Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[JUL3]

I don't think Gun Control is a joke at all. I don't think there's any reason that restrictions shouldn't be in place to avoid shit like this happening so often... I can't be the only one that thinks this, surely?

I agree with you entirely. It's rather frightening how the supposed solution to guns/shootings is to implement better "security", i.e. more guns. In Australia, owning a gun is a relatively rare thing. In my life I have only ever seen one, and I come from a rural farming community, where you should expect guns to be commonplace (for hunting, or whatever.) There are laws dictating the places in which guns can and cannot be kept (away from its ammo supply, as one example.) We're a small country, granted, but as far as I can tell, shootings in Australia are relatively minimal. I think America is stuck in a state of paralysis owing to the amount of guns manufactured and commonly owned: where do you start to dismantle a construct of such magnitude? The answer needs to be somewhere, surely. "In the constitution" can't be the answer to everything anymore, nothing can mask the horrendous obscenity of shootings like this one that guns (and nutcase ****tards) enable.

But f*ck it, what do I know? All I can do is hope that something will change for the better.

 

[Dog--]

School shooting over the world since 1996

http://o.canada.com/2012/12/14/interactive-mass-shootings-around-the-world-since-1996/

 

[Krynn72]

Cool, now show me a map with the number of school homicides, not just one with guns. Thats the information I'd like to see.

 

[Warped Dan]

Cool, now show me a map with the number of school homicides, not just one with guns. Thats the information I'd like to see.

exactly, how many bombings happened in the middle east in the last ten years that killed many many more children that can still be considered mass murder

 

[Vegeta897]

I don't think you understand Krynn's point.

 

[Dog--]

Cool, now show me a map with the number of school homicides, not just one with guns. Thats the information I'd like to see.

That's a good point. But in an argument about gun control, you can't deny that a country with none vs countries with gun control there are MUCH more incidents. Maybe there were more school bombings in the middle east, maybe more machete attacks in Africa (generalizing lololol), but putting a little bit more control on gun ownership would help America's school atleast in that one method of killing.

That being said I don't know why I'm arguing with you (personally I'm for guns). It's on the constitution that the citizens have a right to bear arms, therefore they can't change that right. Unless 2/3 of congress (and 2/3 of congress in each state, I believe) votes to pass a law that changes that. Which would never ever happen.

Again I don't know if that is exactly how it works, I just read that somewhere a while ago.

 

[Krynn72]

Its a proven fact that most homicides in the US are committed with guns. Its a fact. And, so far as the data I've seen/been shown, what isn't a fact is that having more guns = more homicides. If two countries have 1,000 homicides a year, and 100% of them are committed using guns in one of those countries but not in the other, then it doesn't mean the one country would be homicide-free if only they didn't have guns.

I don't know how this happened Dog--, I'm certainly not for guns. How the hell are we arguing on opposite sides? haha

 

[Dog--]

Its a proven fact that most homicides in the US are committed with guns. Its a fact. And, so far as the data I've seen/been shown, what isn't a fact is that having more guns = more homicides.

If the majority of deaths are from guns, you have to agree deaths would slow down if you outlawed them. It's the ease of access that cause this entire thing. Some guy stole his wifes (sisters?) gun(s) that she had for her own protection. That is the reason guns are so easily obtainable in the US. Protection. She didn't protect herself, that's for sure. It totally backfired and caused the opposite of her protection and then some. Now a bunch of kids and some adults are dead because someone who just up and decided "You know, I need a gun" got one, and got it stolen. In Canada when you have a registered gun you are required by law to store them in a locked case and unloaded. They're also way way harder to get. So much more so in fact, I doubt she'd even have bothered to get one if these laws were there.

If two countries have 1,000 homicides a year, and 100% of them are committed using guns in one of those countries but not in the other, then it doesn't mean the one country would be homicide-free if only they didn't have guns.

If 100% of murders were committed by guns in a country and you just up and outlawed guns, those mortality rates wouldn't disappear, but damn would they slow right the heck down, that's for sure!


