Another school shooting

[jmlynch1]

Well, we also blamed security and shitloads of other people.

["storm"nut]

Well, we also blamed security and shitloads of other people.

Why?

[MakeItRain]

I can't think of a reason why principals and teachers shouldn't have guns. Seriously, put a safe in the teachers lounge, give a couple responsible trained people the code, some idiot tries this, Principal runs to safe, hands out guns to teachers.... the guy is done for.

Ironic that pro gun people have the least amount of respect for guns.  You know this really happened, it wasn't a video game or a movie.  In what world do you live in where a panicked teacher with a Saturday night special can take down a cold-blooded killer in a vest who murdered 26 people?

[Domino]

People driving cars kill thousands each year, so ban cars

Drunk people kill thousands each year, so ban alcohol

People kill thousands each year, blame something else

Cars are designed to transport people and things. A gun's sole purpose is to kill.

Well, since drunk drivers kill people every year, maybe we should just make it legal, since we haven't eliminated it completely? And it's not like we spend a lot of money on campaigns advertising people not to drink and drive...

A gun is cheap power, and power corrupts.

Gun sole purpose is not to kill. It can be used to kill, if a person using it chooses to do so.

What other purpose does it serve, then?

Skeet shooting, Target shooting, Collecting.

That doesn't change the fact that they are still designed to kill...

but if you're just using guns for skeet shooting, you'd be okay with a handgun ban?

[sys]

jesus christ

a misapplication of his malthusian act.
[/quote]

hopefully it just went over my head
[/quote]

it's not an act, and it's unlikely that it went over your head.  an individual's risk of dying in one of these massacre incidents is infinitesimal.  the reactions exhibited here are emotional, not rational.  if you want to debate gun control, it should be for the reasons mentioned by moscow, not in response to some isolated horrific incident. 

as a separate point, i'd also be against limitations on gun ownership for the reasons moscow brought up, even though that at least would be (or could be) a rational debate.  the development of personal firearms and the spread of those weapons to the poor of the world has arguably been one of the greatest forces for democratization in history.  prior to the invention of firearms, the ability to kill other people organized to resist being killed required extremely expensive equipment and a lifetime of training - it was the exclusive provenance of the nations and of the very wealthy who acted as if they were nations.  when a peasant could pick up a gun and kill a lord, the world changed.

[jmlynch1]

Well, we also blamed security and shitloads of other people.

Why?

Because doing so has led to the thwarting of other attacks.

[MakeItRain]

Stop responding to stormnut.  Its been proven time and again that he's a simple minded dumb eff who can't comprehend complex topics.  His analogies on this topic prove he has the logic and IQ of a 12 year old kid.

["storm"nut]

People driving cars kill thousands each year, so ban cars

Drunk people kill thousands each year, so ban alcohol

People kill thousands each year, blame something else

Cars are designed to transport people and things. A gun's sole purpose is to kill.

Well, since drunk drivers kill people every year, maybe we should just make it legal, since we haven't eliminated it completely? And it's not like we spend a lot of money on campaigns advertising people not to drink and drive...

A gun is cheap power, and power corrupts.

Gun sole purpose is not to kill. It can be used to kill, if a person using it chooses to do so.

What other purpose does it serve, then?

Skeet shooting, Target shooting, Collecting.

That doesn't change the fact that they are still designed to kill...

but if you're just using guns for skeet shooting, you'd be okay with a handgun ban?

Why ban handguns? Not a fan of them but they have just as many recreational uses and the next firearm. They should not be given out like candy though.

[bubbles4ksu]

real question is could this guy have killed 30 people without a gun.

are you saying you have a strategy to effectively get rid of all of the guns in this country?

it might take 10 or 15 years. there are reasons for people to support a less gun-saturated america.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Frank Martin ?@FrankMartin_SC
remember u went 2 school & learned respect,discipline & life skills. school building was a safe haven. N our country thats no longer da case

 

He could use an english class or 2

["storm"nut]

Stop responding to stormnut.  Its been proven time and again that he's a simple minded dumb eff who can't comprehend complex topics.  His analogies on this topic prove he has the logic and IQ of a 12 year old kid.

No sure why you are insulting me and resorting to name calling. 

[puniraptor]

The Associated Press is clearing up mixed reports: 20-year-old Adam Lanza is the shooter, his older brother Ryan is in custody being questioned.

[bigwillie20]

eff the press for bringing this guys name up constantly, pisses me off, eff him

[MakeItRain]

jesus christ

a misapplication of his malthusian act.

hopefully it just went over my head
[/quote]

it's not an act, and it's unlikely that it went over your head.  an individual's risk of dying in one of these massacre incidents is infinitesimal.  the reactions exhibited here are emotional, not rational.  if you want to debate gun control, it should be for the reasons mentioned by moscow, not in response to some isolated horrific incident. 

as a separate point, i'd also be against limitations on gun ownership for the reasons moscow brought up, even though that at least would be (or could be) a rational debate.  the development of personal firearms and the spread of those weapons to the poor of the world has arguably been one of the greatest forces for democratization in history.  prior to the invention of firearms, the ability to kill other people organized to resist being killed required extremely expensive equipment and a lifetime of training - it was the exclusive provenance of the nations and of the very wealthy who acted as if they were nations.  when a peasant could pick up a gun and kill a lord, the world changed.
[/quote]

Your logic in both paragraphs is astounding.  I'm confused about what the frequency and odds of being killed by gun violence has to do with whether or not something should be done about it.  There have been literally millions of innocent Americans whose lives have been cut short by gun violence.  Furthermore the amount of innocent killed in relation to a perpetrator killed by someone defending him/herself is so out of wack I don't know how people can continue to use this as a rationalization for the widespread legalization of firearms.

To your second point, that was valid half a century ago.  Now whether you are talking about the local police or a national army the weaponry that these people have are far more advanced and deadly than any weaponry a citizen protecting himself from the oppressor can have.  Should we let people have tanks and bombers too?  How will the Syrians use their guns when they have sarin bombs dropped on their heads?  Should they get sarin too?

[MakeItRain]

Also this is not "reaction to an isolated incident" and you know that.  Hopefully this is a tipping point and we catch up to the rest of society, we will at some point I just hope we don't have to endure more mall shootings, grocery store shootings, movie theatre shootings, school shootings before we decide to shut the vocal minority up on this issue.

[puniraptor]

Look what happens without guns:

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story

Notice the body count.

[HeinBallz]

real question is could this guy have killed 30 people without a gun.

are you saying you have a strategy to effectively get rid of all of the guns in this country?

it might take 10 or 15 years. there are reasons for people to support a less gun-saturated america.

Then what?  Does everyone put down their gun?  Cops, Military, Homeland Security, FBI, FDA, every person in any other country also put down their gun?  Do independent craftsman and/or machine shops stop producing springs, metal pipes, or fabricating and machining parts that could be used to build a gun to be sold on the black market? 

The thought is ridiculous.  This is why the "drugs are illegal and they're still prevalent" argument always comes up in such painful and annoying fashion - because the thought that getting rid of all guns is possible or even capable of producing some results is just as annoying and painful to hear. 

The silk road may get shut down, but the deep web will produce some other method of obtaining illegal contraband.  A "less gun-saturated america" is not possible or feasible without first addressing people's need and/or desire to have guns.  Stop violence, then get rid of guns.  Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will not work.

[Acceleration Man]

This is not an issue of gun control or living in a gun culture.  This is an issue of parents putting their kids in front of a TV/video game instead of spending time with them.  This is an issue of single parent families working 16 hour days leaving kids at home to fend for themselves.   People are spending the early stages of their lives without some sort of meaningful human interaction or connection to anyone.   People that know what love is do not resort to this type of violence. 

People in this very thread are referring to this guy as a dead beat/gun nut/loser/etc.   He didn’t get that way by having a fantastic family life. Maybe people will come out and say “he had loving parents, this isn’t like him, etc etc”  But maybe people thinking his childhood was just peachy is just evidence of how low our standards are.  People are quick to point out that this type of thing doesn’t happen in Canada or whatever other country has strict gun control – but what is their home life like?  What are the rates of single parents raising children / teen pregnancy rates / abortion rates / etc. 

This just seems so evident of what the problem is, and is exemplified by everyone’s reactions.  Instead of looking to each other with sympathy and wanting to run and hug our children or anyone close by really – we argue and fight over crap that doesn’t even matter.  “Gun control will limit the damage” Is that honestly an argument?   Fixing a home life or a child’s up bringing cannot be fixed with legislation.  This problem will not go away by means of some law.   And arguing over the cook killing the housekeeper with the candlestick applies a smoke screen to the real issue.

HB, you're headed in the right direction with this. It comes down to the fact that our culture is declining at a rapid rate morally and spiritually. This has consequences. Most people that are abhorred by this type of thing don't realize that their actions (or lack thereof) contribute to the overall environment that fosters this type of result. Going all in on gun control rather than the cultural ideology and worldview that leads to this type of incident is one of them.

[steve dave]

real question is could this guy have killed 30 people without a gun.

are you saying you have a strategy to effectively get rid of all of the guns in this country?

it might take 10 or 15 years. there are reasons for people to support a less gun-saturated america.

Then what?  Does everyone put down their gun?  Cops, Military, Homeland Security, FBI, FDA, every person in any other country also put down their gun?  Do independent craftsman and/or machine shops stop producing springs, metal pipes, or fabricating and machining parts that could be used to build a gun to be sold on the black market? 

The thought is ridiculous.  This is why the "drugs are illegal and they're still prevalent" argument always comes up in such painful and annoying fashion - because the thought that getting rid of all guns is possible or even capable of producing some results is just as annoying and painful to hear. 

The silk road may get shut down, but the deep web will produce some other method of obtaining illegal contraband.  A "less gun-saturated america" is not possible or feasible without first addressing people's need and/or desire to have guns.  Stop violence, then get rid of guns.  Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will not work.

the argument that it would be hard to take them away so we shouldn't is a dog crap argument

[Gooch]

If you try to take away guns from people that already have them you will only validate the "gun nuts". I have no problem limiting them in the future but you can not turn back the clock an undue what is already done.

[Johnny Wichita]

This is so awful.  My god. 

[DQ12]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

[HeinBallz]

real question is could this guy have killed 30 people without a gun.

are you saying you have a strategy to effectively get rid of all of the guns in this country?

it might take 10 or 15 years. there are reasons for people to support a less gun-saturated america.

Then what?  Does everyone put down their gun?  Cops, Military, Homeland Security, FBI, FDA, every person in any other country also put down their gun?  Do independent craftsman and/or machine shops stop producing springs, metal pipes, or fabricating and machining parts that could be used to build a gun to be sold on the black market? 

The thought is ridiculous.  This is why the "drugs are illegal and they're still prevalent" argument always comes up in such painful and annoying fashion - because the thought that getting rid of all guns is possible or even capable of producing some results is just as annoying and painful to hear. 

The silk road may get shut down, but the deep web will produce some other method of obtaining illegal contraband.  A "less gun-saturated america" is not possible or feasible without first addressing people's need and/or desire to have guns.  Stop violence, then get rid of guns.  Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will not work.

the argument that it would be hard to take them away so we shouldn't is a dog crap argument

It's not a matter of "Hard", it's impossible.  I happen to think the argument that this douche would not have committed a similar act without guns is a dog crap argument.   

I really can't go any further without making some ignorant cliche response like "did the gun kill those kids or did the guy?" 

Are people really needing me to go there? Are you naive enough to believe violence would cease to exist if the common tools of violence were removed?  That's just as illogical as the argument so many here are bashing; that more guns available would have stopped this problem (an argument btw, that I would have made several months ago - until I understood that it wasn't a matter of more guns in peoples hands, but more guns in the right peoples hands and less wrong people with guns in their hands)

[MakeItRain]

Look what happens without guns:

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story

Notice the body count.

What the eff is your point man?  Should we compare the number of people killed with knives in China to those killed with guns in America?  We have 700,000,000 less people in America than they do in China. I'm willing to bet you anything that we have more gun deaths than they have knife deaths.  Name the terms and take the bet.

Second spree killing this week, the only thing that prevented more deaths in Portland was a jammed gun.  Were there multiple spree stabbings in China this year?

[bubbles4ksu]

Then what?  Does everyone put down their gun?  Cops, Military, Homeland Security, FBI, FDA, every person in any other country also put down their gun?  Do independent craftsman and/or machine shops stop producing springs, metal pipes, or fabricating and machining parts that could be used to build a gun to be sold on the black market? 

The thought is ridiculous.  This is why the "drugs are illegal and they're still prevalent" argument always comes up in such painful and annoying fashion - because the thought that getting rid of all guns is possible or even capable of producing some results is just as annoying and painful to hear. 

The silk road may get shut down, but the deep web will produce some other method of obtaining illegal contraband.  A "less gun-saturated america" is not possible or feasible without first addressing people's need and/or desire to have guns.  Stop violence, then get rid of guns.  Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will not work.

Cops could mostly put down their guns. People who continue to make guns would get drastically higher penalties. This Newtown guy was not going to build a gun from black market pieces or be able to pay for a black market gun. Without drug wars, criminal enterprise doesn't have a lot of use for guns. Do they?

I think gun ownership is the result of fear, not a desire for violence. The violence is unplanned and comes later. Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will work.