Another day, another shooting in the US

[Hagane]

Some people will find a way around any law. That doesn't mean laws are useless. A ban or stricter controls on guns would definitely help in decreasing shootings. Of course that alone won't completely get rid of them (the "need" for guns is just a reflection on the state of the US society), but is a measure that needs to be taken.

[Casey120]

Right. Just like laws that forbid to drive without a license, or on a suspended license entirely prevent people from doing so and getting into traffic accidents, and the requirements on prescription drugs have entirely eradicated oxycontin abuse, and how I can't get bootleg DVDs at the street market due to those FBI warnings at the beginning of movies.

Yes , lets make laws that forbid to drive without a licence and then put cars everywhere with the door open and motor running and then act surprised when people without a license drive them

[Lord Satori]

I'm fucking sick of morons with guns. it's like I said in the other thread. that's what Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty are for.

how about guns are perfectly legal, but bullets won't be sold anywhere. that'd be awesome.

[O. Van Bruce]

I'm amazed by how the americans keep on with "black or white" on the gun availability question. They keep being horrified at the prospect of being more difficult to get a gun and the only way that they relinquish said easy access is only if it stops completely the violence caused by guns... that's unrealistic and they know it. what they fail to understand is that if stricter gun control would save at least one life a year it would be worth it.

not that I hope that they understand because muh freedoms

[DrTrouserPlank]

I'm fucking sick of morons with guns. it's like I said in the other thread. that's what Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty are for.

how about guns are perfectly legal, but bullets won't be sold anywhere. that'd be awesome.

Thats probably the only way that you could have any meaningful control over guns in the US, seeing as the country is saturated with firearms.

I don't necessarily think that it is the rest of the world's place to tell America what it should and shouldn't do, and I'm perfectly happy to listen to a reasoned argument as to why civilians need guns (an argument that doesn't revolve around things such as "tradition" or outdated values mind). Ultimately the will to change is what is required and if America as a whole is happy to have it's people mowed down by lunatics with guns, and assuming that these same people aren't killing those from other nations then that's their business.

The fact however that this issue is even up for debate in 2012 after all the shootings that happen in America is kind of ridiculous. Their gun policy has categorically proven that it doesn't work and the way to get out of a hole isn't to simply keep digging. Maybe when the next shooting of innocent children happens again next year we can reconvene this discussion; and it will happen. Of that you can be absolutely sure.

[Skykid]

I don't necessarily think that it is the rest of the world's place to tell America what it should and shouldn't do

No, but its image is tarnished by the number of global headlines that revolve around the senseless massacre of innocents, usually children to teens, perpetrated with easy to acquire firearms. It gets to a point where foreign onlookers have the right to take a position on the ludicrousness of legal guns in a country that frankly doesn't have the temperament to handle them responsibly.

Unfortunately, I expect these incidents will only inspire the US to introduce even more firearms to protect against the threat of firearms (logic).
Instead of attempting to control or limit the distribution, they'll probably just give teachers a loaded gun, so they can blow a student's head off should they attempt to murder the classroom.

[Ed Oscuro]

Me a few pages ago: "Why have laws" isn't the argument for guns; only a few people want anarchy. Having draconian firearms law isn't the only approach one can take.

Then: "Why have laws is a stupid argument"

[DrTrouserPlank]

So the proposition being thrown around is to ban "assault" weapons which is a pretty meaningless term so one assumes that this will be clarified by a list of specific guns that won't be sold anymore. I take it this is because the dicksplash who went on a rampage was reported to have an assault rifle in the boot of his car, although presumably this wasn't the gun he killed people with. I'm informed that the guns used were a glock and a sig sauer, both of which I assume are semi-automatic handguns.

I'm not a gun expert and as far as I'm concerned there are broadly 2 types of guns. Those where you have to click the trigger each time you want to murder someone, and those where you hold the trigger down and people don't stop dying until you release the trigger. If automatic firearms are supposedly controlled (although one has to wonder what possible reason anyone could have for a automatic weapon) then what is banning "assault" weapons going to have? Evidently you can empty the clip of an semi-automatic handgun pretty quick, and these seem to have been the culprits in this case.

