School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[StankApe]

Because I disagree with you doesn't mean either of these things. I am certainly not delusional. Brightness appears to be in the eye of the beholder - I disagree with you, therefore I am not very bright. Ho hum.

I think a country is safer if civilians do not own guns. This appears to be backed up by gun related crime statistics from the UK.

my interpretation is as follows. You don't want to give up your guns not because you disagree with my position, but because it's your right to carry them and you don't wish that right to be restricted by law because you personally are a responsible gun owner.

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.

I said it in that manner because that's the position people seem to take. That if we just banned guns then this wouldn't happen. But it WOULD happen. The guns are not the reason these things happen. The guns are the tools of expression. The cause is the crazed mind of the shooter. and we all know that if a human wants to do something bad enough, he will find a way to do it.

The UK doesn't border a 3rd world country so acquiring guns would be a lot more difficult than it is here where the Mexican Cartels would ship them in by the truckload.

Guns aren't the motive for these crimes. Banning guns won't do a damn thing. and using another country as supposed "proof" is a fallacy as another country doesn't have the same culture, issues, population....etc that our country has.

I'm not a gun owner, but any govt who has the power to take away the guns of it's citizens is not somewhere I am comfortable living. Some of you seem to be okay with being babysat by tyranny, not me.

 

[lionking]

Back in July everyone was horrified with the shooting in that cinema. In 6 months or sometime next year there will be another one. This is simply the price Americans are more than willing to pay to uphold their constitutional rights.

A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price of America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, or simply put up with atrocities like this.

 

[LTC8K6]

Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.

We are loaded with guns, and would remain so indefinitely even if guns were banned totally. So, criminals in the USA will always have guns, imo. The country is too big and too free and armed way too well for a ban to do much for a very long time, if ever.

They banned alcohol once.

We have our Constitution, which there is disagreement about, but so far, we still have it on our side.

As far as taking my guns? They fell out of my boat the other day while I was out fishing off Myrtle Beach...

Damn shame...

 

[joesixpack]

I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns.

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

Not that it's easy to get dynamite these days, but there are a variety of ways to kill people.

I'm not saying one way or another as far as gun laws go (thought I have a very definite opinion I don't want to go into here) but the questions we are asking should be more related to "why do people do this and how can we identify them before they act?" The gun discussion seems highly unproductive.

ETA Damn! DrSid beat me to it

 

[lionking]

Some of you seem to be okay with being babysat by tyranny, not me.

Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.

 

[Pup]

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.

I think it's more of a chicken-and-egg thing. The hard part is figuring whether gun bans cause less violence, or less violence causes gun bans.

If a society doesn't care whether they own guns, it's the kind of society less likely to have violent crime, so they're okay with banning guns. But it's not the banning of guns that reduces crime, it's the lack of interest in owning guns which both makes voters okay with banning of guns and makes the crime less likely.

The US isn't the kind of society to want to ban guns, at least not now, so we're also the kind of society where violent crime is more likely.

Personally, I think the success of a gun ban in the US at this point in time can be extrapolated by looking at places where guns and other weapons are already virtually banned, like in schools.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?

That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

When gun control is discussed normally: Damned commies! Don't you see that I need to be allowed to own rifles and machine guns, because only then can I adequately defend myself and my great nation!

When guns kill innocents: Bah! I could kill just as many with a knife! Are you stupid commies really thick enough to think guns have the least impact on a person's ability to kill people?


Edit:

Guns aren't the motive for these crimes. Banning guns won't do a damn thing. and using another country as supposed "proof" is a fallacy as another country doesn't have the same culture, issues, population....etc that our country has.

Wow, can I call 'em or what?

------------------

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?

Don't tell me that "deterrents" is a new phenomenon to you.

Does locking your door keep out determined burglars? Of course not, anyone can just break a window... but we still lock our doors. Why? Deterrent.

Either way, stereotyping people into "lawful" and "dishonest" is childish black-and-white thinking that society should have outgrown decades ago. This isn't Duckburg, where you have the law versus the Beagle Boys. In reality, people shift in and out of "lawful" and "criminal" all the time, and for all kinds of reasons.

