I think we should just pray for/think of/cry for the children killed in this tragedy and leave the discussion about gun control for now. It's sort of taking over, which does I have to say sound a teeny bit disrespectful, or at least insensitive.

All I know is, it's not only the US. Anyone remember Norway last year? Isolated, sure, but it happened and it was a big event, a major tragedy. Then you had the politician stabbed in Sweden I think, and shootings in France. It does happen, but seems to be more prevalent in the USA.

Either way it's a terrible, pointless, senseless tragedy and if there is a god, then you have to hope there's a devil too, and that he's currently "welcoming" the shooter ....

What a world! Now some families will never see Christmas in the same way ever again. Makes ya weep, seriously.

Disrespectful to who? Unless someone who uses this forum was a victim or knows a victim, I fail to see how it's disrespectful to discuss gun control in a thread about a mass shooting.

According to gun policy.org, Russia averages around 9 guns per 100 people. America averages an astounding 88 guns per 100 people. In 2009, Russia's homicide total was over 20,000. America's was around 14,000. Pretty interesting numbers, especially when you consider America has more than twice as many people as Russia.

Imagine a world without a single gun in it and tell me if anyone really thinks acts of violence like this would cease to exist? To even say that it would lesson the potential by any minute percentage is ridiculous. In a perfect world we all Co exist in peace love and harmony but the fact of the matter is here in the real world that's nothing more than a fantasy. This is a tragic nauseating event that occurred, and the scariest thing about it is that its always looming in the deepest of unseen trenches of societies split personality that we call life.

My heart does go out to these victims and their families and hope in time they can find comfort. I'm rarely this passionate about something but this is truly disturbing and again scary.

Well, blastingas10 just posted a story about a guy who attacked a whole bunch of kids at a school in China but luckily none of them were killed because he only had a knife instead of a gun. I'd imagine a similar situation would have unfolded with this guy in Connecticut if his only weapon had been a knife as well. I don't think anyone believes stricter gun laws will make people less violent per se, just that it will make it harder for them to kill each other.

Russia has disproven that.

How so? Do you think the murder rate in Russia would go down if more guns were added to the equation?

I think Russia practically being run by gangsters might have something to do with it being so high.

The problem is that if law-abiding citizens can't get access to guns, then they can't protect themselves from those who obtain guns illegally.
People seem to think that the moment guns are deemed illegal, they suddenly disappear from existence and criminals go "Oh well. Guess I'll just straighten out my act now that I can't get a gun!"

It's not about deserving a gun. It's about deserving a fighting chance in a world where it's impossible to level the playing field. And beyond that, it's about being able to protect yourself and your family even if the criminal doesn't have a gun. A person can't be expected to physically overpower a threat in all situations, nor should they be mandated to do so when the opposing force is not playing by the same rules. All that creates is a higher potential for victimization.

Also, a lot of crime is likely dissuaded by the deterrent factor of guns alone. Now add to the equation the absolute certainty that no law-abiding citizen owns a gun and it's not hard to see how a criminal would be emboldened with the knowledge that, for instance, the home he's about to invade has nothing more deadly than a fireplace poker.

Obviously, guns = gun violence. That's the toughest part of all this because it means that to reduce (we will never eliminate) gun violence against innocent, law abiding citizens by removing guns from the equation, we have to simultaneously decrease their ability to protect themselves in the most effective way.
If you ask me whether it's worth it, I gotta say no, because it is quite literally the restriction of the very basic human right to protect yourself. This obviously wouldn't be an issue if there were no such thing as guns, but there are, and they're not going anywhere regardless of what America legislates.

This is the core of the value (most of the people I know) place in the constitutionality of gun ownership. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's on a founding document. That would be asinine. It has to do with the fact that the document legally recognizes the right of people to use arms to protect themselves from those who would oppress them. Now, in context with today's world, that really translates to protecting yourself from those abusing their power over you violently, thus, those with whatever means required that effectively limits your chance of not having their will violently and oppressively forced upon you at risk of your safety.
I do not understand how there are actually people out there that think we enjoy this right simply because a piece of paper says so. People on both sides of that are idiots. It's important because it limits the ability of government to take away the ability of innocent people to protect their own lives and those of their families. This is not something that should ever be taken away, regardless of the statistics, and to suggest otherwise is both ignorant and naive if people actually think that's a good thing because less school shootings turn up as a result of such a thing.

