Elementary School Shooting In Connecticut

[Jupiter551]

if you had sensible gun laws most if not all of those children would be tucked up in bed right now.

WHY are you not simply asking yourselves which is more important - innocent lives or having lots of guns? Is it because the conclusion you come to is too difficult to deal with?

We do have sensible gun laws. What law would you enact that would have stopped today's tragedy?

A buyback scheme for handguns (exceptions may be applied for people whose job requires it), semi-automatic rifles (again, exemptions applied for those who need them ie farmers) and such, restrictions on caliber and barrel length, much tighter oversight of ammunition sales - the same tactics used to reduce drug production and money counterfeiting, you control the materials. Illegality of concealed weapons. Extremely harsh penalties for illegal ownership and sale or transfer of black market guns and ammunition.

If these had been implemented after Columbine, it is highly unlikely I think that today's tragedy would have occurred.

For the record, I like shooting recreationally and see no problem with it. I dislike hunting for personal reasons, but won't protest others doing it (within reason). I don't need a beretta, a FAL, a .357 magnum, a sawn-off shotgun, an SKS, or a sniper rifle to shoot targets, or hunt deer.

Yes, there will be a black market, but it will also shrink as more guns are taken off the street and it will shrink further after ammo restrictions have an impact. Afterall, you'd have rather an interesting time explaining to the ATF why you want to buy 100 .44 magnum hollow points when you don't have a license for a .44 magnum right? If you DID have a license to carry a handgun and the intention to buy ammunition to sell illegally to others you'd have a likewise interesting story to spin about why you need 500 rounds.

As ammunition and weapons continue to become more scarce the black market price increases, supply decreases...etc.

Your constitution grants you the right to bear arms - fair enough. What it doesn't do is specify which arms are and are not suitable. Afterall, it was written in the 18th century. Is it so terrible to use a bolt-action rifle for hunting? Is it so terrible to have to show reasonable cause to own it - ie that you do in fact hunt? Is it so bad to have a shotgun for home defense rather than a desert eagle? Or a .22 pistol for competition target shooting?

The only thing high magazine capacity and/or semi-auto rifles and/or concealable weapons are designed and used for is killing other human beings. Therefore logically, if you don't want people to die, don't give them those guns.

I think part of the fear you guys have about gun control is the amount of guns already around in your country - and it's a legitimate fear, but it's a situation you yourselves created with such ardent defense of your constitutional right and here's the kicker: it's only going to get worse. Until you put some sensible limits on it.

It doesnt matter what worked for Australia. You cant say what works for one country will work for another. Also, you continue to show how ignorant you are of the US, its history, culture, and laws. We have plenty of gun laws on the books. They dont do a bit of good if people dont practice responsible gun ownership. This woman knew she had a mentally unstable person in her home, yet she still allowed him access to firearms. Thats her fault. No gun law ever written would have prevented that.

Well to the first part no, you can't state with certainty that what has worked for one country will work for another, but it IS clearcut empirical evidence that tightening gun laws on a first world western country with a comparably similar culture to your own, worked. It would be hard to find a better case study than that.

Secondly, whether the mother should or shouldn't have locked up the guns is beside the point - is that any consolation to the victim's families? You want to argue that the safety of innocent people should rest on the responsibility of others to lock up their guns? Actually gun laws might well have avoided it because I personally can't think of any practical reason the woman had two semi-auto handguns and a freaking 30 round semi-auto rifle. One of the guns he used was a .223 carbine.

Also, we do not have these sorts of incidents every couple of months. They are actually quite rare. You're exaggerating because you dont know what youre talking about.

You're right, I am exaggerating, it's not every couple of months. On average it's once every three months, there have been 19 mass shootings in the US in the last 5 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-shootings-reactions_n_2302971.html

 

[Nordling]

Actually, I suspect the question of how this monster got his hands on weapons to do this is quite pertinent on the minds of the bereaved. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with the fact that this sick shit happens over and over and over, and nothing ever gets done about it because apparently it's a taboo subject, so it happens again.

