School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[LTC8K6]

Well in the Newton school shooting the shooter took his weapons from his mothers house. Could have had an impact in this case as the shooter wasn't old enough to own weapons of his very own.

You only need to be 18 to buy a rifle.

 

[joesixpack]

People in the UK have just as much of a right to a firearm than people in the USA. ...

Just this point. A right is something that one needs not apply to authorities in order to exercise. Simply because gun ownership is a privilege frequently granted does not make it a right. You have no equivalent right in the UK.

 

[Belz...]

As I sit here at my computer, within my easy reach are two .45 auto's -1 is 8+1 the other is 14+1 and the top (in the chamber) in each (chambered round) is a Black Talon and six feet away is one of the spears. . The only functional entry to the house (where functional means I won't know you are breaking in until the door pops open)is the front door. If the door breaks open, before an entrant can figure out what is happening at least three bullets will be moving toward him to say "Hi! Welcome in!"

No children and my wife also knows weapons so any room we are in much has another official greeter for the uninvited.

That sounds a tad excessive.

 

[Ambrosia]

So perhaps he would have waited a year then to execute the shooting?

Perhaps in that year he might have decided that shooting up the school was a bad idea.

It's not necessarily about the registering, but I am failing to see how this is going to stop mass shootings at schools.

My take on it is that no law can stop mass shootings. I believe that an individual should be allowed a gun if they want one. I don't think that self defence is a valid reason for owning a gun.

All that said I think that gun control laws should aim to reduce the effects of mass shootings when they happen.

In the Newton shooting if the shooter only had access to 1 gun instead of several then the damage done would have been lessened.

If gun control measures were introduced in the US that reduced the quantity and power of the guns in circulation then wouldn't spree killings be reduced a little in number, and reduced a little in magnitude?

 

[Quad4_72]

That sounds a tad excessive.

Sounds like a pretty well laid out plan to me. I have a similar set up. One gun in the kitchen, one in the stand in the living room, one by my bedside, one in the bathroom, and a rifle in the closet. I currently live alone.

 

[Ambrosia]

You only need to be 18 to buy a rifle.

I stand corrected.

 

[The Don]

Sounds like a pretty well laid out plan to me. I have a similar set up. One gun in the kitchen, one in the stand in the living room, one by my bedside, one in the bathroom, and a rifle in the closet. I currently live alone.

My condolences in living somewhere so dangerous that you feel the need to take such precautions.

 

[Quad4_72]

Perhaps in that year he might have decided that shooting up the school was a bad idea.

I guess that is a moot point because he actually was old enough to own the rifle.

My take on it is that no law can stop mass shootings. I believe that an individual should be allowed a gun if they want one. I don't think that self defence is a valid reason for owning a gun.

So basically you are for empowering criminals? That is basically what you are saying when you say that self defense is not a valid reason for gun ownership.

All that said I think that gun control laws should aim to reduce the effects of mass shootings when they happen.

In the Newton shooting if the shooter only had access to 1 gun instead of several then the damage done would have been lessened.

How do you figure? Where are you getting this from? Let's go ahead and take away the two handguns. That leaves him with the rifle which he was old enough to have. You think that this would have lessened the amount of deaths that took place?

If gun control measures were introduced in the US that reduced the quantity and power of the guns in circulation then wouldn't spree killings be reduced a little in number, and reduced a little in magnitude?

That's difficult to say. With mentally disturbed people, where there is a will there is a way.

 

[GeeMack]

This is the dumbest thing any gun owner ever said. Of course guns kill people. That there are many ways of killing people does not negate the fact that guns are created for one purpose and one purpose only: TO KILL.

You should take that nonsense over to one of the gun control threads where it can be properly addressed. It's simply not true, a dishonest attempt to poison the well. This isn't the proper thread to be spreading your manure.

GeeMack: how is Biscuits post nonsense? Are you saying that guns aren't designed to kill?

I'd suggest you actually read Biscuit's comment.

 

[Quad4_72]

My condolences in living somewhere so dangerous that you feel the need to take such precautions.

I could live in a neighborhood that has never experienced a crime in it's history, and I would still have the same set up. I call it prepared, you call it paranoid. Makes little difference to me what others think though.

 

[Kestrel]

Isn't learning how to maintain a rifle, how to fire a rifle, and how to store and carry a rifle without endangering yourself, a useful prerequisite of owning a rifle? The kind of basic training that one would learn in a gun club, or from being in the military.

My state requires at least ten hours of instruction in firearms safety that includes hands on training at a range before a hunting license is issued. Concealed carry permits are being issued after only one hour of Internet instruction without ever handling a firearm. There are no training requirements at all for purchasing a firearm.