We're basically making the other persons points in this whole argument haha

 

[Krynn72]

If 100% of murders were committed by guns in a country and you just up and outlawed guns, those mortality rates wouldn't disappear, but damn would they slow right the heck down, that's for sure!

But where is the evidence for this claim? What proof is out there that people have seen that makes them so sure that so many people would just stop murdering people if they didn't have guns, rather than find an alternative way to kill the person/people they want to murder?

 

[Eejit]

Its a proven fact that most homicides in the US are committed with guns. Its a fact. And, so far as the data I've seen/been shown, what isn't a fact is that having more guns = more homicides.

How about within the US?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

There's a good correlation, causation obviously can't be proven with such large-scale sociological issues.

 

[CptStern]

I do believe that gun control could be improved, but it should be done with the utmost of care, considering the reasons for the Fourth Amendment's existence.

the right against illegal search and seizure? I think you mean the 2nd amendment

If he didn't have a gun, would he not have done it? I doubt it. If someone is that intent on killing, they'd find a way to do it.

on the very same day there was a knife wielding maniac who stabbed 22 school children. not a single fatality. your point is speculation without merit

Massacres happen in every country

there were as many school shootings in 2010 in the US as there has been in Canada since 1902. more in a single year in the US than in over 100 years in Canada.

Not too sure how we'd do this but its going to happen again, its going to be done with guns, with knives, with vehicles, and with bombs.

as evidenced by all the school stabbing bombings and vehicular manslaughter in other countries that make it equal in numbers to the number of shootings in the US. it's ****ing pathetic how some americans tip toe around the goddam issue and blame it on everything else except the patently obvious. there is no doubt that the contributing factor to the frequency of shootings in the US is ease of access of firearms. you'd have to be willfully blind to not come to that conclusion

lets look at some actual facts instead of speculating:

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Who knows maybe the shooter here was picked on or was a loser compared to everyone else. You want to stop more shootings?? Try not picking on the little guy.

bullying is exclusive to the US. no where else in the world are people bullied which is obvious because there's nowhere near as many mass shootings as there is in the US. it must be bullying

 

[Stormy]

You will never take away guns from all the rednecks. They would fight to the death rather then hand them over. Massive civil war!

 

[CptStern]

in other words the deaths of innocents is a necessary evil so long as their rights are protected. gun advocates perpetuate gun crime

the upside is that a lot of rednecks would be killed

 

[Stormy]

At the end of the day, I dont really see the issue with things like having a hunting rifle or two for hunting or target shooting... fair enough. But why do people feel they need guns that are specificity designed to kill people - sub machine guns, automactic military grade high caliber rifles... Its just insane.

 

[Sheepo]

Agreed Stormy. I know several people who have such weapons and play around with them and hell I have too and it's good fun. But at the end of the day I think there's no argument to be made for an average person needing such a thing for self defense and that if we're ever to move forward on gun control and stopping this shit we're gonna have to buck up and acknowledge that these are nothing more than expensive and dangerous toys and, since we don't need them, outlaw them.

 

[morgs]

32,788 deaths on American Roads in 2011

8,583 murdered with firearms in America in 2011

BAN CARS

 

[Vegeta897]

If we ban cars than we will have more murders with firearms, don't you get how maths works?

 

[Rorschach120]

I think my keybord is as responsible for my typos as a gun is for mass murders. There are plenty of ways to kill a bunch of people (sorry to be the weird guy to make that clear). The real way to fix this is what Vegeta said: security. I went to a school growing up that was ready for this to happen any time.

If you want to say that mental health is part of the issue then I completely agree. The only way to monitor every student's mental health, though, would involve invading their privacy to an extent that the government should have no right to do.

The best way to handle this is armed security, cameras leading to a constantly monitored room, and better training for teachers to handle these situations. My two cents.

 

[Stylo]

8,583 murdered with firearms in America in 2011

Number of Murders by firearms in Britain in 2011: 58
Britain's population is like 1/5 of the US so we'll say it's the equivalent to about 290 US murders.