This monster, it appears, may have had a long standing problem with some form of mental illness. Is everyone who suffers from a mental illness a monster?

Only when they kill almost 30 children. Are rabid dogs or bats monsters? Yes, when they bite you and you get rabies. A monster is some living being who causes horrid things to happen. This was a horrid thing.

Most autistics (as described by his brother) never kill anyone. This guy, like everyone else in the world was an individual.

 

[Jupiter551]

hey check it out, carbines, assault rifles and hey even a .50 caliber sniper rifle! Mass murder home defense ftw!
That model carbon 15 was one of the guns used to kill all those children http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/carbon_15.asp

 

[Anonymous]

The author of that should take their own advice. The picture is of the killer's brother. The killer's name was Adam.

 

[UncleThursday]

No, it takes time to build a bomb. Time he might have been noticed, a bomb that might have been seen, expertise he might not have been capable of and MOST IMPORTANTLY these crimes are almost always committed in the heat of the moment after some traumatic mental or social disconnect - without guns in easy reach there's time to cool off. Worst case scenario I guess he might pick up a knife or get in his SUV. He's still not going to kill 26 people.

I can build a fairly effective firebomb in about 3 minutes, right now. I have an empty bottle of vodka laying around. I have a gas can with some gas in it in the shed for the lawnmower. And I have rags downstairs. I also smoke, so I have a lighter.

Take empty glass bottle, add gas, add rag, add flame. It's called a Molotov Cocktail. it's fairly efficient at causing panic as well as killing people. I'm sure the same materials are very easily obtained in Australia. It can also be made in the heat of the moment if the bottle and gas are available nearby.

Did you not read what I posted above? Australia used to have gun massacres, in the 18 years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre (35 killed, 23 wounded) we had 14 gun massacres. Directly after Port Arthur gun control laws were enacted and in the sixteen years since there has been NOT ONE SHOOTING MASSACRE, and no massacre of any kind that compares with any of the ones you guys have every couple of months. You can talk all you like about whether it's the gun's fault or the mother's fault or the mental health system's fault but the fact remains, if you had sensible gun laws most if not all of those children would be tucked up in bed right now.

WHY are you not simply asking yourselves which is more important - innocent lives or having lots of guns? Is it because the conclusion you come to is too difficult to deal with?

No massacres. Have there been shooting deaths in Australia? If so, the same logic that holds true for the UK holds true for AU. Only criminals have guns.

What we've seen, in many cases, with the massacres is a history of mental illness or a psychotic break. The history of illness is easier to follow; psychotic breaks not so much. Even people with no apparent history of mental illness can have a psychotic break. Many things can factor into them, too... stress, injury, death of a loved one, etc.

But, you don't need a gun to cause a massacre. In China, today, someone walked into a school and attacked a bunch of kids with a knife. And then there's this Chinese school massacre, no guns involved:

It’s not all about guns, either. The worst Chinese school massacre by a knife-wielding madman wasn’t caused by the knife. The perpetrator used the knife to scare the kids and make them retreat to the back of a classroom. Then he locked them inside and killed them by starting a fire.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... speed.html

 

[Nordling]

No, it takes time to build a bomb. Time he might have been noticed, a bomb that might have been seen, expertise he might not have been capable of and MOST IMPORTANTLY these crimes are almost always committed in the heat of the moment after some traumatic mental or social disconnect - without guns in easy reach there's time to cool off. Worst case scenario I guess he might pick up a knife or get in his SUV. He's still not going to kill 26 people.

I can build a fairly effective firebomb in about 3 minutes, right now. I have an empty bottle of vodka laying around. I have a gas can with some gas in it in the shed for the lawnmower. And I have rags downstairs. I also smoke, so I have a lighter.

Take empty glass bottle, add gas, add rag, add flame. It's called a Molotov Cocktail. it's fairly efficient at causing panic as well as killing people. I'm sure the same materials are very easily obtained in Australia. It can also be made in the heat of the moment if the bottle and gas are available nearby.

