Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Dandragon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B29v5QiTxa0

If this won't clam down the shmucks that still say gun control is unnecessary, then by god I don't know what will.

[Anouleth]

The fact that people sometimes get angry doesn't excuse people that let their anger control them enough to cause harm to another person. Some people lose control and rape others but you can't act like it's something you should expect the majority of people to do, or even a sizable population.

But you can act like you do expect some people to commit rapes. Just because we might like to live in a world where nobody ever commits a crime, doesn't mean we do live in such a world, and it doesn't mean we can't take sensible precautions to prevent those crimes. It's just a question of how far people are willing to go to prevent crime.

[Constable Reggie]

it's really impossible to argue that denying legal access to firearms does not correlate with a reduction in the number of gun homicides.

Of course it does, if the government takes every brutal measure to block any sale or possession of gun control, then there's no guns available in China. That's like saying with the 2012 NDAA section 1021 + 1022 implemented, we don't have to worry about terrorism anymore, because there's no terrorists anymore. That's a good thing, right?

But then again, you're no man.

What the hell kind of response is this?

Edited December 24, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

But you can act like you do expect some people to commit rapes. Just because we might like to live in a world where nobody ever commits a crime, doesn't mean we do live in such a world, and it doesn't mean we can't take sensible precautions to prevent those crimes. It's just a question of how far people are willing to go to prevent crime.

You can act like you expect some people to commit rapes, but that doesn't mean treating everyone like a potential rapist because of it. A sensible precaution to me does not involve removing access to firearms. I don't think banning guns is a solution to violent crime for the same reason most people don't think the same for common knives.

To Raven: The second amendment is not responsible for any deaths. People are responsible for deaths. My right to drive a vehicle is not responsible for the deaths of family or friends through vehicular manslaughter. Similarly, a freedom for someone to bear arms is not where to lay fault for when a madman slaughters innocent people. It is also unfair to act as though Americans are callous and heartless for not wanting to give up such a freedom. It would probably save lives if the public were entirely banned access to any sharpened blade, yet I doubt many people are going to react positively to any such idea for obvious reasons. Wouldn't it be a bit unfair for someone to then argue that people could just give up a bit of convenience to save lives?

Giving up freedoms is a shaky business that I don't generally agree with. I'd prefer it to be solved in another way, preferably one that moves more effectively towards solving the problem than bandaging it for the moment.

If this won't clam down the shmucks that still say gun control is unnecessary, then by god I don't know what will.

Stop being a douche.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Rehab]

The fact that people sometimes get angry doesn't excuse people that let their anger control them enough to cause harm to another person. Some people lose control and rape others but you can't act like it's something you should expect the majority of people to do, or even a sizable population. If that's the case then it's evidence of a much deeper problem than some overabundance of weaponry. If you were to ban weapons such as guns for that specific reason then you should probably ban anything that could possibly be used lethally. Which is a lot of things.

I think this discussion is getting to the same point of becoming circular as the last one did. It seems basically evident to me that as long as there are places where people gather in large numbers with a basic expectation that they'll be safe, those places are going to be targets for individuals that have something to take out on a lot of people and have little support left to keep them from doing so. However, I haven't seen anything really rival the combination of high lethality, relative ease of use and ammo capacity afforded to available modern assault weapons.

Knife attacks are a possibility, but IIRC the recent knife spree committed by a man in China had many more injuries than it did deaths. Bombs can be similarly used to kill a lot of people, but IIRC the U.S. hasn't seen nearly as many mass killings that used bombs as it has those that used assault weapons, and bombs, while potentially assembleable (shut up firefox if that wasn't a word before it is now) by anybody, I assume their availability is far less than that of assault weapons, and that they're more difficult to acquire and use, especially on a whim.

Making it illegal to sell assault weapons won't necessarily do much directly about the supply already out there in the U.S., at least not as long as it's the only thing done, but we don't have to keep them as easy to acquire as they are now. It's not as though there wouldn't be enough less-destructive guns available that are plenty strong and simple enough to use for the purpose ofself-defense, if the sale of assault weapons was made illegal.

All my feelings about guns said, though, I'll admit that even at my most optimistic, I have some doubts that making any one set of things illegal will finish off mass violence or spree killings in the U.S. There are a lot of other things that could be addressed, maybe such as the way the (news) media and the public react to highly publicized incidents, but if I had to pick one issue that most sorely needs work in order to try to prevent violence, including gun laws, I'd pick our mental health care.

