The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

[ponder]

So wouldn't it be a good idea to try and limit who can acquire them easily? Even more so if it's an assault rifle instead of a handgun. They have about 4 times more bullets in a magazine, have bigger bullets, can shoot farther and can shoot more accurate. Sounds like a good idea to me that these shouldn't be bought in a Walmart.

I don't think the yanks will go for that.

Maybe they could start with simple things like,
- Background checks, no guns for those with criminal records or mental issues
- Compulsory safes, can't just leave guns in the drawer, has to be locked away when not carried on the person
- Maybe a emotional quotient test or something like that
- All states having the same laws so people don't drive across state lines to buy guns in more lax environments

The laws there are very lax wrt owning a gun and being responsible for it. People need to be responsible gun owners.

The ultimate problem is with the people. Switzerland for example has the 4th highest per capita gun ownership and they are fully automatic (each person must perform military service and the weapons are kept at home) whereas in the states you aren't allowed fully automatic weapons, only semi). Now if guns were the problem then logic would dictate that switzerland for example would have a per capita % (wrt gun ownership) rate of gun related violence after the US which is not the case. After this shooting the sale of assault weapons is actually increasing because the people are now worried they are gonna be banned.

Americans are a bit whacked when it comes to their constitution and the right to bare arms always claiming militias have a right to defend themselves against the tyranny of the state. That's already the function of the national guard. Secondly who in there right mind can believe that the US military is gonna go against it's own people, those very same men and woman they put on a pedestal as heroes (they love there service men), even if a order did come from above those men and women aren't gonna turn on their own families.

As for assault weapons I don't see why the public needs them but that's just my personal opinion, they're not great for hunting either that's why you get hunting rifles and I also don't buy that everyone with a hunting rifle in the US is a hunter, there's not enough animals for everyone to shoot. Things like hand guns I don't really have a problem with or weapons used for competition shooting. Why you need ten of each also boggles the mind.

I don't own a gun and probably never will (have shot before with hand guns and assault rifles) and I also don't think we should ban them I just think some common sense needs to be applied. The US must do what they want, it's their country and none of our business really.


Edit:
PS. Just to be technical assault rifles usually have lower caliber ammunition than hand guns of choice

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Which is exactly the point.

If you can't get old of the M4 you'll use something else. That's the problem with whack jobs.

Take Rwanda. Not enough guns and not enough bullets. Plenty of machetes. Plenty of people knowing how to swing them.

Sure, no one's arguing this. Point is, the person can do a lot more damage and will be a lot more difficult to stop if he has an assault rifle rather than a knife.

I don't think the yanks will go for that.

Maybe they could start with simple things like,
- Background checks, no guns for those with criminal records or mental issues
- Compulsory safes, can't just leave guns in the drawer, has to be locked away when not carried on the person
- Maybe a emotional quotient test or something like that
- All states having the same laws so people don't drive across state lines to buy guns in more lax environments

The laws there are very lax wrt owning a gun and being responsible for it. People need to be responsible gun owners.

Lots of states have these laws, but enforcement is lax, or they don't have them at all. After the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting Virginia has to fix its laws, because a person who has already been adjudicated as being mentally unsound was able to easily purchase firearms. Another problem as you pointed out is the disparity between state gun laws. Don't like one that requires a proper background check? Easy, drive to a different state and buy one there.

The ultimate problem is with the people. Switzerland for example has the 4th highest per capita gun ownership and they are fully automatic (each person must perform military service and the weapons are kept at home) whereas in the states you aren't allowed fully automatic weapons, only semi). Now if guns were the problem then logic would dictate that switzerland for example would have a per capita % (wrt gun ownership) rate of gun related violence after the US which is not the case. After this shooting the sale of assault weapons is actually increasing because the people are now worried they are gonna be banned.

Well, lots of societal issues feed into violence, and gun violence, in particular. If you have low unemployment, high levels of education and easy access to services then the chances are lower that you'll have lots of gun crazy lunatics. Important in this case, though, is that Scandinavian countries in general, are efficient when it comes to providing care for people with mental problems. That's one way of preventing these atrocities before they occur. You need the institutional capacity to identify these people, and be able to help them properly. Many of these shootings are a result of poor mental healthcare systems. Many of the kids get flagged as being high-risk individuals at a young age, but they're failed by the system, their parents, or both.

Americans are a bit whacked when it comes to their constitution and the right to bare arms always claiming militias have a right to defend themselves against the tyranny of the state. That's already the function of the national guard. Secondly who in there right mind can believe that the US military is gonna go against it's own people, those very same men and woman they put on a pedestal as heroes (they love there service men), even if a order did come from above those men and women aren't gonna turn on their own families.

