I wish someone would answer this.

How did the right to bears arm positively affect this situation? Can we at least look at school shootings and acknowledge that a.) the right to bear arms rarely comes into play and b.) the vast majority of school shooters get firearms not from the black market, but from relatives who own them through legal means?

tl;dr: the one touted advantage of gun ownership is moot in this scenario, and banning guns would at the very least make it much more difficult for angsty, impulsive teens to get their hands on them.

Honestly, I don't think there are many people who hold that opinion. In my experience, even the biggest gun control advocates recognize that it might be perfectly reasonable to own a gun of some kind if you live out in middle-of-nowhere Alaska or something. I think you're absolutely right with regards to context and I think it's important for both sides to realize that it cuts both ways. Just like a city guy like me needs to recognize that there may be legit reasons to have gun out in the country, people in rural areas need to understand that there's a reason a lot of urban people don't want guns in their cities.

Well, the right to bear arms didn't positively affect this because A) Firearms are not allowed at school, and B) There was no armed guard at the school.

I'm not sure if you're trying to fault the right to bear arms not saving the day when weapons are not allowed at school and no armed guards were present. We aren't exactly calling for 9 year olds to be able to carry guns at school to protect themselves from would-be assassins...

Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

I don't think he implied that guns are okay in the middle of nowhere but not okay in big cities. It's a matter of civil liberties and personal choices. Those things apply in downtown Philly and nowhere Alaska.

Ah, in that case I'm sorry to say I don't think you really responded to my statements either. I was mostly addressing the "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument that comes up so much in gun control conversations. Point A was simply that, despite what many seem to think, it is actually a lot harder for an unhinged guy like the shooter in this case to get a hold of a street gun than a legal one. Point B was a commentary about street guns' origins as legally purchased firearms.

Who is "he"? Freebase? Yeah, he didn't say either of those things. I was the one saying them.

Haha, okay let's slow down and get rational. You (Janszoon) implied those things. And I understand why. My response remains the same ("he" being FD).

Give me a minute to read your last post that responded to mine for a minute. I'm kind of slow.

It really goes for any kind of spree killing where 99% of the time it ends up being the cops who take down the perpetrator.

There's two ways of looking at it obviously
-stricter gun control
-less gun control

Is #2 really a path we want to take? Fighting violence with violence, basically turning the U.S. into a hostile war zone of it's own, where everyone is so on edge that they feel the need to carry a gun on themselves at all times to be safe? Doesn't sound like a very hospitable environment to me.

An armed guard would potentially work, but at the same time it takes, what, 1 minute to gun down an entire classroom of people?

I'm just going to assume that everything I type that is not replied to, is universally agreed upon in this forum.

I f*cking hate being agreed with.
I live for arguments.
Someone argue with me.


Edit:
Thanks Tuna!

Your shoes don't match your pants.

So three nerds walk into a bar.
One says "Let's get drunk and talk about gun politics."

Nobody else said anything worth mentioning.

It's okay. It's midnight and I don't really feel like arguing with people I like about things I don't feel strongly about. I'll be in the shouty talking nonsense. :)

Well, to only see those two options as being valid to pursue sorta doesn't make very much of an argument, because I definitely don't think those are the only options that could fit on the table.
Making it harder to obtain firearms is somewhere in the middle, and it should be pursued vigorously, as that option lessens the chances of the wrong people obtaining them while not eliminating the chances of the right people obtaining them.

As far as an armed guard not really working because it could take 1 minute to kill a classroom, I gotta think you're intentionally not actually considering this discussion seriously. Tell you what. If you can come up with a plan to somehow figure out how to install an armed security guard in such a way as to actually prevent an armed 20 year old from entering a class room and killing all the students, you win.

Winning means your previous post is contradicted. Not winning means you're not very bright.

Ok I'm back, has everyone settled upon an agreement?

The killer had used a semi-automatic rifle. There could be laws at least to keep those highly restricted or even banned, no? Yeah, it'll still be available illegally given the number of guns already in circulation, but reinstating the ban might be a start. I find it hard to foresee that the 2nd Amendment might have had these weapons in mind...Plus, self defense aside, I can quite accurately picture what kind of threat the founding fathers wanted to protect themselves against with an armed militia (the threat of which, after centuries of democratic governance, is nonexistent now).

Ban all guns and hope they disappear from the criminal element as well or legalize them totally so that everyone can protect themselves at all times in wild west fashion. Is that the two options this has narrowed down to?