The real question is why there wasn't an armed guard at the school, or why we don't protect our children's schools with them as a default. I bet if there had been one and he had prevented this, there would be a lot of "hero" and "thanks" phrases being thrown around by a bunch of the same people that lobby against guns to begin with. People protecting other people with guns usually doesn't get reported very often, though, so I don't expect most people to come across something like that often enough to adjust their biases enough to see through a different lens.

And I bet those gangsters have guns, or at the very least, know that most potential victims probably won't.

I don't see how carrying one would make you any safer in that situation.

No, but it just proves that guns don't equal high homicide rates.

Not sure what you're referring to.

I did the only thing I can do to help, I created a facebook page. I am working on getting the information on how to donate up on the page, the idea for the page is to use the same security we use in big city courthouses and airports in schools or any place where there are lots of children with a few unarmed adults....

if you agree like and share..

Not sure what good it will do if any, but I felt the need to try something.
I believe that one childs life is worth more than the money it would take to make these changes. Of course it will not stop all tragic events, but schools are very vulnerable, and have more valuables than any bank.

http://www.facebook.com/pleaseprotec...page_new_likes

People on conservative radio shows right now are actually calling in and blaming video games. Why are people so unwilling to acknowledge the fact that some people are just f*cking not right in the head?
Meanwhile, people on liberal radio shows are calling in blaming guns. Based on who's less stupid, I'd say the liberals win this battle.

Not really. For all we know Russia's murder rate would be fifty times higher if they had as many guns per capita as the US.

Probably would. Russians are crazy. They have nothing to do but enjoy really gloomy weather and drink vodka. That probably gets boring after a while.

That may be true. All I'm saying is you can still have high homicide rates without guns. What about Norway? According to a Harvard study, Norway has the highest rates of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet they have the lowest murder rate.

That's nowhere near as feasible for the common thug than contacting his dealer for a 200 dollar piece that got sent over the border because of the new market that just opened up in the states...

Are you a poet, or what, rostasi?

If it wasn't guns it would be bombs or planes crashing or vehicular homicide to the 3rd degree. You can't control unpredictability amongst billions of people. You can prepare and raise your level of awareness but at the end of the day cause and effect never ceases. I agree with FBD on having guards armed at schools. At least then they would have somewhat of a chance cause what do people think happens when the police do arrive? They bring the gunman a candycane and tell him everything's ok and if he resists they spray him with silly string? How these situations even transpire is a mystery cause schools are GUN FREE zones. Therefore eliminating the possibility of any gun related crime, just like making guns illegal to possess would. Right? No wrong.

I think a more sensible thing than armed guards would be to have doors locked from the outside at all times. Have some way of identification for parents and guardians to enter (as in the doors only open when the persons identity is verified) when they need to get their kid out early or whatever it may be. But definitely have at least a couple campus police on duty at all times, as well.

Agreed, though I think the guards should be armed as well but what you mentioned is at least a start in the right direction.

Ummm...no, I wouldn't call myself a poet. :confused:

I think he asked because of the way you format your text. Why are the margins so narrow?

My school had that. They had to see you on camera, then hit a button for you to be let in. There were two sets of doors you had to get through, and then you had to sign in.

Man this has pissed me off All day. What a ****ing deranged person. I don't understand how you can pickup a weapon (much less three guns) and enter an elementary school and mow down defenseless children. ****ing animal

absolute ****ing animal

Sure. People did a great job of killing each other for thousands of years without guns. I'm just saying guns make it much easier, that's why many people are concerned with regulating them.

That may be true, but from what I understand Norway still has much stricter gun laws that the US does.

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:)