Another mass shooting in the U.S

bajer100 wrote: »

I did already.

Here's the thing that has been grating on my mind over the last couple of days. People like you are indirectly responsible for the deaths of those children - and you just don't see it. If semi-automatic handguns were banned - those children would not have been murdered. After the previous mass murder, you were probably defending the ability of people to own these weapons. If after the Batman shootings - everyone said, "NO! That is enough", and banned these weapons. This shooter's mother would have had to hand in her guns. Her son wouldn't have been able to get his hands on them. Those kids would be alive today. Remember this the at the next mass murder with semi-autos. People like you are keeping them legal and making them easier to access for lunatics.

Just to re-iterate how simple this is. Ban all semi-autos tomorrow and less people will die.

He didn't use the pistols, the coroner said they had all been shot with a rifle..not the pistols as was claimed. They will never ban semi auto pistols and if there is a new ban on s/a rifles it will only affect new sales like the last ban. Taking them back is not an option as they haven't a clue where these firearms are.

bajer100 wrote: »

I did already.

Indeed you did and I critiqued those studies but you never bothered replying.

Here's the thing that has been grating on my mind over the last couple of days. People like you are indirectly responsible for the deaths of those children - and you just don't see it. If semi-automatic handguns were banned - those children would not have been murdered. After the previous mass murder, you were probably defending the ability of people to own these weapons. If after the Batman shootings - everyone said, "NO! That is enough", and banned these weapons. This shooter's mother would have had to hand in her guns. Her son wouldn't have been able to get his hands on them. Those kids would be alive today. Remember this the at the next mass murder with semi-autos. People like you are keeping them legal and making them easier to access for lunatics.

So apparently because I support individual rights I'm an accessory to mass murder. If we banned handguns how do you know that Lanza wouldn't have just used a shotgun? What makes you think if we ban handguns criminals won't become braver and even more people die as a result of that? There is a large number of studies finding that easier access to handguns reduce crime. THere are also a few finding that easier access has no effect. There are no credible studies finding that easier access increase crime.

Just to re-iterate how simple this is. Ban all semi-autos tomorrow and less people will die.

No they won't.

bajer100 wrote: »

What's your point? That nothing should be banned? Are you proposing anarchy? Should I be allowed to own an RPG to protect my home? It has been mentioned on this thread that autos could be required for self defence in the case of a riot! Using this logic - why shouldn't I be allowed to own a tank? Please explain to me. After all, I may need to overthrow the government (apparently democratic elections are meaningless). But why stop at tanks. The second amendment was written at a time when the only weapons available were muskets - but the pro-gun lobby say that this amendment was designed to allow people bear arms to defend themselves against the Federal government - and that is why people should be allowed to own automatic weapons. Using that logic, you need to arm the people to the same standard as the government, so why can't I own nukes, chemical and biological weapons?



Was that a single shot rifle? Did he have to stop to reload after he killed each person? What is the problem with banning new sales? It is better than not banning at all. I think this was done in Japan and Australia. Eventually they will disappear. Japan has a ridiculously low gun crime rate - even the Yakusa don't use guns. They face severe jail terms just for possession.

People on this thread have spouted crap saying that the criminals will still have guns and crime will rise because ordinary citizens won't be armed. Nonsense. It is not a citizens job to shoot criminals! Again - the evidence from the rest of the world shows that citizens not being armed does not increase crime rates. The one country in the world with armed citizens has the highest homicide and crime rates.

America likes to think that its history is unique and that it needed guns to gain its freedom - and that is why the right to bear arms is justly enshrined in its constitution. There was a time - in the more recent past, when Ireland was in a very similar situation and a huge number of households bore arms for exactly the same reason. We got our freedom, moved on and got rid of the guns.

Ah - this is tedious. Arguing with these people is the same as arguing with creationists. They're just blind to evidence and common sense.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I'd be interested in the views of the pro-gun folks on this question:

America's murder rate per capita is shockingly high for an affluent democracy. Let's say we accept that guns aren't the problem. If you are saying that guns actually lower the murder rate and that therefore America's murder rate with stricter gun control would actually be higher - then what is wrong with America??

The problem is that people are confusing being pro-Constitution with being pro-guns. It's like how people phrase the abortion issue as being pro-life and pro-choice as if implying that if someone is pro-choice, they are pro-death. It's an inflammatory way of trying to define a complex problem.

I never argued that guns lower the murder rate, but I have said that there were more deaths as a result of drunk driving accidents than there were gun related deaths. Yet, we do not demonize alcohol or cars as we understand that it is the actors who make the critical decisions that impact the lives of others; this is also true for guns and people who use them.

There are over 300 million people in the United States, and there are millions of gun owners. Yet, in 2011, there were only 9K or so gun related deaths. A small percentage of people die from guns; it is only these horrific tragedies that make it seem like there is rampant deaths as a result of gun.

I also said in this thread that I believe the problem within America is that we have not been taught how to properly address conflict and anger. There are millions of gun owners who would not solve a dispute with a gun, but there are a small percentage of individuals who would. A friend's husband is in the military, and he was driving off the base when there was a closed lane ahead. He merged along with most other cars, but a single car decided to stay in the closed lane and speed ahead so that it could jump ahead of a few cars. He saw the car and refused to let them merge in front of him, but then he looks out the window and sees the guy in the passenger seat pull out a gun. He pulled back and let them merge ahead of him.

We could say that the gun is the problem, but that is simplistic as my friend's husband also owns a gun. Yet, he kept his at home safely locked away in a safe. Meanwhile, the guys in the car were using their weapons as a means to intimidate other individuals. Because of the location of the base, and the situation he described, it was highly likely that these guys were members of a local gang.

Chances are if the laws became more strict, and access was barred, then these types of individuals would still get a hold on these weapons. I mean - wasn't there two recent gun related deaths of men in Ireland - and Ireland has much stricter laws?

bajer100 wrote: »

You won't get an answer to that question - it will be ignored. The pro-gun lobby will just cite a few studies that seem to support their own selfish desires to own guns. They are selfish people who care nothing about anyone else. They don't care about the deaths of children - they just want to own guns.

That ... is the sum total of exactly how they feel.

NIMAN wrote: »

Unless you ever intend to kill someone, why would the majority even be remotely interested in owning one?

Target shooting? Hunting?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There are 200+ million target shooters and hunters in the USA?

Did he say specify the USA? No...and if people are holding some for home defence or 'killing people as he put it then logically the rest are being used for something e.g. target shooting/hunting.

WalterX wrote: »

I moved to the US for work about a year ago, and from what I've seen, this type of thing isn't going to stop anytime soon. Even Obama hasn't made any serious move to try to curb gun ownership.

There are a few lobbies in the US that even a president would be crazy to take on. Israels, the NRA, the National Federation of Independent Business and the American Association of Retired People.

There are a few more rated as "not the greatest idea you've ever had" like the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of commerse and the national beer wholesalers.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Connecticut mass killer Adam Lanza's mother

I would say the majority of these prepper types suffer from one mental illness or another.