My therapist has told me (pause for snickering), and I have read a bit about how after, say, the 60's, when mental institutions as we knew them were abolished, the mental healthcare system didn't just have its funding cut, it was slashed to the bone. Basically the only way to have somebody treated at length in a psychiatric hospital if they aren't completely agreeable to the idea, even with a questionable or flat-out delusional mental state, is to go right up to the line of having criminal charges brought against them. If that's not realistically possible or their family understandably doesn't want to go that far, it's largely all on them to try to care for the patient, even if they don't necessarily know how. Even with current medicine's better (if definitely imperfect) understanding of mental illness, investing little-to-nothing in funding care gets little-to-no result.

That has to change. IIRC, people aren't allowed to walk around without care if their lungs collapse, but somebody can be so delusional that they hear the Pope in their head telling them to kill their mother for being an Al-Qaeda operative and manage to draw no attention until they actually commit a murder. (for our record, the guy in that particular case is not 100% an emotionless monster, and regrets killing his mom, under delusion or not)

People don't get so messed up that they end up killing somebody all for no reason, and it's not really a big help to somebody under extraordinary pressure and receiving little help to tell them that if they crack, they're just a monster.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Rehab

[Esau of Isaac]

Knife attacks are a possibility, but IIRC the recent knife spree committed by a man in China had many more injuries than it did deaths.

Right, but you could eliminate the injuries sustained from those knives by removing them from availability, to the extent that you can do so with other weapons such as guns.

Bombs can be similarly used to kill a lot of people, but IIRC the U.S. hasn't seen nearly as many mass killings that used bombs as it has those that used assault weapons, and bombs, while potentially assembleable (shut up firefox if that wasn't a word before it is now) by anybody, I assume their availability is far less than that of assault weapons, and that they're more difficult to acquire and use, especially on a whim.

That's hard to say. Without having a huge amount of knowledge on the availability of either, I'd say they both sound mostly as hard. Assault rifles are banned except in specific circumstances. Bombs require knowledge to create, but there are several manuals that can be bought at any local book shop which detail the very means that Timothy McVeigh used in the Oklahoma bombing.

Making it illegal to sell assault weapons won't necessarily do much directly about the supply already out there in the U.S., at least not as long as it's the only thing done, but we don't have to keep them as easy to acquire as they are now. It's not as though there wouldn't be enough less-destructive guns available that are plenty strong and simple enough to use for the purpose ofself-defense, if the sale of assault weapons was made illegal.

Assault weapons are already banned in America. Fully-automatic weaponry is not allowed for consumers except by owners of a specific license, which is exceedingly difficult to obtain.

That said, rifles are rarely used in murders. You sometimes hear about them on the news, but the vast majority of firearm-related deaths occur through use of pistols.

I do agree regarding the need for reform in mental healthcare, but it's hard to say how it can be easily improved.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Raven]

You can act like you expect some people to commit rapes, but that doesn't mean treating everyone like a potential rapist because of it. A sensible precaution to me does not involve removing access to firearms. I don't think banning guns is a solution to violent crime for the same reason most people don't think the same for common knives.

To Raven: The second amendment is not responsible for any deaths. People are responsible for deaths. My right to drive a vehicle is not responsible for the deaths of family or friends through vehicular manslaughter. Similarly, a freedom for someone to bear arms is not where to lay fault for when a madman slaughters innocent people. It is also unfair to act as though Americans are callous and heartless for not wanting to give up such a freedom. It would probably save lives if the public were entirely banned access to any sharpened blade, yet I doubt many people are going to react positively to any such idea for obvious reasons. Wouldn't it be a bit unfair for someone to then argue that people could just give up a bit of convenience to save lives?

Giving up freedoms is a shaky business that I don't generally agree with. I'd prefer it to be solved in another way, preferably one that moves more effectively towards solving the problem than bandaging it for the moment.

Stop being a douche.

I was going to write a response better explaining things, but I don't really feel like it after being branded a douche. I'm sorry you don't agree with my thoughts on the subject. Have a good Christmas.

[Esau of Isaac]

I was going to write a response better explaining things, but I don't really feel like it after being branded a douche. I'm sorry you don't agree with my thoughts on the subject. Have a good Christmas.

I didn't call you a douche. That was aimed at dandragon's douchiness.

You have been un-douchey thus far, sir.

[Anouleth]

You can act like you expect some people to commit rapes, but that doesn't mean treating everyone like a potential rapist because of it.

No, it does, because there's no way to tell in advance who might commit a rape and who won't.

[Esau of Isaac]

No, it does, because there's no way to tell in advance who might commit a rape and who won't.

So? That doesn't mean you treat everyone like a genuinely potential rapist. Just because we're aware that more people will probably rape in the future doesn't mean it's safe to be suspicious of everyone. It would be silly to enact punishments on everyone in such a case because of those few people that are simply unstable.