[Ex-Cyber]

Is anyone actually out there championing reasonable policies? As far as I can tell it's pretty much split between:

A) No restrictions/requirements ever; even a slight increase in hassle for gun owners is tyranny

B) Bullshit "gun control" policies that don't actually achieve gun control and/or seek to restrict broad categories of people from owning guns based on no evidence that such people are generally any more prone to violence than the general population

[Ed Oscuro]

A) No restrictions/requirements ever; even a slight increase in hassle for gun owners is tyranny

B) Bullshit "gun control" policies that don't actually achieve gun control and/or seek to restrict broad categories of people from owning guns based on no evidence that such people are generally any more prone to violence than the general population

Unfortunately that seems to be what it comes down to! Except for the second category, widen that to "seek to restrict all people from owning guns" which makes the problem seem more severe. If you have or had recently been diagnosed with some kind of mental problem you should at least have to do more to prove you should qualify to buy something / have a needs-based reason for buying one possibly. However we don't want incentives for people not to get diagnosed and treated.

NRA supposedly said something about making reasonable concessions, we'll see what that amounts to.

[Ex-Cyber]

If you have or had recently been diagnosed with some kind of mental problem you should at least have to do more to prove you should qualify to buy something / have a needs-based reason for buying one possibly.

I might support such a requirement for diagnoses that have been demonstrated to have a statistically significant association with increased risk of committing violent crime. I'm not sure any such diagnoses exist, though.

[DrTrouserPlank]

Not that this is really a suggestion because it will obviously never happen, but what do you consider "unreasonable" about civilians not being allowed to possess deadly weapons? The vast majority of the world considers this to be a very reasonable stance.

Leaving aside the fact that every criminal in America is now armed thanks to their well thought out laws, why should normal people have guns? If they hadn't armed the criminals there would be a fraction of the guns you have now, petty criminals wouldn't have guns and the ones that did could be dealt with by armed and trained police units.

[DJ Incompetent]

Both the Aroura AND Sandy Hook shooter's dads are currently involved* in the LIBOR rate banking scandal. Both the shooters were basically B-class rich white kids.

*positively or negatively

No legislation will ever prevent the determination of evil white american rich kids. Call me when Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bines have proper jail sentences.

Last time I checked FBI's stats, U.S. violent crimes are half of what they were in 1990s and gun violence has continued to decline over the past five years.

“Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised.”
-Marilyn Manson

[DrTrouserPlank]

Both the Aroura AND Sandy Hook shooter's dads are currently involved* in the LIBOR rate banking scandal. Both the shooters were basically B-class rich white kids.

*positively or negatively

No legislation will ever prevent the determination of evil white american rich kids. Call me when Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bines have proper jail sentences.

Last time I checked FBI's stats, U.S. violent crimes are half of what they were in 1990s and gun violence has continued to decline over the past five years.

“Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised.”
-Marilyn Manson

Reducing the rate of violent crime and gun violence doesn't mean that the US doesn't still have a massive problem with it. The reason that gun crime has been reduced is because it was utterly appalling to begin with and gun control has helped reduce it. That isn't to say however that the US's gun crime rates still aren't utterly appalling. What else would you expect in a country where any Joe Dicksplash can get hold of a murder facilitator. It must be like clicking away annoying adverts that pop up when you are browsing.

Incidentally, I didn't realise that being white was in some way a genetic deficiency that contributed towards violent behaviour. Although every country has it's inequalities in its legal system I actually consider America's to be one of the less bias when it comes to pursuing the privileged. Certainly in terms of white-collar crime.

[R79]

B-class? He lived in a $1.5million house. Note, US psychiatry just recently took the Aspergers terminology off it's guidelines, wonder if that might get revised now? Frankly the timing of that decision looked like a direct correlation with an infamous UK2US extradition case, so who knows.

I don't think the guns are going anywhere in the USA, but for sure, mental health difficulties combined with firearms is clearly a recipe for tragedy, in any country.

Not to keep ramming home the European differences or anything, because I enjoy a plethora of 20th century American exports, but the last time (around mid 1990s) we had a similar incident here, in a school, all handguns were completely outlawed, and remain so.

