US School Shooting

[xxMATTGxx]

As many as 27 people have been killed, including many children, in a shooting attack at a primary school in the US state of Connecticut, US media say.

At least 18 children are among the dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the Associated Press reported.

Earlier, the gunman was reported to have been killed and at least three people were taken to hospital.

A news conference is imminent and the state Governor Dannell Malloy is on his way.

Police arrived at the school soon after 09:40 local time (14:40 GMT), answering reports that a gunman was in the school's main office and one person had "numerous gunshot wounds".

Scores of officers at the scene carried out a full search of the site.

Schools across the district were immediately on lock-down as a preventive measure, officials said.

With the death toll rising, it emerged that one entire classroom of students may remain unaccounted for, local sources reported.

Meanwhile, the three people who have been taken to hospital are in "very serious condition", Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton told CNN.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

More at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20734267#TWEET449113

-----------

Upsetting news and such a shame for such young lives to be lost. May they all RIP :(

[Niall!]

You'd a thought they'd have designed a security system that stops these shootings from happening.

RIP etc.

[HotelUser]

Literally a parent's worst nightmare. Poor kids, and poor families, for them it wont be a very merry Christmas.

[Stephen]

I bet if you interviewed 100 americans, half of them would say

THE KIDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THREATS LIKE THESE

[HotelUser]

I bet if you interviewed 100 americans, half of them would say

THE KIDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THREATS LIKE THESE

Certainly not.

[Niall!]

I bet if you interviewed 100 americans, half of them would say

THE KIDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THREATS LIKE THESE

You really want to turn a thread about the death of 27 primary school children into an argument about american gun laws? And doing it in a sarcastic way no less?

Far be it for me to take the moral high ground, but just no.

[Chippiewill]

You really want to turn a thread about the death of 27 primary school children into an argument about american gun laws?

When would you suggest as being appropriate and relevant. I see no time other than now.


I bet if you interviewed 100 americans, half of them would say
'we shouldn't give guns to children, they'll probably kill themselves.'

[The Don]

Disgusting. I find it impossible to understand what could cause somebody to do this. Last night I was reading about the Columbine High School Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre and then this happens, such an eerie coincidence.

[HotelUser]

You really want to turn a thread about the death of 27 primary school children into an argument about american gun laws? And doing it in a sarcastic way no less?

Far be it for me to take the moral high ground, but just no.

Stephen's sarcastic exaggeration is completely incorrect although he raises a good point and I think if he wants to constructively discuss gun laws, it would fit into the topic of the school shooting.

There are more shots fired in individual American States each day than in entire countries all year around. If the right to bare arms was revoked, and strong gun regulation laws were put into place then perhaps devastatingly unfortunate events such as school shootings would not happen so frequently.

[Niall!]

When would you suggest as being appropriate and relevant. I see no time other than now.

Any other time. Literally any other day, open a thread about gun laws in america. Don't use a tragedy to push your beliefs on people. The fact of the matter is he (and you in your post) aren't even discussing gun laws, just taking the piss out of the americans. Natural death is funny. School shootings are not.

[Chippiewill]

Any other time. Literally any other day, open a thread about gun laws in america. Don't use a tragedy to push your beliefs on people. The fact of the matter is he (and you in your post) aren't even discussing gun laws, just taking the piss out of the americans. Natural death is funny. School shootings are not.

It seems to make much more sense to discuss it when the reasoning behind the discussion is so prevalent.

---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 07:25 PM ----------


I find it impossible to understand what could cause somebody to do this.
Mental health disorder.

[October]

I want to know how many more massacres and shootings it'll take before the government realizes the people can't be trusted with the right to bear arms, nor should we. It doesn't promote self-defense, only inspires violence, and it's being taken out on innocent people again and again. Several school shootings and the Aurora theatre shooting which I myself nearly went to...

[dbgtz]

Yet another addition to a long list.

[xxMATTGxx]

Law enforcement officials say Connecticut shooting suspect's mother, teacher at school, among those found dead

There's the connection of the school. His farther also seems to have been killed at the home.

[Mark]

Wtf... The Scottish Government recently made it that ALL schools in Scotland had to be fitted with a lock entry system so that if someone needs into another building during class time, they've to buzz in. This is a primary school, that makes it worse as they rarely move around the school! Makes me very angry that this could have been avoided with the correct security measures, such a tragic and upsetting story!