Did you not read what I posted above? Australia used to have gun massacres, in the 18 years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre (35 killed, 23 wounded) we had 14 gun massacres. Directly after Port Arthur gun control laws were enacted and in the sixteen years since there has been NOT ONE SHOOTING MASSACRE, and no massacre of any kind that compares with any of the ones you guys have every couple of months. You can talk all you like about whether it's the gun's fault or the mother's fault or the mental health system's fault but the fact remains, if you had sensible gun laws most if not all of those children would be tucked up in bed right now.

WHY are you not simply asking yourselves which is more important - innocent lives or having lots of guns? Is it because the conclusion you come to is too difficult to deal with?

No massacres. Have there been shooting deaths in Australia? If so, the same logic that holds true for the UK holds true for AU. Only criminals have guns.

What we've seen, in many cases, with the massacres is a history of mental illness or a psychotic break. The history of illness is easier to follow; psychotic breaks not so much. Even people with no apparent history of mental illness can have a psychotic break. Many things can factor into them, too... stress, injury, death of a loved one, etc.

But, you don't need a gun to cause a massacre. In China, today, someone walked into a school and attacked a bunch of kids with a knife. And then there's this Chinese school massacre, no guns involved:

It’s not all about guns, either. The worst Chinese school massacre by a knife-wielding madman wasn’t caused by the knife. The perpetrator used the knife to scare the kids and make them retreat to the back of a classroom. Then he locked them inside and killed them by starting a fire.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... speed.html

Yes, and the Slate article agrees...you cannot eliminate madmen from killing people. But he suggests you can reduce the numbers by eliminating "fast weapons." Fast weapons aren't really necessary for self defense...if a crowd wants you dead, you'll be dead...well unless you have a flamethrower maybe.

 

[UncleThursday]

Yes, and the Slate article agrees...you cannot eliminate madmen from killing people. But he suggests you can reduce the numbers by eliminating "fast weapons." Fast weapons aren't really necessary for self defense...if a crowd wants you dead, you'll be dead...well unless you have a flamethrower maybe.

Other things could be used as a fast weapon, though. A vehicle could be smashed through a classroom, for example. It could still kill quite a few before stopping. Makeshift pipe bombs aren't that hard to make, but do imply quite a bit of premeditation. The Molotov example above could be thrown into classrooms and cause quite a bit of panic and death.

If someone wants to kill people, it doesn't matter if they have access to guns or not. They'll try to find a way to make it happen. Guns can just make the body count higher, faster.

Then again, part of this whole problem is the media, truthfully. Over the next few days it's going to be all over the TV, Internet, radio, etc. It will inspire copycats who want their 15 minutes of infamy, even if they won't live to see said infamy. But they'll be remembered in some way, shape or form. Online articles will be written about them. There will be video of the aftermath around. Eventually, the whole world will know the perpetrators, even if they only remember them for a little while.

As to whether that's what this kid wanted? No idea. It's possible he accidentally killed his mother over something, and then just snapped, especially if it is autism. Autism is still a fairly not-well understood illness that can take many shapes. But, one thing that is pretty well known about autism is that the autistic trust very few people, normally only their primary care givers that they see all the time (most often one or both of their parents, but not always). Plus, we don't know if it is autism he potentially suffered from, or if he really was just a sociopath or psychopath waiting to happen.

 

[Bocefish]

hey check it out, carbines, assault rifles and hey even a .50 caliber sniper rifle! Mass murder home defense ftw!
That model carbon 15 was one of the guns used to kill all those children http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/carbon_15.asp

No it wasn't, the shooter used the two handguns. The M-4 was reportedly found in the car. I'd own one too if they weren't so expensive, great self-defense weapon.

Secondly, whether the mother should or shouldn't have locked up the guns is beside the point - is that any consolation to the victim's families? You want to argue that the safety of innocent people should rest on the responsibility of others to lock up their guns?