Fewer gun owners per capita = Fewer firearms related murders = Fewer murders overall.

Vegeta has pretty much already nailed what the issue is. It isn't whether or not easier availability of guns affects murder rates.
It's how you go about avoiding those murders and preventing those situations in the best possible manner. As was said, America
is already full of guns and gun owners, thus there would be great difficulty in seeing positive results from changing the law at this point.

The truth is, this isn't a hotly debated issue in Nations like the UK and European countries like it is in the US because we just don't have the same
rife Gun Culture that the US has.

Hardly anybody has the slightest problem with not being able to own a gun over here without massive amounts of Police involvement
and very tight License restrictions. The average person here doesn't see it as a necessity to have a gun, even to protect their homes.
Hell, most people wouldn't even think about it as a luxury.

There are still gun hobbyists over here who still do get their guns. It's just regulated heavier.

 

[dfc05]

Someone on my Facebook page posted this article on Australia's gun buyback program. I was too lazy to click through and read the studies but perhaps this would back up the gun control side. Obviously we have too many guns in the US and there is no chance the gun enthusiasts will actually opt to sell their guns back; maybe ammo restrictions would help though?

As for the "if they want to kill, they will find some other way" arguments -- these make very little sense to me. Someone with a knife/club/whatever is relatively easy for a few people to tackle than someone with a gun. Also, they are less likely to kill as many people in the time it takes for police/emergency responders to arrive. I saw a lot of gun proponents commenting (elsewhere) about the knife attack in China, but once it was known that none of those students died, they conveniently stopped using that.

I agree though that school security (armed guards) would help, but hiring full time guards seems unlikely given the current lack of public school funding and the political environment ("fiscal responsibility"/"absolutely zero tax increases"/etc.). And we can't secure every public shopping center, movie theater, etc. However, if that is easier to get than gun control, then I would accept and be willing to pay for more security. Placing that financial burden onto everyone in order to protect the "rights" of gun owners to lax regulation would be an interesting argument though.

p.s. It baffles me that people here had school security. I went to public schools and none of them up through 2005 had any security at all -- no metal detectors, ID checks, etc. Also neither my undergrad nor grad school universities have any security except that you need an ID card to enter buildings at night.

 

[Krynn72]

If we ban cars than we will have more murders with firearms, don't you get how maths works?

don't you get how maths works?

maths

You're from the US. Stop it.

 

[Vegeta897]

I intentionally said that because it sounds funny. I'm on your side.

If I was using it seriously, I wouldn't have made the grammatical mistake of using a singular verb after a plural noun.

 

[Krynn72]

Explanation accepted.

 

[Raziaar]

32,788 deaths on American Roads in 2011

8,583 murdered with firearms in America in 2011

BAN CARS

Cars are everywhere. People ride in them, people walk near them. They're unavoidable in life for most people. The number of deaths are a result of that.

 

[morgs]

How many things do you think, if invented today, would be outlawed?

cars?
guns?
alcohol?

 

[Maestro]

I'm really diggin' on how, like always, everyone has been using this to argue an agenda as to how to fix the 'underlying problem' with some trite, sophomoric three-step plan.

27 kids died. All I hear is "well here's how I'd go about fixing America!" and "no you're an idiot for x, y and z poorly-argued reasons!" It's the same parade of idiocy every god damn time something notably awful happens in the news. The same people have the same pointless arguments where no one changes their opinion. I've seen more productive debates than this on /b/.

The best use of all of you people's time would be to write a letter of condolence and get on with your day instead of putting all this energy into some pointless screaming match about what's wrong with the United States. Newsflash: emotional, reactionary policy resulting from shitty, short-term reasoning is probably the reason we have problems this awful to begin with. Maybe if everyone in this thread took the time to use their incredible reasoning skills to write their congressman (or the State Department for you international types) then collectively it will affect some small change. No, that would just be too productive wouldn't it? Instead this ****ing thread results. Maybe if people ever started these discussions spontaneously, with an eye towards reasoned discussion and open-minded debate, then something productive might occur; instead, it's always just the same jackassery rehashed ad nauseam.