[Stephen]

I only said it because I remember back to the batman shooting where people said they should have been allowed guns inside the cinema so they could have shot the guy before he killed too many people

with that stupid mentality I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to arm their children aswell

[xxMATTGxx]

Wtf... The Scottish Government recently made it that ALL schools in Scotland had to be fitted with a lock entry system so that if someone needs into another building during class time, they've to buzz in. This is a primary school, that makes it worse as they rarely move around the school! Makes me very angry that this could have been avoided with the correct security measures, such a tragic and upsetting story!

US schools have such systems already. They are locked and you have to be buzzed in but if they have a connection to the school such as your mum works there, then the chances of you being let is a lot more than a someone they don't know.

[Mark]

US schools have such systems already. They are locked and you have to be buzzed in but if they have a connection to the school such as your mum works there, then the chances of you being let is a lot more than a someone they don't know.

Surely the person who allowed them access should have been trained properly to ask for the correct student name and their name? I wouldn't imagine it would be hard to get all parent's names on database.

[xxMATTGxx]

Surely the person who allowed them access should have been trained properly to ask for the correct student name and their name? I wouldn't imagine it would be hard to get all parent's names on database.

The shooter's mother works at the school, that's where the connection of him is with the school.

[Chippiewill]

His farther also seems to have been killed at the home.
What was farther away?

[xxMATTGxx]

What was farther away?

I clearly meant father.

[Mark]

The shooter's mother works at the school. He killed her.

Christ, I only vaguely watched it on the TV so didn't bother reading the article. What a tragic case :(

[Chippiewill]

"President Obama is due to make a statement on the incident in about 25 minutes at 15:15 local time (20:15 GMT)."

I'm intrigued whether he'll mention gun laws, if it weren't for Fox News he certainly would but Fox News has been hot on telling people off over the matter.


Christ, I only vaguely watched it on the TV so didn't bother reading the article. What a tragic case :(
This sort of stuff is only just coming out.

[xxMATTGxx]

2002:

ABC news correspondent Mark Greenblatt says it is believed the school instituted a new security system recently. "But for a man to walk into an elementary school in this area would have been the last thing they expected," he says.

[Futz]

The shooter got ID'd as Ryan Lanza, fox and CNN used a Ryan Lanza's fb picture in their articles on their site, it turns out it isnt him since he's posting on facebook & twitter.

He's in for some big payout

[Chippiewill]

Holy ****, this kid was apparently walking down a corridor, saw bullets go past his head and heard loud bangs - stayed calm as **** in the interview. Didn't seem traumatised or anything.

[October]

I only said it because I remember back to the batman shooting where people said they should have been allowed guns inside the cinema so they could have shot the guy before he killed too many people

with that stupid mentality I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to arm their children aswell
I almost went to that movie showing, at the exact theatre. I disagree; rather than letting everyone carry weapons to protect themselves, it should be that no one has a weapon to begin with, therefore none can be used against one another wrongly. There is no justification for killing a person.

[God]

You'd a thought they'd have designed a security system that stops these shootings from happening.

RIP etc.

Tbh what could they have done to prevent this?

[Chippiewill]

Tbh what could they have done to prevent this?
Ban fully automatic rifles, you'd struggle to kill 18 children and 9 adults in that situation.

[October]

Tbh what could they have done to prevent this?
Increased restriction on availability of weapons, crack down on gun control, remove the right to bear arms, stop licensing to civilians, etc.

[Chippiewill]

A new formal tally has just been delivered. 20 children, 6 adults and the shooter at the school. Additional adult at secondary scene.

There'll be another news briefing in an hour.

[HotelUser]

YouTube video of Obama talking at a conference about the shooting (may contain swearing or violent content, I haven't finished watching it yet):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJj4_LMYfc&feature=player_embedded

[October]

The fact that we'll never know why he did what he did... I don't know if I should take comfort in it or be frustrated, though I'm feeling both.

Comforted and relieved because I don't think anyone would want to know why someone would massacre innocent children like that, and then equally frustrated for the same reason; why would anyone want to massacre innocent children?!

And just the frequency of all of these shootings in the past years... This year alone, there's been what, Aurora, Wisconsin, now this?

[Cerys]

God... What could provoke people to do such things... I mean, it's sick. You have to be pretty messed up to go around doing stuff like this.

RIP to all those people

[October]

God... What could provoke people to do such things... I mean, it's sick. You have to be pretty messed up to go around doing stuff like this.

RIP to all those people
A lot of people would argue that gun violence is a social problem, not a sick or messed up person problem. Anyone can and has done it, for whatever reason they've found, simply because they're able to and have access to it. :\

[Cerys]

A lot of people would argue that gun violence is a social problem, not a sick or messed up person problem. Anyone can and has done it, for whatever reason they've found, simply because they're able to and have access to it. :\

It's sick and messed up to kill a bunch of kids...

