeps his or her gun at a club and never takes it out into the public. The latter may be persuaded by some sort of tighter controls than the former.

I find the personal protection argument particularly interesting when limitations are put on people allowed to protect themselves. Should convited felons be allowed guns ? What about convicted felons serving in the armed forces ? Should depressives be denied the right to protect themselves ? Why should children not be allowed guns ?

As you say I think that most Americans look at the gun issue from their own perspective as individuals have more rights to own a gun. In the UK guns laws are tighter. It is argued that tight gun laws are required for societies benefit. As such we are used to looking at the issue from a national rather than personal perspective.

 

[Lothian]

Hi

I have never assumed that you lied. I was just responding to when you said:

The implication here, at least of the first sentence, was that, and I quote, "those who are happy with the mass murders in America," might mistakenly include me.

No problem. You said "Part of the price we pay is that someone, somewhere, is going to be a jerk about the whole thing." That is the point I was making. I never meant to imply that people were happy with the jerks. They are happy chosing liberal gun laws knowing jerks are a consequence.

'Happy' in this context does not mean they like all consequences of their decision rather their conscience is clear. They are happy that liberal gun laws is the right choice.

 

[332nd]

People said they are happy with liberal gun laws even though then know that a consequence is that there will be mass murders. My posts have been quite clear in that each time I have questioned people's acceptance of mass murder as a valid trade off against the freedom to own a gun.

I have never suggested that people are happy with mass murders in isolation.


You said "Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence."

Lets see.

You say that mass murder by firearms is a consequence of liberal gun ownership that you are willing to accept.

So when you said "Who said they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying?" I would argue you did. I personally see no difference in the two statements, however I am happy for you to point out how I am mistaken or where I have lied.

If I have lied it was certainly unintentional and I would happily apologise.

Ah. So it's mistaken then.

I'm happy for the right to own my guns. I accept that mass murders by guns are possible because of this

I'm happy American Tobacco Co. funded part of my education. I accept the fact that millions of people died due to smoking related causes.

I'm happy that I have the right to free speech. I accept the fact that said free speech included people like Fred Phelps.

I'm happy I own a motorcycle. I accept the fact that motorcycles are far less safe than cars and an accident on one could kill or seriously injure me when in a car.

According to your logic, I'm happy that mass murders by guns are possible, I'm happy that millions of people died for my scholarship, I'm happy Fred Phelps protests funerals, and I want to die in a motorcycle crash.

Wrong on all counts.

Now then,

Could those who are happy with the mass murders in America please explain why they are happy.

Are you happy for people to be murdered as the price for your freedom to shoot for sport or are you happy for people to commit mass murder so you have the freedom to take them out with your own gun ?

No one said they are happy with the mass murders in America.

 

[baron]

Hospital neonatal care unit full of infants? Building full of paraplegic and elderly. You BET there's more defenseless people than a room full of kids.

So your argument is that if nobody had guns, killers would target neonatal units and elderly care homes. Do you make this stuff up as you go along or do you actually have evidence? I can't say I've noticed a huge increase in OAP massacres or butchery of the newborn since handguns were banned in the UK.

"Gee, I'm gonna have trouble killing more than a handful of students with this machete, I'd best hasten down to the Rosehill Care Home where I've got a much better chance of getting into double figures."

Yep, I'm sure that's exactly how these killers' minds work.

Machetes are the weapon of choice in the Hutu-Tutsi (if I remember correctly) conflict. How many dead there? Just because one guy lacks the wherewithal to get the job done with a big knife doesn't mean that there aren't a bunch who do.

We're talking about an individual arming himself and attacking a group, not African civil war. Clearly you're being silly as no right-thinking person could genuinely think this was relevant to the discussion.

Do buses and subway cars in England still have the, "What To Do In Case of a Bomb," placards up on the walls?

No, why would they? The number of people killed by English bombers in the UK in the last 30 years is, I believe, less than the number of Americans killed by guns every three hours, so maybe you want to rethink that one.

American nutjobs grab a gun. What do British nutjobs grab?

Their balls, because they don't have the luxury of being protected by heavy weaponry.

I suspect that one reason people go after mass targets is because they thing they're going it get BIG TV and radio coverage after the fact. The, "They're gonna remember ME," is, I believe, the primary reason that people chose this method of suicide. Taking the firearms out of the equation doesn't solve the, "self aggrandizing nutjob," part of the problem.

It doesn't solve it, it helps significantly, for reasons that I'm tired of listing.

...and the Oklahoma City bombing, to follow your agricultural lead, was done primarily with farm fertilizer. What's your point?

What's yours? If you're suggesting that an absence of guns would result in the same number of annual deaths by fertilizer bombs then perhaps you could present your evidence.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Hi

If you want to buy a handgun in the US, you need to provide an accepted photo ID, like a driver's license, and a social security number. Most US drivers' licenses have the social security number ON them, but I think a few just have a drivers' license number.

You fill out a federal form, in your own hand (that is, someone can't fill it out FOR you) and that information is sent to the FBI to be looked up in their database of persons denied the right to buy firearms. It used to take a few days, but it's pretty much while-you-wait now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this only applies to guns bought in stores. I don't think that in most locales there is any restriction on gun sales between private parties.