****. I should be taking my own advice, but this is discussion has rustled my jimmies hardcore.

 

[Vegeta897]

Maestro, shut up.

We're having a decent discussion on the matter and nobody is getting heated about it. And, we are learning from eachother. Who are you to say who has changed their opinion on the matter?

Nobody is getting on a high horse thinking they have the answer to this problem. We're all humbly offering our opinions, and civilly debating among them.

And this is a forum. It is not a waste of energy to talk about things on a forum. We like doing it and so that's what we'll do. The incredible irony is that you're the one wasting your energy making some huffy post telling us to stop doing what we came here for.

 

[Rorschach120]

I just think it is so sad that people are putting so much hate into the fact that this was a shooter instead of a psychopathic murderer. I can't prove this but I can bet from the story that I've heard about what happened that this guy would have used gas and knives to get in if he didn't have a gun. It is so much easier to make mustard gas than it is to purchase a fully automatic gun... Now how do you think things would have turned out if he had just mustard gassed the school?... that's rhetorical. Many more people would have died.

I want to make clear though, the fact that this happened is so incredibly f**cked up that it troubles me to my core. I was born not 20 mins away from where this happened. Guns are not the issue though, security is. How many gas masks do you think most elementary schools have? Srry I've had a couple martinis and had to express this.

27 kids died.

I think that's all you really heard. Sorry if this comes off douchey. There ARE underlying causes, not just condolences. That isn't why we are here. We all play FPS's FFS.

 

[CptStern]

I just think it is so sad that people are putting so much hate into the fact that this was a shooter instead of a psychopathic murderer. I can't prove this but I can bet from the story that I've heard about what happened that this guy would have used gas and knives to get in if he didn't have a gun. It is so much easier to make mustard gas than it is to purchase a fully automatic gun...

Making mustard gas is easier than making nerve gases but harder than “weaponizing” industrial chemicals such as chlorine, experts say. Without special equipment, an individual probably couldn’t make enough mustard gas to kill large numbers of people.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/mustard-gas/p9551

also on the same day in china a lunatic stabbed 22 children. no fatalities. I certainly believe that any nut case is cable of murdering multiple people with virtually any weapon however not on the scale that someone is capable with a firearm. a projectile is far more versatile than a melee weapon. you should know this.

to say that the issue is not about firearms is just being willfully blind. this phenomenon only happens in the US in that frequency. in other countries with tighter gun control it's exceedingly rare. in the US it's almost a weekly occurrence

Now how do you think things would have turned out if he had just mustard gassed the school?... that's rhetorical. Many more people would have died.

no it's speculation. he could have used a baseball bat but he didnt. he used what was readily available to kill the most amount of people possible. he could have theoretically nuked the school as much as he could have "mustard gassed" the school. doesnt mean he was capable of going through with it. he was certainly capable of pulling a trigger

 

[Rorschach120]

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/mustard-gas/p9551

Um... that doesn't disprove what I said. It actually tells you it's easier to use chlorine (which is available everywhere). Not to mention I know how to make a form of mustard gas (not that I would ever want to) and it is not difficult. This link is only taking into account military grade mustard gas that was created by Saddam.

I'm not going to get into however all the different ways to commit mass murder. Anyone who wants to deny how capable someone is of committing these acts without guns is being naive.

no it's speculation. he could have used a baseball bat but he didnt. he used what was readily available to kill the most amount of people possible. he could have theoretically nuked the school as much as he could have "mustard gassed" the school. doesnt mean he was capable of going through with it. he was certainly capable of pulling a trigger

So now it's just as easy to get nukes? Your argument doesn't accurately counter anything I said. It also doesn't point out the reason why it had to be a gun. "Readily available"? Sorry but in the US fully automatic weapons are not readily available. Especially in CT. If he didn't have a fully automatic then what is to stop him from just using Google to figure out how to make gas or a fertilizer bomb or other things which I'm not going to mention here.