Seriously? Beside the point?? I guess you're saying that everyone who buys a gun should just leave them lying around for anyone, including mentally ill kids to play with?

Nothing you posted earlier would have stopped the tragedy either. What might have actually lowered the number of innocent children being slaughtered would be if one of the teachers had a CCW permit with access to their gun.

 

[AllisonWilder]

Also, we do not have these sorts of incidents every couple of months. They are actually quite rare.

I disagree.

Sixteen Mass Shootings in the US in 2012

 

[Nordling]

Yes, and the Slate article agrees...you cannot eliminate madmen from killing people. But he suggests you can reduce the numbers by eliminating "fast weapons." Fast weapons aren't really necessary for self defense...if a crowd wants you dead, you'll be dead...well unless you have a flamethrower maybe.

Other things could be used as a fast weapon, though. A vehicle could be smashed through a classroom, for example. It could still kill quite a few before stopping. Makeshift pipe bombs aren't that hard to make, but do imply quite a bit of premeditation. The Molotov example above could be thrown into classrooms and cause quite a bit of panic and death.

If someone wants to kill people, it doesn't matter if they have access to guns or not. They'll try to find a way to make it happen. Guns can just make the body count higher, faster.

Then again, part of this whole problem is the media, truthfully. Over the next few days it's going to be all over the TV, Internet, radio, etc. It will inspire copycats who want their 15 minutes of infamy, even if they won't live to see said infamy. But they'll be remembered in some way, shape or form. Online articles will be written about them. There will be video of the aftermath around. Eventually, the whole world will know the perpetrators, even if they only remember them for a little while.

As to whether that's what this kid wanted? No idea. It's possible he accidentally killed his mother over something, and then just snapped, especially if it is autism. Autism is still a fairly not-well understood illness that can take many shapes. But, one thing that is pretty well known about autism is that the autistic trust very few people, normally only their primary care givers that they see all the time (most often one or both of their parents, but not always). Plus, we don't know if it is autism he potentially suffered from, or if he really was just a sociopath or psychopath waiting to happen.

No argument except to say that the idea right now is to reduce violent deaths. Better control over automatic weapons could very well do that. If we saved one life, it'd make it worthwhile...but I think we can do better than that. Until the politics gets out of the issue and lawmakers sit down together with experts and come up with reasonable methods and solutions, we're just spinning wheels and waiting for the next horror.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Also, we do not have these sorts of incidents every couple of months. They are actually quite rare.

I disagree.

Sixteen Mass Shootings in the US in 2012

16 incidents in a county of 311,591,917 people is extraordinarily rare. It means that 99.9994865% of people don't commit a mass murder each year.

If mass shooting was disease that killed 88 people a year it would classified as an extremely rare one and would get almost no funding and no attention.

Alcohol abuse kills more than 200 people a day in the country twice as many as were killed by mass shooting the whole year. If we all want to stop senseless deaths stop drinking on cam, and stop tipping girls to take shots etc. Of course nobody thinks of booze as being deadly and almost all of us drink, so this won't happen.

 

[Nordling]

Also, we do not have these sorts of incidents every couple of months. They are actually quite rare.

I disagree.

Sixteen Mass Shootings in the US in 2012

16 incidents in a county of 311,591,917 people is extraordinarily rare. It means that 99.9994865% of people don't commit a mass murder each year.

If mass shooting was disease that killed 88 people a year it would classified as an extremely rare one and would get almost no funding and no attention.

Alcohol abuse kills more than 200 people a day in the country twice as many as were killed by mass shooting the whole year. If we all want to stop senseless deaths stop drinking on cam, and stop tipping girls to take shots etc. Of course nobody thinks of booze as being deadly and almost all of us drink, so this won't happen.

I'm sure that makes the victims' families feel very consoled.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I'm sure that makes the victims' families feel very consoled.

Look it is tragedy no argument and nothing any politician is going to do is going to console the family, much less a bunch of folks arguing on forum. Nor can anything we do bring back the kids.

~30 families lost a loved one to a drunk driver today and other than MAD nobody is doing much to prevent their tragedy from occurring to 30 new families tomorrow, or the next day. There plenty of other dangerous substances out there tobacco, drugs, sugar which kill literally ten times more people than guns. Yet everyone is demanding the regulation of the only dangerous substance which is constitutionally protected. :?

 

[Jupiter551]

Secondly, whether the mother should or shouldn't have locked up the guns is beside the point - is that any consolation to the victim's families? You want to argue that the safety of innocent people should rest on the responsibility of others to lock up their guns?

Seriously? Beside the point?? I guess you're saying that everyone who buys a gun should just leave them lying around for anyone, including mentally ill kids to play with?

Nope, I'm saying relying on others to act responsibly is an impractical solution. You can control whether someone has large-magazine weapons, but if you let them have them you CAN'T control whether or not they use them responsibly, or lock them up. In the end, innocent victims like these kids pay. I'd rather know crazies didn't have access to firearms than rely on their parents to lock the firearms up.

No massacres. Have there been shooting deaths in Australia? If so, the same logic that holds true for the UK holds true for AU. Only criminals have guns.

Well firstly that's not true, I can go out and buy a gun today if I want - I just can't buy a handgun without a special job-related reason, or being a member of a pistol-shooting club, or a semi-automatic rifle unless I need it for an occupational reason and then not more than (I can't remember specifically but about a 5 round clip I think?). Not only criminals here have guns, our police use glocks.

Yes, there are shooting homocides in Australia. The rate hovers around 0.1 per 100,000 population per year, so 1 shooting murder per million people. For comparison, the US has 29.8 shooting homocides per 1 million people.

Should you wish to bring up the oft-mistaken assumption that homocides by other methods compensate, our overall homocide rate is 10 per 1 million people, yours is 42.

Since 1996 our yearly homocide rate (all types) has dropped around 20%.

PS not sure what your "logic holding true" about the UK firearm murder rate but theirs is even lower, 0.03 per 100,000 or 3 for every 10 million people.

 

[Nordling]

I'm sure that makes the victims' families feel very consoled.

Look it is tragedy no argument and nothing any politician is going to do is going to console the family, much less a bunch of folks arguing on forum. Nor can anything we do bring back the kids.

~30 families lost a loved one to a drunk driver today and other than MAD nobody is doing much to prevent their tragedy from occurring to 30 new families tomorrow, or the next day. There plenty of other dangerous substances out there tobacco, drugs, sugar which kill literally ten times more people than guns. Yet everyone is demanding the regulation of the only dangerous substance which is constitutionally protected. :?

Lots of things kill people, including old age. This discussion, however is about people who get killed by sentient beings--other humans--and this is why it has a greater emotional impact. Even the drunk driver doesn't kill intentionally. Yeah, those are problems, and worthy of discussion--but this is about death by killers with guns.

 

[Kickaz]

I get a sick feeling to my stomach when I think about this. To top this off someone in my room was saying how cool it was to kill those kids and how there"s gonna be less kids to be molested since they got shot.

how can ppl be so disgusting to even troll about this.

 

[Nordling]

I get a sick feeling to my stomach when I think about this. To top this off someone in my room was saying how cool it was to kill those kids and how there"s gonna be less kids to be molested since they got shot.

how can ppl be so disgusting to even troll about this.

That's terrible. Too bad models don't have Button of Pain they can apply when the trollery gets that disgusting.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Your constitution grants you the right to bear arms - fair enough. What it doesn't do is specify which arms are and are not suitable. Afterall, it was written in the 18th century. Is it so terrible to use a bolt-action rifle for hunting? Is it so terrible to have to show reasonable cause to own it - ie that you do in fact hunt? Is it so bad to have a shotgun for home defense rather than a desert eagle? Or a .22 pistol for competition target shooting?