I hate these poor, innocent childrens' deaths being used as something of a pawn by people to further their own political agenda. I also hate the reporting on the shooting, describing it repeatedly as the "second deadliest school shooting in American history."

**** that. That is reducing this to statistics, reducing this to another tragedy to lump in with all the others, using, "second deadliest," as a kind of macabre measuring stick, like it's some kind of qualification.

There are dead children just before Christmas whose lives were taken from them by a complete psychopath, who won't get to leave cookies for Santa this year, open their presents, light their menorahs, or whatever their holiday tradition.

These are people. These are children, teachers, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends...they're not pawns or statistics in some ****ing political debate. These innocent people aren't even in the ground yet, and they're being overshadowed by gun control advocates and their counterparts, shouting out opinions on a hot button political issue instead of mourning the loss of life.

Taking a step back, it seems like there's a shocking lack of empathy showing from the news media and the buzz on social media.

That's all I'm going to say on the issue. RIP to those poor souls whose lives were taken today.

I don't get why so many school shootings happen in the States? It's absolutely abhorrent and I really do think the government needs to start thinking about offering some sort of protection to schools.

My god, primary school children? I can't fathom how that would ever make sense, or anyone who could be so void of a conscience.

I really am neutral on the subject even If I may seem pro-gun. I just think that steps to tighten up on laws should really be thought out before going straight to banning all guns. Put some kind of limit on how many guns can be manufactured by gun manufacturers. That would instantly cut down on the guns in circulation. Hell, ban gun manufacturing, just don't go taking guns from respectable citizens who already own them. There has to be some things that can be done to decrease the gun-murder rate without a ban on guns.

Either ban guns or legalize them for everyone. Situation resolved

I am and we do? I guess Scandinavia in general has high gun ownership compared to the rest of Europe, but the firearms culture is not about using firearms for defence or as a means to rise up against our government should the need arise (thinking of bloozcrooz here). The reason there's a relatively lot of guns here is because most of Norway is trees and forests or other sorts of nature with wild animals in it and so there are a lot of hunters here.

In order to get that gun, you need to get a hunting license which includes firearm training and then the guns you buy (rifles or shotguns) are the sort designed to help you put a wild animal on your plate, not defend you against humans.

I've never met anyone who bought a firearm for personal protection. Well, not against anything other than polar bears anyways.

edit :

I looked up the numbers and it does seem Norway scores relatively high on guns per amount of people for a European country. According to this source (came up randomly) there are 31.3 guns in Norway per hundred people. In the same list, United States has 88.8 guns per hundred people which is a lot more.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that the purpose of keeping guns legal in the U.S. was so Americans could hoard them away and try an overthrow the government. I do think if the government tried to ban or take them away that it would be utter chaos. Also the need for protection by using a gun where your from I assume isn't as great ad it is here cause the culture is nowhere near the same. The town this happened in isn't a poster ton for violence but in a lot of city's in America if people don't arm themselves they are at the mercy of those who are sure to be armed and not the nicest of people.

^I'm sorry for misrepresenting your stance on this, blooz.

I wonder how often people owning guns prevent crime compared to how often people owning guns causes crime. I suspect it contributes to more than it prevents (but gun culture certainly plays part).

Its cool, sorry bout the typos this things a pain in the ass. You should YouTube "gangland" in America and type in crip or blood or Mexican Mafia or aryian brotherhood. That's who will control the sale of guns in America if their ever banned legally. Tell me what you think.

I'm thinking I would never buy a gun illegally (and can't buy one legally) and so if I should ever get crazy enough to want to shoot friends or family or some guy whose care I just bumped into, that would not be an option for me. If someone broke into my home, shooting them wouldn't be an option, but that's fine because I'd rather lose a TV or a stereo than become someone who shoots other people. If some criminal does break into my home, I have less reason to believe the criminal does carry a gun because they are likely harder to get a hold of, even if getting one is still a possibility. F.ex not only would you have to get in contact with the right people, but illegal guns could be very expensive. I believe I would feel safer around other people, and by extension in my community, if I don't have to worry that the guy cutting in the taxi line or that prick of a neighbour whose dog I accidentally hit with my car might also carry a gun in his pocket or keep one in his house.

I'm thinking less fear, less violence. You could have the same sort of crime, but perhaps that crime would be less violent because the threat of someone bringing a firearm into it is much smaller.