Oh and yes gas does kill people. It also doesn't require you to be in the room with the victims. He would just have to get to a central intake, put on a mask, and let it go. So yeah, a whole lot more people would have died. Thankfully he didn't do that.

EDIT: Also I haven't said a thing about melee weapons so I'm not sure what you are getting at. However I wonder how it would of gone down if that guy had a machete or some LOTR movie prop.

Oops yeah I did mention "gas and knives" I was referring more to the gas than the knives though.

 

[CptStern]

Um... that doesn't disprove what I said. It actually tells you it's easier to use chlorine (which is available everywhere). Not to mention I know how to make a form of mustard gas (not that I would ever want to) and it is not difficult. This link is only taking into account military grade mustard gas that was created by Saddam.

it clearly says without special equipment you cant make mustard gas in significant doses. and really did you think this one through at all?

"what's that smell coming from the gym? oh now there's a fire drill, ok kids line up single file"

crisis averted

I'm not going to get into however all the different ways to commit mass murder.

you dont have to. a sampling of examples of when people went on a mass killing spree using anything but guns.

Anyone who wants to deny how capable someone is of committing these acts without guns is being naive.

lol what does that even mean? how capable exactly. if you had to draw a chart where would you put rambo and say Justin beiber on opposite sides of the graph. they'd have to be miles apart in capability but they're both capable because you'd have to be naive to think people are not capable of mass murder because it happens every day. there should be countless examples of people going on _______ sprees. what should I look for when searching google? knife spree comes up a few times spanning several years but the number of victems can usually be represented by a few fingers at most

no instances of baseball bat sprees and death by molotov cocktail in a mall gets zero results. same for shoelace strangulation, vicious eye poking as well as intentional mass head stomping and death by snoo-snoo. zero results. but if there were no guns like in say canada there would be lots of examples of people being mass forked to death

So now it's just as easy to get nukes? Your argument doesn't accurately counter anything I said. It also doesn't point out the reason why it had to be a gun. "Readily available"? Sorry but in the US fully automatic weapons are not readily available. Especially in CT. If he didn't have a fully automatic then what is to stop him from just using Google to figure out how to make gas or a fertilizer bomb or other things which I'm not going to mention here.

which is what happens in other countries with tight gun controls. irate teens googling fertilizer bombs raise no red flags. it's a common occurrence in canada. instead of guns disgruntled postal workers are dreaming up ever elaborate plans to kill people with unconventional weapons for lack of easy access to firearms. it's in evidence everywhere in the world except for in the US

Oh and yes gas does kill people. It also doesn't require you to be in the room with the victims. He would just have to get to a central intake, put on a mask, and let it go. So yeah, a whole lot more people would have died. Thankfully he didn't do that.

why not if you think it's so easy? why hasnt some terrorist cell done the same thing? I mean saddam had chemical weapons you'd think SOMEONE would be smart enough to build enough gas to kill at least one coalition soldier. it's on the interwebs!!!

EDIT: Also I haven't said a thing about melee weapons so I'm not sure what you are getting at. However I wonder how it would of gone down if that guy had a machete or some LOTR movie prop.

he would have killed a lot fewer people as it gets pretty exhausting cutting down 5 and 6 year olds. not too mention someone probably could have dropped kicked. he looked he weighed all of 100 pounds. he probably would have injured himself with the machete instead.

Oops yeah I did mention "gas and knives" I was referring more to the gas than the knives though.

either way firearms are the weapon of choice 100% of the time. why do you think that is?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

27 kids

Actually, it was 20 kids and 6 adults. 8 if you count the gunman and his mother.

 

[dfc05]

Regarding "Guns are not the issue though, security is. How many gas masks do you think most elementary schools have?":
What?! Are you actually proposing that schools get not only armed guards, but gas masks for every child, sizes 5-18? What is this, some kind of post-apocalyptic nightmare world?