With 40%(?) of the homicides in the United State non-gun related, do you really think there was big chance that this deranged person would have never tried to kill anyone if he didn't have a gun? I am not arguing that he could have killed more or less with a non-gun method, but it appears that you claim the gun was somehow to blame and not the person.

Of course not, let's not be ridiculous here. I mean, look at all the school massacres carried out by knife-wielding assailants! Clearly this proves that...
...oh. ****.

(though, I admit I am kind of amused by the mental image of a kitchen knife-wielding Breivik chasing kids around on Utøya yelling "stop, dammit! Heel! Sit! Down! Stay where you are so I can stab youuuuu!" ).

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is your opposing argument?

The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.

 

[StankApe]

Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.

I'm referring to a ban. and govt telling it's citizens "oh well, we decided that you can't have those anymore" is tyrannical behavior.

I DO think that there should be some sort of background eval for gun ownership. Though,like I said before, this really wouldn't do a whole lot as someone can always just by a gun illegally off the street and sidestep the process.

I've never been a fan of making the entire class miss recess because one kid couldn't stop talking. Punishing law abiding people due to the offenses of a tiny minority is reactionary nonsense.

 

[Ranb]

That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.

Perhaps you are aware that every convenience store in the USA that wants to sell guns can do so. The FFL is issued on demand to anyone who fills out the forms properly.

Ranb

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Not that it's easy to get dynamite these days, but there are a variety of ways to kill people.

I'm not saying one way or another as far as gun laws go (thought I have a very definite opinion I don't want to go into here) but the questions we are asking should be more related to "why do people do this and how can we identify them before they act?" The gun discussion seems highly unproductive.

If having a gun was illegal, it would be easier to identify if a crazy person was going to use a gun to kill people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price for America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, so simply put up with atrocities like this.

Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.

I don't equate the blanket statement, "constitutional rights," with a single right currently in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not the whole Constitution but gun rights are often tossed out there as if that single Amendment represents everything this country stands for.

It's not even clear said Amendment refers to today's gun ownership. It's worded as something saying the people have a right to bear arms in case they need to overthrow the government, or in case they're called up to fight for it.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Ranb]

The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.

So why jump in with the others making loony claims? It does nothing to support your claim at all.

Ranb

 

[StankApe]

The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.

No, the opposing argument is that he would have gotten a gun anyway.

Why is it that you seem unable to formulate an opinion that isn't EXTREME CRAZY BAD PEOPLE WANT GUNS! or BAN ALL GUNS!!!

There's a heck of a lot of middle ground there ya know......

 

[LTC8K6]

That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.

Okay. Will we still have to fill out the useless 4473 form each time?

Well anyway, I am resigned to that fact that more restrictions are coming and I will just have to deal with it.

They will be silly restrictions, and they won't do anything to stop a nut from shooting up a school, but I am certain they are coming, and that's that.

 

[StankApe]

If having a gun was illegal, it would be easier to identify if a crazy person was going to use a gun to kill people.

stundie worthy.............


Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality.

 

[dafydd]

A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price for America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, so simply put up with atrocities like this.

Hear hear!

 

[leftysergeant]

New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago all have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the country. They are also some of the easiest places in the country to get a gun to use in a crime.

Their murder rates are also quite high.

 

[John Mekki]

CNN reporting a school shooting.

How dare they mention guns might be involved. Do they just want us to turn into the USSR with guns banned and everyone forced to worship Obama?
​

That's my prediction of a reaction on at least one gun forum before the day is over.

So the question is: why are guns the one subject that cannot be discussed civilly?


Holy crap: someone on CNN just said it couldn't be a student reacting to bullying because it isn't a high school so bullying doesn't happen there!

I do not see much the point of this fuss..
Again..

29 people killed.
I feel sorry for them, but who are they in the economy of all the lives of the world?
So far, all the shootings that happened in the US barely affected the lives of 0.01% of the citizens, so why are they of any relevancy for the great majority of the people?

In other words..
Why should we care?