[dondon151]

Of course it does, if the government takes every brutal measure to block any sale or possession of gun control, then there's no guns available in China. That's like saying with the 2012 NDAA section 1021 + 1022 implemented, we don't have to worry about terrorism anymore, because there's no terrorists anymore. That's a good thing, right?

i am not sure what you're saying

there are gun-owning civilians and gun crimes in china. the occurrence of these crimes is much less due to the effective prohibition of firearm sales. i suppose you were trying to mock me with your conditional statement "if gun control, then no guns," but i never said that. so i don't understand how your analogy makes a shred of sense.

Edited December 24, 2012 by HORSEBlRD

[Dandragon]

I didn't call you a douche. That was aimed at dandragon's douchiness.

Please explain as to how I am being a douche in this regard. I am frankly tired of people trying to stop gun control being implicated as it is the best solution that can be done thus far.

Am I saying that any single person that has a gun is capable of recreating this kind of crime? For all intents and purposes, yes.

While a person's intent to kill is the leading factor in these shootings, taking away the guns in which are used in these shootings from anyone and everyone who is not part of the military or police is the only thing that can be done right now.

As said in the video, it is a band-aid solution to a problem, but as of this point it is the only solution that can be done to its fullest extent with minimal consequences. If people can't handle the fact that guns are gonna get taken away, tough shit.

Unless you have a better idea that can be done within the realm of reason, then this is where I stand.

[Constable Reggie]

i am not sure what you're saying

there are gun-owning civilians and gun crimes in china. the occurrence of these crimes is much less due to the effective prohibition of firearm sales. i suppose you were trying to mock me with your conditional statement "if gun control, then no guns," but i never said that. so i don't understand how your analogy makes a shred of sense.

I'm mocking the notion that China's gun control is overall a good thing. China's methods, however great their results in gun crime are, are just as ludicrous as the 2012 NDAA's.

[Esau of Isaac]

Please explain as to how I am being a douche in this regard.

By posting a Youtube video without making an argument and referring to all opponents to your viewpoint as shmucks?

While a person's intent to kill is the leading factor in these shootings, taking away the guns in which are used in these shootings from anyone and everyone who is not part of the military or police is the only thing that can be done right now.

Why do you trust the military with guns but not civilians?

As said in the video, it is a band-aid solution to a problem, but as of this point it is the only solution that can be done to its fullest extent with minimal consequences.

How would there be minimal consequences if the United States were to initiate a blanket ban of firearms? There would be riots like you could not possibly believe.

[Excellen Browning]

Why do you trust the military with guns but not civilians?

because in my country, soldiers leave their weapons at the base and get good (mental) health care. I have never seen any reason at all why a soldier would shoot someone and to my knowledge hasn't happened for as long as I lived.

[Raven]

I didn't call you a douche. That was aimed at dandragon's douchiness.

You have been un-douchey thus far, sir.

Hah, my mistake. I hit Quote first then read your post. Regardless, I'm not online for long because Christmas and all, but I will respond eventually.

Thoughts are with the families and friends of the children and adults who were killed. Christmas was hard for myself and my family back in 2001 after a baby cousin's cot death. I can't begin to imagine their pain, especially at this time of year where families are meant to unite and enjoy each-other's company.

[Esau of Isaac]

because in my country, soldiers leave their weapons at the base and get good (mental) health care. I have never seen any reason at all why a soldier would shoot someone and to my knowledge hasn't happened for as long as I lived.

So what is it that separates a military person holding a gun and a civilian holding a gun that (to your knowledge) absolutely eliminates all gun homicide?

Thoughts are with the families and friends of the children and adults who were killed. Christmas was hard for myself and my family back in 2001 after a baby cousin's cot death. I can't begin to imagine their pain, especially at this time of year where families are meant to unite and enjoy each-other's company.

That's true. It's obviously a bad time for murders to happen at any time, but happier holidays are the worst.

[Dandragon]

By posting a Youtube video without making an argument and referring to all opponents to your viewpoint as shmucks?

That youtube video was to help explain my opinion. I don't see how I wasn't making an argument. As for calling people shmucks, if i offended anyone, I apologize, but at this point, it escapes me how people are defending the keeping of their guns after hearing on the news for who knows how many times that there has been a shooting at a school somewhere.

Why do you trust the military with guns but not civilians?

Because the military is trained in the use of guns and part of that training is not to go on a fucking rampage at a school and kill everyone you see before killing yourself when running low on bullets.