I woke up this morning to more detail about this horrible story. It's just so awful. But the heroism I'm hearing about on the part of some of the teachers is amazing.

His mother, a rigid primary school teacher had an m4. Assault rifle?....

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...fan/HC/pot.jpg

I'd love to see how this goes over.


I assume you've never taught in America.

My personal view?

If your country is in a position whereby removing or restricting the right to own guns will genuinely be a bad idea because of the potential for people to react badly, or because there is such a demand for these things that illegal trafficking would be an unstoppable force, then frankly, things probably got screwed up long enough ago that nothing can help in the present day.

Amusingly, this also works for tobacco and alcohol.

The problem isn't that gun control doesn't work. The problem is that so much of the American population doesn't want it to be ABLE to work.

But it also doesn't work.

The best gun control you can have is a good economy, a minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation, and medical service that meet the needs of the population, especially mental health services.

Taking away guns won't stop someone from making a bomb, or poisoning food. You need to remove the impetus from the individuals.

Gun deaths in the UK last year numbered 39.

Gun homicides in the US in 2012 were 14,159.

Thats 5x our population, yet 363x our gun death rate in murders alone. And the figure I used in the UK was total, the US figure was homicides only, IE did not include accidents. What figures could you bring to me that negate this?

The problem with your figures is they don't refute my arguement. America can't be stacked against England because our states have different gun laws. And more importantly, they have different laws regarding the information I laid out as a better plan.

As an example Texas in 2011 had a Firearms Murder rate of 3.19 for every 100,000 people. Conversely, Vermont has a .039 murder rate regarding firearms.

Vermont has more lax gun control laws than Texas does, but it also has a Socialist Senator. Meanwhile, during Texas's massive wildfires, their governor told the population the best response is prayer.

Its not guns. And you haven't told me how gun control would prevent the mass killings I suggested which are more effective and easier to pull off.

I'd say guns lend themselves a lot more to spontaneous violence than building a bomb or poisoning food though.

Very sad news indeed.

I don't think any amount of weapon control or freedom of use will stop these actions. It's part and parcel of human nature, unfortunately. But that being said, I'll take my chances in a society of knife crime over gun crime.

This kind of thinking is a result of not seeing the big picture or thinking about things further in the future. Enacting harsher gun control laws NOW wouldn't do anything. The guns are still out there. It would take a long long time to see the effect of these laws. Hell, it's not even the laws that are the point. It's that these would at least spark a shift in our reverence for guns. This is something I think we can all agree needs to happen and since it will take so long why not do it NOW.

Thats a fair point, but it suggests that these are acts of rage, when often they appear to be acts of mental illness.

Well I certainly think the NRA has too much power over Congress. The fact that the automatic weapons ban, signed by 4 Presidents, was allowed to expire under our former President is absurd. No one needs an automotic weapon. That alone displays the fear of rising against the NRA. If not in early 2013, we may not have another chance and its time to take these things down again.

Also, I don't mind gun control. We have tons of it here in MA and people can still obtain guns, so the idea of it preventing "good people" from having guns is absurd. That being said, I still think the big issue with these mass killings is a lack of healthcare services available for people.Its a concern we need to address immedaitely. And more paranoid schizophrenics are resistent to it, so we need to recreate institutions with a emphasis on care and not locking someone up.

I know you guys are having fun arguing whether or not guns will ever go away (they won't) or how violence can be stopped (with much difficulty), but here's another horrible news story of a maniac attacking children, that happened on the exact same day. Human beings have the potential to do more evil than I can imagine.

Villager slashes 22 kids with knife at elementary school gates in China - World News

EDIT: Note, this isn't some sort of sneaky way to express my views on violence and guns, this is just a horrible, related bit of news that I wanted to share.

Wow, that was condecending, huh?

What? Making it harder to obtain firearms would fall under stricter gun control would it not?

It's a spectrum of gun control, either you move up the ladder toward stricter, or you move down toward more lenient. Or you stay the same and address another problem. Those are your only options.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I'm saying he'd probably have to be heavily armed at the least to make it work. Let's not forget that Columbine had an armed security guard, that didn't do much good.

I don't see how Americans don't want the system we have in place here, it's not like you can't have guns for hobbies. My friends dad has a gun licence and special cupboard to keep them in because he uses them for hunting. So what is the problem?