The only thing high magazine capacity and/or semi-auto rifles and/or concealable weapons are designed and used for is killing other human beings. Therefore logically, if you don't want people to die, don't give them those guns.

I think part of the fear you guys have about gun control is the amount of guns already around in your country - and it's a legitimate fear, but it's a situation you yourselves created with such ardent defense of your constitutional right and here's the kicker: it's only going to get worse. Until you put some sensible limits on it.

There are restriction on getting guns in this country background checks, waiting periods, and strict prohibition against automatic weapons. The vast majority of fire arm deaths aren't caused by the expensive assault rifles with extra capacity magazine, they are caused be cheap Saturday Night special hand guns, which are bought and sold illegally. Any restrictions are going to have virtually no impact on the number of fire arm murders in this country.

Guns are fun to shoot, and guns that you can shoot quickly are even more fun. Which is why tourism places all over the world have places where you can shoot exotic weapons and automatic weapons. The only gun I owned was an AK47 knock off, and the only reason I bought it was more fun to shoot than a bolt action rifle. I had no intention of ever aiming that gun at anything other than a target and I never did. So the only impact these restriction will have is to impact the enjoyment of legal and generally responsible gun owners. For what maybe making the next crazy shooter have to reload more often?

Plus your underlying assumption that the problem is going to get worse is just not supported by the data. All crimes, and especially in the US have been on steady and dramatic DECREASE for the last 40 years. Places like New York have the lowest murder rates ever. For years there was a understandable fear of European visiting the US because of our crime, the situation has reversed itself and now you are more likely to be a crime victim living in the UK than the US. (Although violent crime rates are higher in the US than almost all developed countries).

If the US was seeing soar crime rate and rise in fire arm related murder than I could see the rational for new laws, but we aren't.

 

[Anonymous]

I get a sick feeling to my stomach when I think about this. To top this off someone in my room was saying how cool it was to kill those kids and how there"s gonna be less kids to be molested since they got shot.

how can ppl be so disgusting to even troll about this.

When you read news stories posted on AOL News or Yahoo! News, there are always idiots (when you scroll down to the comments area) making disgusting, insensitive comments like that. Same thing with some of the people who comment on YouTube videos.

Yesterday was probably a good day to not get on cam (well, for me, at least...it was a shitty day, and I had a headache all day). I peeked in a SM model's room, and some guy had blurted out "Did you hear about those kids who got shot in Connecticut?," and someone else asked him "Why are you bringing that up in here???"

 

[Anonymous]

Today was my 30th birthday. Waking up to this news hit me like a ton of bricks.

I'm sorry that your 30th birthday started out miserably. I hope that you were still able to do something nice for your birthday though.

 

[BullFrogBlues]

This is all I will post on this, today. It's what I just posted on Google+ after seeing all the politicking going on in my twitter feed. When things have calmed down, if people want to have a rational discussion on pro or anti-gun control topics, then I will oblige. Today is not that day.

The amount of politicking over this tragedy today has been sickening.

Celebrities have been some of the worst offenders. Nearly every tweet I read from the few celebrities I follow was about gun control or retweeting other people calling for gun control.

Could any of you, who are ranting about pro or anti gun control even wait for the bodies to be cold? Could any of you have any respect for the families that just lost loved ones, most of them young children? Families that are now going to be burying their loved ones this holiday season, instead of celebrating it with friends and family?

No, you couldn't.

You just had to get up on your soapbox and let the world know that what you think is right and that you know all the answers that would ensure this never happens again. And you placed your soapbox on the still wet blood of those who died.

If you're religious, then you offer your prayers to the victims and their families that they get through this. If you aren't, then you silently or publicly offer your condolences in what should be a joyful time of year with friends and family; not a time to mourn the loss of young children.

You. Do. Not. Start. Politicking.