[Circadia]

Its sad to think that in the past 20/30 years in the UK we've had the same amount of major shootings as America has in 5 months (I think)
if something doesn't get done about the 'right to bare arms' I will be really surprised
RIP

[Cerys]

Its sad to think that in the past 20/30 years in the UK we've had the same amount of major shootings as America has in 5 months (I think)
if something doesn't get done about the 'right to bare arms' I will be really surprised
RIP

I suppose it's just so hard to change the law or whatever because of the amount of time it'll take to repossess all the arms, and then make sure nobody has them will take ages. Plus because most people will hide guns etc, there will be an even bigger gun black market etc and just fluff everything up.

But I agree that some change should happen. But it's difficult to put it into action ;;

[Circadia]

The shooter has been named to be Adam Lanza the brother of Ryan Lanza, they got them mixed up

[Chippiewill]

Two pistols were used in the school, his car had a .223 rifle inside.

Shows the devastating power of concealable weapons.

[Lee]

Shocking news, feeling terrible for the families involved! I think the topic of US Gun Laws is highly relevant in this thread however many Americans disagree with changes to the gun laws because of traditions dating back to the "founding founders of America..."

[Niall!]

It's been confirmed that it was Ryan Lanzas brother Adam, not Ryan as initially reported. Ryan apparently has nothing to do with the shootings.

Well done for the inept monkeys who work on the news. You've probably ruined Ryans life further than it already has been with the death of his entire family. I hope he sues the *******s for defamation of character after he's mourned properly.

[Chippiewill]

I hope he sues the *******s for defamation of character after he's mourned properly.
I fail to see how it's defamation, anyone who encounters him would not assume him to be the killer unless they believed in resurrection.

[Martin]

Omg what a horrible story :'( There are some sick *******s in this world

RIP to them all :(

[Mikey]

Horrible and devastating. RIP to all the victims. :(

[Niall!]

I fail to see how it's defamation, anyone who encounters him would not assume him to be the killer unless they believed in resurrection.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual), business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business), product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(business)), group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_group), government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), or nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) a negative or inferior image.

There you go. I know, wiki etc but it's sourced properly on there.

Also, you say that but have you seen the idiots on twitter constantly spamming any Ryan Lanza they can find? People are idiots.

[GommeInc]

You really want to turn a thread about the death of 27 primary school children into an argument about american gun laws? And doing it in a sarcastic way no less?

Far be it for me to take the moral high ground, but just no.
Why not? Most threads tend to go the way of discussing preventative measures or problems within the context of the event. Would you rather it just be "RIP :(" and "Poor sods" everywhere? Because threads like that fit the criteria of being hidden away in that sub-forum in Discuss Anything. Talking about ways in which to prevent circumstances like is not immoral, and it's certainly not immoral to make a reasonably accurate statement on the mindset of the citizens of the country. So you may take the moral high ground, but it's no higher than what the rest are standing on.

A sad event none-the-less, but it's to be expected in America these days. I find these events really unsurprising given how many of these random acts of blood shedding there have been this year. So close to Christmas is horrible, it's ruined it for so many people.


I fail to see how it's defamation, anyone who encounters him would not assume him to be the killer unless they believed in resurrection.
It wouldn't of been deemed defamation 10 years ago, but unfortunately social media like Facebook and Twitter means information is dispersed shockingly quick that idiots will believe unverified "live" information immediately as they see it on TV and start getting their pitch forks ready. It's a form of slander per se though, because it's instantly damaging and therefore comes under some sort of defamation of character.

[Futz]

I don't feel too bad for Ryan Lanza as far as CNN & Fox jumping to the conclusion it was him, he'll be able to sue the networks and life will be a little easier to cope with, feel bad for everything else though

---------- Post added 15-12-2012 at 12:32 AM ----------


Ban fully automatic rifles, you'd struggle to kill 18 children and 9 adults in that situation.

What guns did he have? I thought he was using 2 9mm's

[JerseySafety]

Hopefully they change the gun laws now. There has been WAY too many shootings. RIP to all those who passed as well as their families, so sad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

RIP to all those who have been killed, let's hope this coward faces the noose.


I want to know how many more massacres and shootings it'll take before the government realizes the people can't be trusted with the right to bear arms, nor should we. It doesn't promote self-defense, only inspires violence, and it's being taken out on innocent people again and again. