I'm curious to know how stricter gun laws would help prevent these type of situations?

Well, if this guy didn't have access to guns, it wouldn't have been so easy for him to kill so many people, no?

Do we know anything more about how the gunman got his weapons? He seemed like a lonely, depressed kid with no criminal ties so I'm not sure he'd have access to weapons.


And what exactly did loose gun laws do to HELP this situation that stricter guns would hurt? Did you hear of any reports of armed citizens returning fire on the gunman?

From what I read they were legally purchased weapons owned by his mother.

I could see stricter gun laws, but trying to banish them all together isn't the answer. Somehow the topic had switched to eradicating guns in general. My only concern for stricter gun laws is that people who respect guns and are responsible enough to have them would no longer be able to obtain them. Still with a tighter leash on the laws I just don't see it making a difference. None of us really know anything about this killer and even if he was a loner, that really doesn't play a role in how easily accessible a firearm is on the street. I don't have the answers either but I think armed security would be a start as FBD mentioned. Also the locking of doors and showing of identification before your allowed to enter as blastingas10 mentioned.

I don't have a strong position on the subject to be honest. I'm mostly just in favor of it being discussed rationally. I do feel, though, that the pro-gun crowd has a tendency to (a) overestimate how easy it is for isolated, socially awkward individuals (like the guy in this case) to buy illegal firearms and (b) ignore how guns end up on the streets in the first place.

I'm pro-gun, and I can offer a rational answer to your question, I think.

a) The pro-gun crowd doesn't feel that it's the responsibility of gun producers and distributors to regulate how their product is used after purchase. Much like the automobile industry or the tobacco industry. And I agree with this. I personally am not a gun-nut so I don't care if the government imposes higher levels of restrictions to producers, sellers, or buyers. It wasn't too long ago that seatbelts in cars was a hot issue. I personally know some elderly people who still hate wearing seatbelts and won't acknowledge their necessity. Those geezers are obviously wrong.

b) I disagree with you here and not specifically in the interest of pro-gun people. I think that legal gun dealers totally understand that guns get distributed illegally but don't feel that it's their responsibility to police such things any more than a pharmacist is responsible for prescription drug black market. They do their job.

Imagine an pharmacist thinking "okay I followed the law but I hope that the guy with a script for oxycontin goes and sells it to school children" while smiling evilly. That probably doesn't happen much if ever. Same for legal gun dealers.

Exactly right. He could have just run through the school with a Katana and maybe only killed a quarter of the children he killed, via physical limitations. And maybe if there was a guard armed with a Katana of his own, they could have gotten into an epic sword fight and the heroic guard could have prevented the massacre from the outset. Or should guns only be allowed for law enforcement? Uh oh...

I agree in whole that there needs to be proactive, not reactive, systems in place to ensure that guns don't end up in the hands of those that would use them maliciously. That's the thing. A lot of people just say "AAAAH BAN ALL GUNS NAO!" without even contextualizing it and actually analyzing the greater effect it would have for this country. But people should consider the situation here instead of simply comparing their own situations and saying "well it works here", and using that as personal proof that a completely different system would work just as well.

I'm not saying you're implying that or anything, but I've seen multiple examples of it in this thread, not to mention in general every time a massacre happens, since 1999 where this became a hot ticket in the US media. I personally think the only people qualified to debate this issue in America are those who are capable of contextualizing it in such a way that considers factors that actually affect America without using another country with another history, population and criteria as some sort of "objective" comparison as to why one scenario would be better than the other.

What question are you answering here? I don't think I actually asked one. :confused:

You didn't. I apologize for saying that you asked a question:rolleyes:

I only meant to address the 'a' and 'b' parts of your statement:)