How would there be minimal consequences if the United States were to initiate a blanket ban of firearms? There would be riots like you could not possibly believe.

Would there? If so, then that is the minimal. Because allowing people to keep their guns and not do anything about this is just begging for the events of Connecticut to happen again.

It's your choice: Riots or The murder of students and teachers again and having the same god damn argument AGAIN.

[Narga_Rocks]

Except those riots may not be like the typical riots where people "just" flip cars and smash windows and steal stuff. The people who riot will mostly be the ones with guns. What do you think will happen when thousands of angry people with guns are running around the street doing riot stuff? And when the police or military are called in to quell the riots, you have a massive firefight on your hands. Probably a lot more deaths than in the school shooting. I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about the easy access to firearms, but I'm suggesting it is possibly too late to save the US from itself in this problem.

[Dandragon]

Except those riots may not be like the typical riots where people "just" flip cars and smash windows and steal stuff. The people who riot will mostly be the ones with guns. What do you think will happen when thousands of angry people with guns are running around the street doing riot stuff? And when the police or military are called in to quell the riots, you have a massive firefight on your hands. Probably a lot more deaths than in the school shooting. I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about the easy access to firearms, but I'm suggesting it is possibly too late to save the US from itself in this problem.

I see what you mean. However, if these riots do break out, it will be even more of a reason to take away the easily accessible guns. I'm not justifying these riots, but that's politics for you. I believe it's better to do something than to do nothing.

[Bluedoom]

Let's just say you could get more deaths from the riots than possible, future gun crimes(stuff we can only speculate about)

EDIT: And by that what I meant was you're basically asking for possibly more deaths than the amount that we're getting currently.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Bluedoom

[Constable Reggie]

I see what you mean. However, if these riots do break out, it will be even more of a reason to take away the easily accessible guns. I'm not justifying these riots, but that's politics for you. I believe it's better to do something than to do nothing.

That's some twisted logic. "Regardless of the people's opinions, the core concept of democracy, let's take their guns away. If they openly resist, we can say that's reason for taking their guns away!"

If you assault me, you can't say the assault was justified because I punched you in the face after you tried to assault me.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

That youtube video was to help explain my opinion. I don't see how I wasn't making an argument. As for calling people shmucks, if i offended anyone, I apologize, but at this point, it escapes me how people are defending the keeping of their guns after hearing on the news for who knows how many times that there has been a shooting at a school somewhere.

Wanting to own a gun and being disgusted by people murdering others with guns are not mutually exclusive positions to hold.

Because the military is trained in the use of guns and part of that training is not to go on a fucking rampage at a school and kill everyone you see before killing yourself when running low on bullets.

Oh yes, of course. Adam Lanza went on a murderous rampage simply because he just didn't have military training in how to use a gun and operate within a unit.

Would there? If so, then that is the minimal. Because allowing people to keep their guns and not do anything about this is just begging for the events of Connecticut to happen again.

It's your choice: Riots or The murder of students and teachers again and having the same god damn argument AGAIN.

People will always be murdered. What will you do when murders continue to happen yet with another implement? Will you argue that we are not being progressive enough by then banning that?

I see what you mean. However, if these riots do break out, it will be even more of a reason to take away the easily accessible guns. I'm not justifying these riots, but that's politics for you. I believe it's better to do something than to do nothing.

How would innocent people fighting to keep the rights they desire be more evidence that they should lose those rights?

It is clear that Americans strongly value the right to bear arms. It would be absolute suicide for any political party to even consider banning all guns.

[Dandragon]

The rioting would be proof that common citizens cannot be trusted with guns.

If your argument is that people will always be murdered then why are you in this argument in the first place? Why are you against taking away weapons that can potentially harm people?

Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but a person is much less dangerous without a gun then with a gun. If people are truly failing to realize this than I have very little hope in humanity left.

Arguing that people will always die from murder is the same as saying that it doesn't matter the fact that 28 people, a majority being children under the age of 8, were killing because it is common. That is sickening.

But fine. You want people to keep their guns and let the same god damn thing happen again and again and doing fuck all about it. Fine. I'll respect your opinion and leave this topic alone. But when another school has a shooting and another topic like this starts up, don't come in saying the same shit again, because it's just gonna lead to arguments over whether or not guns should be taken away from citizens.

Happy fucking holidays.

[Constable Reggie]

Let's take freedom of press away then too. If people riot against it by utilizing now-illegal forms of press, it's proof that people can't be trusted with freedom of press.

Your opinion on gun control and how it should be handled is great, but when you start spouting utter bullshit and resort to name calling and the blame game, then there's something wrong.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Constable Reggie