A rational system would require at least some training before anyone could possess a firearm.

 

[BenBurch]

I think we need a change like so;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of formally-inducted active members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Belz...]

Thanks for the honest answer. In my opinion "fun" and "cool" are very trivial reasons to own a weapon.

Like a car.

 

[Belz...]

And that's the awful truth.

I've seen comments about enacting tough gun laws like they have in Canada and how much safer Canada is because of it.

However, Canada's gun laws didn't prevent the mass shooting at Brampton (Ontario, Canada) Centennial Secondary School many years ago and Canada has the same laws today as they did back then.

The question is whether it reduces the number of occurances, not entirely stops them.

The issue is much deeper than gun control...

Indeed. Canada has fewer gun deaths per capita. But why ?

 

[Ambrosia]

So basically you are for empowering criminals? That is basically what you are saying when you say that self defense is not a valid reason for gun ownership.

I'm not sure I am saying that at all. One might argue that having a great many weapons easily accessible also empowers criminals, both such arguments seem like hyperbole to me.

Let's go ahead and take away the two handguns. That leaves him with the rifle which he was old enough to have. You think that this would have lessened the amount of deaths that took place?

Yes. If a gunman has one gun and has to stop shooting to reload his gun then he is vulnerable for however long that would take.

In this exact case perhaps it would have made no difference. Though we can say that in general the less weapons a nut has the less damage can be done.

where there is a will there is a way.

Very true. Which is why no law will ever stop killings like these. The best we can do is to reduce the damage that these ****s are able to do.

 

[Belz...]

Sounds like a pretty well laid out plan to me. I have a similar set up. One gun in the kitchen, one in the stand in the living room, one by my bedside, one in the bathroom, and a rifle in the closet. I currently live alone.

I lived alone for a while and the most I've ever had is a rather nasty-looking machete.

Of course, I don't claim to live in a place similar to yours, nor do I know where you live, so perhaps your caution is justified, but more than one handgun sounds excessive.

 

[JihadJane]

So in other words, you have no evidence whatsoever that I glorify guns and violence. Thanks for clearing that up.

On the contrary, controversially representing yourself as a lethal weapon is a worrying glorification of it, just as someone representing themselves with an erect penis would be seen as glorifying erect penises.

How would you interpret it if I used this as my avatar:

?

You did suggest it by asking me this:

No, I didn't. I'm perfectly aware that there have been mass school shootings in other countries. Your convenient (mis)interpretation is as manipulative as your brain-numbing "Thanks for clearing that up" spin.

And I believe the list may be longer because we have more crazy people here. A mental health issue that needs to be addressed.

Why do you think there are more crazy people in the US and how do you think this should be addressed?

 

[Quad4_72]

I'm not sure I am saying that at all. One might argue that having a great many weapons easily accessible also empowers criminals, both such arguments seem like hyperbole to me.




Yes. If a gunman has one gun and has to stop shooting to reload his gun then he is vulnerable for however long that would take.

How familiar are you with firearms? Are you aware that the rifle he had could be reloaded by the average guy in about 4 seconds? If he was proficient that time would be even less.

In this exact case perhaps it would have made no difference. Though we can say that in general the less weapons a nut has the less damage can be done.

While this is somewhat true, it is almost negligible. We are talking only a few seconds more of shooting. Also, let's say instead of conducting a quick reload he switches to the handgun. A handgun does less damage than a rifle, so perhaps just quickly reloading the rifle would indeed cause more damage then switching to the handgun. Either way, I don't think the "More guns = more deaths" argument holds too much water. It's more about how much ammo an individual has.

Very true. Which is why no law will ever stop killings like these. The best we can do is to reduce the damage that these ****s are able to do.

But HOW? As I stated previously, reducing the number of guns a psycho has really isn't the answer.

 

[DavidJames]

Well first of all, I never made the car reference. Second, the point I was making about drugs was whether or not banning something truly works to prevent unnecessary deaths.

You are correct, you didn't make the car reference, but it's quite common.

Both references are irrelevant and have no business being part of the discussion, unless of course it's an attempt to justify doing nothing about guns, then it's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Quad4_72]

I lived alone for a while and the most I've ever had is a rather nasty-looking machete.

Of course, I don't claim to live in a place similar to yours, nor do I know where you live, so perhaps your caution is justified, but more than one handgun sounds excessive.

Why is that excessive though? Are my handguns hurting anyone? Are they putting me or others in danger? Will some of them randomly go off throughout the night? Each of them is in a hidden place that only I know about. The only guests I have over are fellow military buddies. I live in a large house, so in a worst case scenario having guns strategically placed throughout the house enables me to react to an emergency wherever I am located throughout the house. Why is it excessive?