Spoiler

 

[Rorschach120]

it clearly says without special equipment you cant make mustard gas in significant doses. and really did you think this one through at all?

Yes... You however need to go back and actually read what I said.

"what's that smell coming from the gym? oh now there's a fire drill, ok kids line up single file"

crisis averted

I think you should look up how gas works. If you can smell it then it is likely already affecting you.

you dont have to. a sampling of examples of when people went on a mass killing spree using anything but guns.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html there are some that include soldiers (with guns) but there are more without
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

well that was easy

lol what does that even mean? how capable exactly. if you had to draw a chart where would you put rambo and say Justin beiber on opposite sides of the graph. they'd have to be miles apart in capability but they're both capable because you'd have to be naive to think people are not capable of mass murder because it happens every day. there should be countless examples of people going on _______ sprees. what should I look for when searching google? knife spree comes up a few times spanning several years but the number of victems can usually be represented by a few fingers at most

Enough with the knives already. We get it.. You don't think knives are a real threat.

no instances of baseball bat sprees and death by molotov cocktail in a mall gets zero results. same for shoelace strangulation, vicious eye poking as well as intentional mass head stomping and death by snoo-snoo. zero results. but if there were no guns like in say canada there would be lots of examples of people being mass forked to death

This is an exaggeration.. I no longer think you are debating. Your pride must really be at stake here?

which is what happens in other countries with tight gun controls. irate teens googling fertilizer bombs raise no red flags. it's a common occurrence in canada. instead of guns disgruntled postal workers are dreaming up ever elaborate plans to kill people with unconventional weapons for lack of easy access to firearms. it's in evidence everywhere in the world except for in the US

It's never to do with whether someone is interested in it. It's about someone who wants to kill a bunch of people being interested in it. I think you made this part up though so I'll wait for a response with whatever you are going on.

why not if you think it's so easy? why hasnt some terrorist cell done the same thing? I mean saddam had chemical weapons you'd think SOMEONE would be smart enough to build enough gas to kill at least one coalition soldier. it's on the interwebs!!!

http://www.fbi.gov/
https://www.cia.gov/
http://www.nsa.gov/
need I go on?

This does bring me back to my actually point though. Security is the only way to prevent mass murders. Not gun prohibition. Which I want to be clear, cause maybe you weren't aware. You have to go through an FBI background check in order to legally obtain a fully automatic gun. There is strict gun regulation... There's just a lot of guns. You should see one of my friend's gun room. He's got everything, even an M60 that his uncle managed to bring home from Vietnam.

either way firearms are the weapon of choice 100% of the time. why do you think that is?

Because they were designed to kill things... I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that there will still be mass murders even if they were regulated. Even if the government somehow tracked down every gun in the country and seized them there would still be mass murders. People don't commit these acts because they have a gun. They do it because they are f**king insane.

Regarding "Guns are not the issue though, security is. How many gas masks do you think most elementary schools have?":
What?! Are you actually proposing that schools get not only armed guards, but gas masks for every child, sizes 5-18? What is this, some kind of post-apocalyptic nightmare world?

No... It's a world where people run into elementary schools and start murdering children sizes 5-9. I think having some sort of security kit tucked away in classrooms is an awesome idea. Gas masks, a couple fire blankets, an emergency cell phone, first aid. I'm sure there is someone more qualified to fill the rest but I think you get the idea.

