Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Rehab]

My dad was especially angry about this one. Watching it, he said "And I suppose if one of those kids had a gun, this wouldn't have happened, right?"

There's really no way this isn't going to be a gun debate topic, given how many mass shootings we've had this year in the US. The most respectful thing anybody can do is let it play out.

[Ike-Mike]

Really? You really want to be more like China? A communist hellhole where you can't even choose how many kids you have? I'm pretty sure by China's strict web polices Sernes Forest itself would be banned.

Even the worst "communist hellholes" have some sound laws and regulations.

[Constable Reggie]

There's really no way this isn't going to be a gun debate topic, given how many mass shootings we've had this year in the US. The most respectful thing anybody can do is let it play out.

You'd think people could at least wait more than less than a day to jump on the topic, though.

[Esau of Isaac]

So, you're saying that tragedies like this are the price that Americans pay for their right to own guns? Sounds like a, er, great deal you've got there.

Do you think that drunk driving fatalities are the price we have to pay for being allowed to drink alcohol?

[Caliban of Sycorax]

"I'm don't want to use this tragedy as a jumpstart for "better gun control and mental health treatments", which is why I just did so."

Do I look like I'm making laws about it?

Seriously I said my opinion. I don't want to be all "IN THE WAKE OF THIS TRAGEDY BLAH BLAH BLAH". It's a known fact that gun control and mental health treatments both need to be improved. It's tragic that an event like this had to happen for more people than the ones who already believed it to see, but it's been around. Don't assume that people never thought about these two things before yesterday.

[Excellen Browning]

It depends on a lot of things. If someone REALLY wants to gun down a bunch of people, then they're more likely to do whatever it takes to get what they want (see: drugs and the US). Stricter gun laws, IMO, would help prevent spur-of-the-moment things, but it doesn't look like it will be as effective for the premeditated crimes.

I can't tell if the gunner in this case planned it all out or just went "screw everything, mom has guns."

Obvious case in point is Anders Breivik. Thing is though, I believe school shooters would make less victims on average if all you could buy(or keep in your home) were six shooters and shotguns/hunting rifles.Furthermore, I believe four out of five? murders are not premeditated.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen

[Lord Raven]

If he wanted to kill people, he'd have the gun whether it were legal or not. It wasn't that the presence of a gun served as an accidental motivation to use it.

Guns would be a lot more expensive and harder to obtain if they weren't legal. He would've been a hell of a lot less likely to do it if they weren't legal.

[Raven]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248651/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanza-shot-child-11-times.html

So much as looking through this article has driven tears from me.

Since the murderer is already dead, watch nothing aside from mourning, paying respects and the usual "how'd they die?" investigation get fucking done about this. It fills me with rage. Sitting back and hoping another mass murder incident like this won't happen again won't work, because I can assure you it fucking will. And when it does eventually come around, people will once again ask, "why doesn't someone do anything about this?" to which the answer would be "unlucky for you to be targeted by a crazy man who had easy access to firearms. We shall mourn while we do nothing to attempt to prevent such an incident form occurring again."

One thing I'm sure of, is that it would be a lot easier to change the laws on firearms than attempt to find and help every mentally unstable person who is capable of doing something like this. The problem is USA is already up to their balls in firearms, changing any laws would still mean some people would keep their illegal weapons even after being told to hand them in. But I believe some prevention measures would be better than doing fuck all. It's a sad position for the innocent people within USA to be in.

[Anouleth]

Do you think that drunk driving fatalities are the price we have to pay for being allowed to drink alcohol?

Yes. With any right or freedom, the risk of abuse exists. However, there are many ways to prevent people from abusing that right, without necessarily compromising that right. So we have the right to drink alcohol, but if someone drunk drives, the police will arrest them and they may have their driver's licence taken away. Public awareness campaigns have attached a social stigma to drunk driving. Bartenders have the authority to stop someone from driving away in their own car if they've had over the legal limit. It's true that these measures could be implemented more effectively, however. And it's not clear what measures could have been taken to prevent Adam Lanza from accessing firearms in a society where guns are so ubiquitous.