I don't care if you want stricter gun control laws or less strict laws pertaining to firearms. I'm pretty sure the last thing on the minds of the families that lost loved ones today is YOUR views on what is right and wrong with the gun laws in the United States. It doesn't mater if you're +Wil Wheaton or +Alyssa Milano or if you're David Keene (president of the +National Rifle Association ) or +Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance members.

Keep your goddamn politics to yourself until things have calmed down and more facts have rolled in. Let the families mourn. Let them bury their dead. Let the authorities piece together as much as possible on why this happened. Then you can discuss your views on gun ownership in America.

To get into politicking practically before the first body hit the floor is ludicrous, shameful and disrespectful.

Offer your condolences and/or prayers. And. Then. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

So how long do you wait? 24 hours, a week, a month, 3 months, oh shit it has happened again...

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I'd own one too if they weren't so expensive, great self-defense weapon.

Great self defence?! Against what?! A bear?! Seriously, what on earth could you need a gun to defend yourself against?! Also, if you do choose to defend yourself/feel you're in a dangerous situation, firing that gun may defend yourself, but chances are it would kill/seriously injure someone else, your judgement could have been wrong. The only reason you'd need a gun for protection would be in the off chance that someone with a gun enters your home to try and attack you, in fact in the Uk it's illegal to shoot anyone even on your own property. If you give them enough warning I think then you can shoot them.
Seriously, what are you scared of? Another person with a gun?

Also guns aren't illegal in the Uk, you just need to have a license/prove you're using it for shooting. If you really wanted one, you could get one, most people choose not to.

@Higirls, yes, people also bomb people. That sucks, but as far as I know it's not legal anywhere to own/make bombs (could be wrong, haven't bothered researching it).
Yes some people do have the know how to make bombs. Personally I don't. I could possibly make some up if I really wanted to, so could a lot of people, but it would take time and organisation . They're not selling pre made bombs off the shelf. It's the same with guns, yes if they weren't legal people could still get hold of them, but they're not being given them, it's not customary to have them in the house.

The drink driving thing is stupid. Yes, many people kill from drink driving, it is also illegal to get in a car and drive while drunk. It's the difference, like I've been shooting, I'm a country girl so many people I know go shooting, yet they don't walk around with loaded guns. Drink driving is kind of similar to walking around with a loaded gun. As drink driving is illegal and there is a LOT of attention on it trying to bring it down, it really isn't the issue, what is the issue is that it's legal to have guns. I'll also point out that we're talking about the mass shootings here, not even going near all the other deaths caused by guns. I haven't heard of a drink driver murder that many in one go though.
Two evils, one is already illegal. Why isn't the other?

UncleThursday, although I appreciate you trying to get everyone to mourn the children and not talk about gun laws, you're expecting a lot. These kids were from the other side of the world to me (theoretically), this happened in a place I've never been to or even near, to people I do not know. I cried when I read the article, other people here are really upset, your gun laws don't effect us, thank god, I live in a country where guns aren't an issue, yet I still wish the case would be the same for you guys so that no one else gets hurt in this way (sure it probably will happen again, but the chances will be reduced). It's actually quite a lot to ask for everyone to see these horrific things happen all the time over and over again and keep their mouths shut and just mourn when there is a very simple answer. I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced? If a gun law passed and nothing changed, they'd probably legalise guns again if that were what people wanted, if the gun law passes and the mass shootings stop... Will you really keep complaining about not having your gun?
I think telling a load of people to just grieve and be unhappy rather than thinking of solutions/trying to be productive is a bit depressing. I would rather not have you in a funeral with me, kind of like reminding someone every time they laugh or smile "remember, someone just died".

In 2008, 12,000 people were killed with guns in the US. 37,261 people died from car crashes that year, which is obviously so much more, but cars do serve a purpose. Cars can be weapons in the wrong hands. Guns are made to kill. 12,000 people who didn't need to die. In Japan (which has strict gun laws) that year 11 died, the previous year 2. Japan's obviously a lot smaller than the US, America is roughly 25 times the size of japan, so say judging by that year Japan had 275 deaths compared to 12,000. Gun control does work and it is a big deal.