Many of them really seem to live in a fantasy world where they would be the hero that saves the day. Odds are more innocent people will get shot if vigilantes start playing hero. Especially if they're unqualified to properly handle a firearm. So far the 2nd amendment hasn't been used to overthrow tyrannies either, and the USA isn't a frontier country anymore, where every 2nd person has to have a weapon to fend off bandits.

As for assault weapons I don't see why the public needs them but that's just my personal opinion, they're not great for hunting either that's why you get hunting rifles and I also don't buy that everyone with a hunting rifle in the US is a hunter, there's not enough animals for everyone to shoot. Things like hand guns I don't really have a problem with or weapons used for competition shooting. Why you need ten of each also boggles the mind.

I don't own a gun and probably never will (have shot before with hand guns and assault rifles) and I also don't think we should ban them I just think some common sense needs to be applied. The US must do what they want, it's their country and none of our business really.

Banning weapons won't work, and I wouldn't be in favour of it anyway. But to me there's also a distinct difference between a handgun for self-defense, and maybe a hunting rifle. The collections some of these people have would make any criminal gang quite jealous. Assault rifles (even if they're semi-automatic) don't have a place in civilian homes, in my view.

Edit:
PS. Just to be technical assault rifles usually have lower caliber ammunition than hand guns of choice

Oops.

 

[ponder]

<snip>

So it sounds like we are in agreement then

 

[Stefanmuller]

Re: Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

On a few rare occassions I saw a person coming into a fast food place where I used to work, with a gun sticking out underneath his shirt, in civilian clothing, and I dont think it was a cop. Nevertheless, it made me feel uneasy. What if this guy suddenly draws his weapon, or someone grabs it from his belt? What if everyone can get a gun and carry it around like a cell phone? How do you decide who can and who cannot get one? Testing is useless because we have that for driving licenses and most people have a car. If you are not allowed to carry the gun around, there is no point in having one because someone can still mug you anywhere or hijack you. Leaving it in the car is just stupid because it may get stolen. That leaves you with storing it at home where you can only use it to protect against house robbery, after you have unlocked it from your safe and only after your life is so endangered that it warrants you to basically kill someone. Its just stupid. Owning a handgun makes almost no sense other than giving you a false sense of safety and power.

 

[Albereth]

Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

It did Honestly, comparing ease of killing between an assault rifle and a knife, and then concluding that the knife was easier for multiple killings made me just think you were a bit on the slow side.

Why do you think that I am anything like you?

 

[RanzB]

Why do you think that I am anything like you?

Yes yes, good one coming from someone who argued that using a knife to kill multiple people was easier then using an assault rifle because 'Rwanda lol'

 

[Albereth]

Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

Yes yes, good one coming from someone who argued that using a knife to kill multiple people was easier then using an assault rifle because 'Rwanda lol'

Trying to take a line I write without the context of everything else I say is not going to win you a single argument. If you took the time to understand what people (not only me) are saying you might learn something. That's is assuming you are open to that. If not, well, I'll feed you biscuits all day long.

 

[RanzB]

See, you did it again. He said that it is easier to kill with an assault rifle than with a knife, and you're arguing with that point and calling it absolute nonsense :erm:

Do you actually believe that killing multiple people with an automatic rifle isn't easier than killing multiple people with a knife?

Rwanda suggests that knives are easier. More of them and no special skills needed.

Except I know that if you're intelligent you don't really believe that using a knife to kill multiple people is easier than using an automatic rifle to do the same.

This isn't about scoring points, it's about making sense. Ask a soldier what he'd rather have, an AK or a hunting knife.

Nope. They used the knife, or machete, quite deliberately. Knives don't need reloading.

A soldier is trained to use an assault rifle. But in close quarters he may well opt for a knife. Civilians do not ordinarily know how to use an assault rifle, and they'd probably be crap at killing with a knife too. You do learn quite quickly with a knife. A rile not so much. Those mkonto tards, for example, had difficulty hitting the side of a barn from the inside. Right up there with kits konstabels.

Trying to take a line I write without the context of everything else I say is not going to win you a single argument. If you took the time to understand what people (not only me) are saying you might learn something. That's is assuming you are open to that. If not, well, I'll feed you biscuits all day long.

There's the context right there. Exactly how is that out of context and not one of the stupidest arguments ever put forward?