In addition, the main argument that people have for preserving a right to own a gun is for self-defense. But there is no evidence at all to suggest that this right is actually making people safer. The contrary, in fact.

[Excellen Browning]

Raven is Keepin it real.

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes. With any right or freedom, the risk of abuse exists. However, there are many ways to prevent people from abusing that right, without necessarily compromising that right. So we have the right to drink alcohol, but if someone drunk drives, the police will arrest them and they may have their driver's licence taken away. Public awareness campaigns have attached a social stigma to drunk driving. Bartenders have the authority to stop someone from driving away in their own car if they've had over the legal limit. It's true that these measures could be implemented more effectively, however. And it's not clear what measures could have been taken to prevent Adam Lanza from accessing firearms in a society where guns are so ubiquitous.

But you would agree that, similarly to a culture that enjoys alcohol, prohibiting the ownership of firearms as a reaction to horrible events is a poor action, right?

In addition, the main argument that people have for preserving a right to own a gun is for self-defense. But there is no evidence at all to suggest that this right is actually making people safer. The contrary, in fact.

There is no evidence at all? Anywhere? Really?

[Polaris]

Do tell me about all tyrants that the second amendment has helped overthrow, and all these insane people it hasn't enabled in the process of killing ordinary people. Please, I must know.

e: In all seriousness, though, if a place doesn't have the sense of maturity to offer help to troubled individuals, and make sure that the fucking crazies don't get access to weapons that'll let them go on these sort of sprees, then I doubt the THEY TAKIN' ARE GUNS!!!! argument has any credence. Make it so that people with mental health issues get help. Make it so that you have to take actual, proper psychiatric evaluation before you can buy a gun. If the supposedly wealthiest, awesomest country in the world can't put their money into something like that, then take the guns away. You don't give weapons to babies, right?

Edited December 16, 2012 by Polaris

[Excellen Browning]

But you would agree that, similarly to a culture that enjoys alcohol, prohibiting the ownership of firearms as a reaction to horrible events is a poor action, right?

There is no evidence at all? Anywhere? Really?

The Swiss can own guns and all Swiss men are conscripted into the army for a time and then required to have a government-issued gun at home, along with government-issued rounds for it. There's a yearly check for use of those rounds. There's also a gun safety culture there that is very very much incomparable to the US. Crime levels are comparable to those in the rest of Western Europe, where guns are definitely banned.

Based on the Swiss I'm inclined to conclude that gun ownership does need seem to affect crime rates in Switzerland positively or negatively. But then again, this implies nothing about the US.

You might want to look into the canadian gun laws and crime statistics.

[Paulina]

http://www.dailymail...d-11-times.html

So much as looking through this article has driven tears from me.

I know. They were so beautiful. I saw that article last night; I started crying when I got to the girl named Olivia. That's my name irl, and she even resembled me as a kid. The little boy named Noah was so precious too.

Some of those children, including Noah, were shot 11 times. Staring at that page for more than a minute is horrifying.

The problem is USA is already up to their balls in firearms, changing any laws would still mean some people would keep their illegal weapons even after being told to hand them in. But I believe some prevention measures would be better than doing fuck all. It's a sad position for the innocent people within USA to be in.

Thanks for the empathy. Yeah...this is a pretty untenable place right now. I'm vaguely fearful when I drive to the mall. About a week ago, I was convinced some guy was following me with an uzi. I *think* it was just a cheap toy replica, but...it scared the sh*t out of me. ^^"

[Blademaster!]

This whole incident just feels similar to a situation where you have tons of work you need to do and then all of a sudden a relative or friend gets hurt/dies and then shit hits the fan because you feel bad and want to care, but then you also need to do a lot of work. As tragic as this incident is, it also has awful timing like what I described before, and the U.S. has more pressing issues to worry about at the moment like the fiscal cliff when compared to gun control. Though I like what Morgan Freeman said about the incident. We shouldn't care about who Adam Lanza is and not even bother remembering his name.

[Excellen Browning]

You can worry about it but your two party system is in a deadlock and chances are that's not gonna change even after you guys have fallen off the cliffs.

[Espinosa]

Though I like what Morgan Freeman said about the incident. We shouldn't care about who Adam Lanza is and not even bother remembering his name.

I doubt the slaughter was carried out so that the guy's name would be remembered. Or maybe you're right, you never know. He wouldn't be the first interested to immortalise his name for something disreputable. Knowing his motives and acting upon that knowledge can't possibly fail to correct some people's destinies in the future though.

[redturtle806]

In addition, the main argument that people have for preserving a right to own a gun is for self-defense. But there is no evidence at all to suggest that this right is actually making people safer. The contrary, in fact.

You are full of shit. There is plenty of evidence supporting that law-abiding citizens owning guns lowers crime.

http://guardianlv.com/2012/07/pro-gun-cities-have-less-crime/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Gun-rights-advocates-see-social-benefits-3850120.php

http://www.fightthebias.com/resources/gundebate/23_reasons_to_support_gun_contro.htm

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

In addition, people with concealed carry licenses have been shown as:

• Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
• Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
• Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324

You are just a typical liberal jackass who has no idea how the world actually works, and is completely closed minded to any view other than your own.

Also here's an incident that happens two days ago. Funny how the media never covers these kinds of stories.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Edited December 17, 2012 by eclipse
Merged double post

[Raven]

One thing for certain here is that your attitude, redturtle806, towards a fellow member of this forum leaves a bad taste in even my own bad-mannered mouth. It's rotten. You need to learn to respect the people you are debating with and not go around abusing them, despite what you may think of what they have said. You are obviously in support of the right to bear arms, however you are not setting a good example for all the other people who also have the same beliefs as you. If I was Anouleth I wouldn't even bother debating with you due to your shitty attitude towards him. Sort it out.

[Excellen Browning]

There's nothing to debate. He tried using the "shocking statistics" card. That means he simply raged and acted on it.

Because reality is quite a lot more complex than "conceal carry permit owners are arrested for crime less" and I don't even need to play the statistics are just statistics card.

[redturtle806]

I apologize if my anger at an incompetent government that is destroying my country was taken on another forum member. That is indeed a shitty thing to do.

However I will not apolgize for having strong beliefs and standing up for them.

[Baldrick]

In addition, people with concealed carry licenses have been shown as:

• Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
• Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
• Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324

From the next paragraph;

This is unsurprising, since the standards for getting a concealed carry license in Texas are the strictest in the nation. One must be at least 21 years of age, submit a photo and fingerprints for a background check, pay a $140 fee and take ten to fourteen hours of coursework. In addition, applicants must pass both a written test covering laws pertaining to deadly force and gun safety and a shooting accuracy test.

Only responsible people less likely to misuse guns were given licenses, so the best conclusion that can be drawn from those statistics is that a program that violates the second amendment, like that one, significantly reduces the intersection between "people with guns" and "people who commit violent crimes".

[redturtle806]

Only responsible people less likely to misuse guns were given licenses, so the best conclusion that can be drawn from those statistics is that a program that violates the second amendment, like that one, significantly reduces the intersection between "people with guns" and "people who commit violent crimes".

That is for handguns carried on other people's land. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, but rather protects our rights in public places. (Except for of course in federal defense gun free zones.) You can buy a handgun at 18 from private sellers or at 21 from a store. You can buy any long barrel semi-auto at 18. Although if you have a felony you can't own a gun period.

Also the entire point of the program is giving guns to responsible people. Of course it would reduce the intersection between "people with guns" and "people who commit violent crimes"

[Defeatist Elitist]

I apologize if my anger at an incompetent government that is destroying my country was taken on another forum member. That is indeed a shitty thing to do.

However I will not apolgize for having strong beliefs and standing up for them.

It's you. You are the one destroying your country.

[redturtle806]

It's you. You are the one destroying your country.

Texas (Conservative) or California (Liberal), which has the better economy?