 

[CptStern]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html there are some that include soldiers (with guns) but there are more without

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

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

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

your arguments are becoming circular. it's obvious to me you're just dancing around the real issue by throwing up examples that dont support your pov at all. most of those were several years ago, are part of military campaigns, are terrorist attacks involving dozens of people or perpetrated by SADDAM FREAKIN' HUSSEIN DURING WAR

http://www.fbi.gov/

https://www.cia.gov/

http://www.nsa.gov/

need I go on?

lol dont ever do this again. for your own sake. I asked for specific examples and you give me the main site for the fbi, CIA, and NSA? whenever someone asks you to cite examples that support your pov and you reply by giving them a general link asking them to search for themselves you've pretty much lost the argument. you support your pov or it's just meaningless opinion without facts to back them up

 

[Sheepo]

Even if your argument that people can and would use other things equally as effective or more effective than a gun to kill people was a strong one (which it clearly isn't, because, well, they don't) it still doesn't confront the issue of gun violence at all. "People kill people" isn't revolutionary or argument stopping because everyone is thinking no shit. However, maybe we'd like to make it as difficult as we can for people to kill people? We can't outlaw everything that could be lethal, duh, but if there is something which we could do away with that makes it really easy to kill people, let's do that. But no, since the concept of murder will still exist I guess we'll just call it a day and not bother trying to prevent murderous people from getting the most dangerous possible items they can in their possession.

 

[Rorschach120]

lol dont ever do this again. for your own sake. I asked for specific examples and you give me the main site for the fbi, CIA, and NSA? whenever someone asks you to cite examples that support your pov and you reply by giving them a general link asking them to search for themselves you've pretty much lost the argument. you support your pov or it's just meaningless opinion without facts to back them up

Eh, you missed the point. Try actually reading what I said about them.

Oh and you asked for examples and I gave them to you, it took me all of 10secs. Lets go ahead, though, and deny their existence because they happened a few years ago or because it happened in another country, or that they happened during war. You are the only one talking in circles. I've been responding to what you are saying where you are either creating your own speculation to argue about or just having fun with what I said. I'm done here so feel free to post some of the same bullshit again.


And Sheepo:

YOU CAN'T PREVENT PEOPLE FROM OBTAINING GUNS. There are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the US today.

The only way to prevent violence is by actually preventing it. Not blaming the weapon used. In an almost perfect society where no one has any guns already then, yeah, ban the shit out of them. Until then (which will never happen) the only real way to make it difficult for people to commit these horrific acts is to have have better security.

The last thing I'll say on the topic: Having laws that prohibit guns means less law-abiding citizens having guns, not that there won't be any less guns floating around. I'm not even for legal fully automatics. My argument is more for people being allowed to have guns in general. I'm against the banning of guns, I am for regulation, just not strict regulation. The logic that people are showing here aims for the banning of all guns and I will never support that.

 

[Stylo]

That argument is pretty dumb, to be fair. Technically, you can't prevent people from doing anything.

Why don't we abandon law and order altogether because people will still kill, steal and rape. Why try to prevent it if it'll happen anyway, right?

You can't keep arguing that the weapon of a murder is meaningless because it isn't.

 

[Sheepo]

I welcome the argument of if and how guns can be effectively controlled (and I don't pretend to be sure that it's even possible), I just find it annoying that you and others put up this wall of "People kill people" bullshit that's a worthless distraction to prevent that real argument. I don't advocate the complete removal of guns at all, primarily because it'd be against the public's will and secondly because it'd be impossible. Not because I believe in some idealistic vision of people with legal guns protecting themselves against people with illegal guns because I know that such events are insanely rare and typically result in more death and pain on both sides of said conflict. The fact is there is some straight up horse shit that could easily be fixed in the American gun control system.

Edit: I disagree Stylo. You can't prevent some things that also happen to be no harm to anyone (except perhaps the person doing the thing) and it is for exactly that reason (if not more) that they shouldn't be illegal. See: War on drugs, prohibition. Same applies to responsible gun ownership. If guns were outlawed overnight, legally and constitutionally, in America, it would be the biggest joke in the world. We have to work slow and carefully at this issue and be happy with however much we can get.

 

[Stylo]

If guns were outlawed overnight, legally, constitutionally, in America, it would be the biggest joke in the world. We have to work slow and carefully at this issue and be happy with however much we can get.

I didn't say it wouldn't be. Read my previous posts in the thread. I'm not pushing for outlawing guns.