And don't worry, I don't need people (you or others with your type of debating tactics) to teach me a thing. Dishonesty isn't my style

 

[marine1]

Killing people with a knife is by far much harder than killing people with a machine gun, both physically and mentally.
A knife fight is a very personal form of combat. A gun is not.

 

[noxibox]

All this particular whackjob had to do was walk into his mother's lounge and take her Bushmaster M4 off the wall, and he was ready to roll. As I said, I'm all for fixing/removing the whack job, but until we're there, maybe we should just make it less easy for them to shoot people?

Why assume he hadn't been thinking about it for a while? Or that if there hadn't been a gun he would not have remained mentally unstable and then plotted how he would kill? Everyone seems to have this assumption that these killers are just walking around minding their own business, mild-mannered as Clark Kent, then suddenly they turn crazy, and hey, there happen to be guns around, so they're able to kill.

But we must get back to the fact these mass killings are indeed rare. It happening at a school is even rarer. There are innumerable other dangers in life more likely.

This is definitely one of those things that short-circuits our risk assessment processes.

On a few rare occassions I saw a person coming into a fast food place where I used to work, with a gun sticking out underneath his shirt, in civilian clothing, and I dont think it was a cop. Nevertheless, it made me feel uneasy. What if this guy suddenly draws his weapon, or someone grabs it from his belt? What if everyone can get a gun and carry it around like a cell phone?

Well if everyone had one you'd have to think thrice about pulling yours out and shooting at people, because you'd only get a shot or two off before the person closest to you put a bullet in your head.

What if a guy suddenly draws a knife and starts hacking people up? What if he's deadly with his hands and suddenly takes them out of his pockets? What if he knows how to use a credit card to kill?

only after your life is so endangered that it warrants you to basically kill someone. Its just stupid.
Much better to just let yourself be killed.

Owning a handgun makes almost no sense other than giving you a false sense of safety and power.

For home use a shotgun is a much better option. I'd never buy a handgun for that purpose.

 

[noxibox]

Killing people with a knife is by far much harder than killing people with a machine gun, both physically and mentally.

I can only laugh at people who underrate the deadliness of knives. We're also talking about a deranged individual so why should we think he'd have any qualms about cutting people open instead of shooting them? There was no machine gun involved.

But what happens if there are no guns and these killers then do use knives? Dumb bans like they have in the UK?

 

[RiaX]

They really need stricter gun control laws. It has been a good year for crazy Americans with assault rifles. Bad year for the hordes of victims.

ignorance. Firstly using an event caused by a psychopath to judge an entire nation. Secondly assuming that if the mad man had no gun this wouldnt of happened. A knife does the job just fine.

removing guns wont remove psychos, here in SA you should be able to relate what happens when you tight gun laws

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So it sounds like we are in agreement then

Doesn't happen often on here, so I'll drink to that!

Why assume he hadn't been thinking about it for a while? Or that if there hadn't been a gun he would not have remained mentally unstable and then plotted how he would kill? Everyone seems to have this assumption that these killers are just walking around minding their own business, mild-mannered as Clark Kent, then suddenly they turn crazy, and hey, there happen to be guns around, so they're able to kill.

I don't assume that. He's been mentally ill for a while, probably his whole life, as most of these nutters are. This goes back to the point of having proper systems in place for not only early detection, but actual effective treatment and help for these individuals. Point is, a nutter going crazy with a knife is easier to stop than one with an assault rifle. Not that a knife cannot be deadly, it's obvious that it can, but we have two situations occuring on the same day, similar amount of victims, but 1 had zero fatalities while the other had 26.

But we must get back to the fact these mass killings are indeed rare. It happening at a school is even rarer. There are innumerable other dangers in life more likely.

This is definitely one of those things that short-circuits our risk assessment processes.

Sure they are, but gun violence in general isn't rare, especially in the USA. Banning guns won't solve this, naturally, but it's a real problem.

 

[w1z4rd]

 

[RiaX]

wahahahaha

 

[CoolBug]

Re: Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

Who ever said arm the kids wtf

 

[LazyLion]

Already posted....
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...h-a-gun-quot?p=9532970&viewfull=1#post9532970

 

[Albereth]

Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

There's the context right there. Exactly how is that out of context and not one of the stupidest arguments ever put forward?

And don't worry, I don't need people (you or others with your type of debating tactics) to teach me a thing. Dishonesty isn't my style

Stupidity perhaps? But it's the season to be jolly so I won't be that blunt. I'll leave it at uninformed.

 

[w1z4rd]

 

[w1z4rd]

Already posted....
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...h-a-gun-quot?p=9532970&viewfull=1#post9532970

I posted mine before your thread was even up