 

[Jobs4Adults.com]

There is everywhere in the news.....on any tv channel (I live in Spain...)

They present it as the biggest massacre in an American school in the last 80 years....

My God....is difficult to find words for an opinion about that...Finding a solution it won't be easy...

Probably soon they will use weapons control technology to check EVERYBODY who enters in a crowded place, especially schools.

PS. Probably Hollywood will think more before investing in movies where owning and using a gun is "deadly sexy".

 

[Airwolfe]

I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced?

No

 

[AllisonWilder]

Probably soon they will use weapons control technology to check EVERYBODY who enters in a crowded place, especially schools.

They already have these detectors in a lot of high schools and colleges in the US. My high school implemented them the year I graduated. The only way into the school was to walk through a metal detector and someone sitting at a table checked your stuff before you were allowed to enter.

I don't think anyone ever thought they'd need to implement security checkpoints into an elementary school.

 

[Anonymous]

@Airwolfe You quoted that wrong. Isabella is the one who said "I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced?" Bocefish didn't say that.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced?

No

There's not really a way to make people give up their guns anyways, even if they were somehow made illegal. There's always going to be some guy who buries his in the woods until all the guns are collected and some guy who is paranoid about someone else keeping a weapon that does the same.

It's a constitutional right to bear arms and gun supporters will stand on their soapboxes screaming it loud, "Pointless school tragedies be damned because I have the right to bear arms."

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced?

No

There's not really a way to make people give up their guns anyways, even if they were somehow made illegal. There's always going to be some guy who buries his in the woods until all the guns are collected and some guy who is paranoid about someone else keeping a weapon that does the same.

It's a constitutional right to bear arms and gun supporters will stand on their soapboxes screaming it loud, "Pointless school tragedies be damned because I have the right to bear arms."

I get this whole "constitutional right" thing, but that was when you were trying to kick the English out and genuinely needed them for that, and also, the guns of that time were NOT the guns of this time. Maybe it should be legal to have the appropriate gun of that time.

It seems that quite a few of the people who are saying on this thread to make guns illegal are people from countries where guns aren't handed out easily. I live in a country where it's difficult to get guns. I've never heard anyone complaining about that, in fact the opposite, people seem pretty happy with the laws which surely means us not having guns really isn't such a terrible thing. We're surviving, and happy with it, why should you be different?

 

[AllisonWilder]

I know you guys like your guns, but would you not give them up in the hope that this kind of stuff might be reduced?

No

There's not really a way to make people give up their guns anyways, even if they were somehow made illegal. There's always going to be some guy who buries his in the woods until all the guns are collected and some guy who is paranoid about someone else keeping a weapon that does the same.

It's a constitutional right to bear arms and gun supporters will stand on their soapboxes screaming it loud, "Pointless school tragedies be damned because I have the right to bear arms."

I get this whole "constitutional right" thing, but that was when you were trying to kick the English out and genuinely needed them for that, and also, the guns of that time were NOT the guns of this time. Maybe it should be legal to have the appropriate gun of that time.

It seems that quite a few of the people who are saying on this thread to make guns illegal are people from countries where guns aren't handed out easily. I live in a country where it's difficult to get guns. I've never heard anyone complaining about that, in fact the opposite, people seem pretty happy with the laws which surely means us not having guns really isn't such a terrible thing. We're surviving, and happy with it, why should you be different?

I agree, it wouldn't make one tiny bit of difference to me if I never saw another gun, but then again I wouldn't be the one screaming about the constitution, either.

 

[Alana Cruise]

Double post-was too late to edit to add, just watched the video with that reporter. God, how unfazed could he sound??! He might as well have been talking about the weather! Jeeze, at least act as though you're a bit upset!

I know for me if I didn't act liek I was reporting the weather I would ball my eyes out. I think they have to stiffen themselves so they don't come undone.