[DJ Incompetent]

Incidentally, I didn't realise that being white was in some way a genetic deficiency that contributed towards violent behaviour. Although every country has it's inequalities in its legal system I actually consider America's to be one of the less bias when it comes to pursuing the privileged. Certainly in terms of white-collar crime.

Yeah mang. Rich white kids is totally a thing. You hear about the new theater shooting the other day?. 'Kid wasn't white or rich. He dragged his feet 'n couldn't be a deplorable dickbag enough to actually hurt anybody. Ya gotta have that special blend of suburban-or-higher white-people evil to wanna mow down random people with guns in such a dramatic fashon. That's just how it goes.

[Ed Oscuro]

If you have or had recently been diagnosed with some kind of mental problem you should at least have to do more to prove you should qualify to buy something / have a needs-based reason for buying one possibly.

I might support such a requirement for diagnoses that have been demonstrated to have a statistically significant association with increased risk of committing violent crime. I'm not sure any such diagnoses exist, though.

I think we just exploded the English language.

But anyway, statistically relevant? Well, unfortunately it does seem that we are looking at cases, like some of the ones mentioned, where diagnoses are hard to come by, outright falsified (that LIBOR scandal stuff is interesting...) or, on the other side, you could rope in a bunch of unsuspecting people. Too bad there isn't a test for "batshit insane, will kill everybody tomorrow." Like the asperger's case - I would say that makes a person less trustworthy with a gun, but maybe not.

[undamned]

the last time (around mid 1990s) we had a similar incident here, in a school, all handguns were completely outlawed, and remain so.

Holy crap.

I'm curious about what percentage of gun related murders in the US are gang related. I lump that into the same category as other countries that have staggering gun deaths because of their drug cartels.
-ud

[Ed Oscuro]

Whether or not the argument mentioned here is of any use, it's still interesting to do a compare / contrast with Norway. They started out with tougher laws than the US, but firearms ownership rates were still high there (and they also had a mass killing).

Don't know about gang / gun violence rates but there's some connection.

[DrTrouserPlank]

the last time (around mid 1990s) we had a similar incident here, in a school, all handguns were completely outlawed, and remain so.

Holy crap.

I'm curious about what percentage of gun related murders in the US are gang related. I lump that into the same category as other countries that have staggering gun deaths because of their drug cartels.
-ud

What difference does that make? Serious organised criminals will always be armed but that isn't justification for every civilian to be armed. You deal with serious criminals by having divisions of the police that are armed; not by having every civilian (read: potential criminal) in a position to take the law into their own hands.

The UK had far stricter controls on weapons prior to the Dunblane killings than the US did, and has even stricter controls now. We realise that allowing people to own objects that can facilitate the killing of people in an impersonal and indiscriminate manner flies in the face of the freedom and rights of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens.

In the UK we don't live with the twice/thrice yearly threat that some nutter will steal his associates guns and mow people down indiscriminately. That is the reality of civilian gun ownership. Despite all the people who are responsible with the way they handle firearms in the US, there is definitely a culture of believing that everyone is as responsible and moralistically aligned as them, and that gun ownership protects them. It is however a false belief. All these school shootings come to an end when the person shoots themselves and not when the law-abiding citizen uses their gun for defense. If this latest shooter hadn't killed himself he probably could have beaten Cho's "high score"... and as distasteful as that phrase might be it's probably somewhat part of his motives for this seemingly senseless attack.

[undamned]

I'm curious about what percentage of gun related murders in the US are gang related. I lump that into the same category as other countries that have staggering gun deaths because of their drug cartels.
-ud

What difference does that make?

Gang/drug cartel violence is in an entirely different category than for the rest of the populous. Those groups do not represent the whole. Violence to them is like taking out the trash or going to the grocery store for you and I. But when people start talking about gun violence, they will lump those stats right in with the guy that shoots some dude breaking into his house at night.

I don't think these are categorically compatible statistics and lead to misconceptions about gun violence in general.
-ud

[DEL]

Moniker wrote;

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with recreation or hunting. It's a basic right to protect oneself from any threat, whether it be foreign, domestic, or governmental. If the basic function of government is to protect the lives and properties of its citizens, then it's absolutely essential that citizens be able to protect themselves in the same way. Otherwise, you yield all responsibility for self-protection to the government, which undermines the fundamental notion of political mandate.

Yes, quote: "you yield all responsibility for self-protection to the government"
So my question is: "Do you trust your government?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpkIYki ... 7w&index=2

Considering that I'm sure that AURORA, Wisconsin (on Holmes Avenue) and Sandy Hook were operations to demonize guns and remove them from the hands of the American Public after Soetoro signs the new Arms Treaty, is there a more nefarious reason behind this desperate spate of ops?

[NTSC-J]

...I'm sure that AURORA, Wisconsin (on Holmes Avenue) and Sandy Hook were operations to demonize guns and remove them from the hands of the American Public...

A Secret Society Used The Hunger Games as a Model in Drugging Adam Lanza to Carry Out a Mass Killing to Provide the Pretext to Take Away Our Freedoms

Maybe this should go in the retarded conspiracy theories thread?

[Skykid]

A Secret Society Used The Hunger Games as a Model in Drugging Adam Lanza to Carry Out a Mass Killing to Provide the Pretext to Take Away Our Freedoms

Maybe this should go in the retarded conspiracy theories thread?

It's so elaborate it's insane. If the all-powerful rulers of the world really wanted to deny US citizens access to firearms (as recourse to then reduce them to ID chipped slaves without fear of reprisal) they'd just take them away.

[hail good sir]

with

[O. Van Bruce]

...I'm sure that AURORA, Wisconsin (on Holmes Avenue) and Sandy Hook were operations to demonize guns and remove them from the hands of the American Public...

A Secret Society Used The Hunger Games as a Model in Drugging Adam Lanza to Carry Out a Mass Killing to Provide the Pretext to Take Away Our Freedoms

Maybe this should go in the retarded conspiracy theories thread?

HOLY SHIT

America at its finest.

why not simply say this? at least it's cute

[Herr Schatten]

http://www.retronaut.com/2011/12/christmas-guns/

[hail good sir]

got

[neorichieb1971]

If every American had a gun the idiot that started firing would have been shot to bits before getting to kids no2 and no3. So I vote that every American be given a free gun from the government just so this atrocity never happens again.

[DrTrouserPlank]

To be fair most advertising is pretty terrible.

This issue bugs me for a lot of reasons so I'm just gonna rant a bit.

I don't believe in any of that grand-conspiracy-Illuminati-UN-Muslim-Obama shit, but there IS a pretty big issue here. Media is jumping on every shooting story they can, but it's not just any shooting story, it's the ones that happen in public. I have lived in west Philadelphia and let me tell you, a lot of people get shot. No one gives a flying fuck either, it might end up as a blurb on the newspaper website, one sentence maybe two, with no investigation on the journalists side and never mentioned again. It probably wouldn't even get printed in the actual paper. Guy gets shot in a bar though? Holy shit it's viral. Why? Because the public nature invokes fear, and the people in charge of these stories know it.

So, you'd be dumb I think not to ask yourself why. Like I said I think it's just for page hits, and like skykid said if the government wanted to come in and take your guns I don't think my revolver would stop an Army squad with M16s. Even if I had an automatic rifle myself I'm not trained like they are or have the support behind me. It WOULD however, be a lot easier for the grand-conspiracy-Illuminati-UN-Muslim-Obama organization to do so if we gave them willingly. Anyway...

The part that really bothers me is that gun control will probably be a bigger issue next election and it bugs me that it's only because some corporation that owns different media outlets wants to make more money.

Don't you think that tells you that America's gun-crime problem is completely out of control though. Shootings are becoming a daily occurance and something that people are just forced to accept and live with as if it's part of normal life.

I can tell you that when you have gun control from the start, shootings are not a normal part of everyday life.

I actually wonder who has got to be killed before something serious is done. Evidently school kids aren't important enough so I assume that someone with a lot of money or power needs to lose some of their family to a deranged shooter with a gun before any decisive action is taken.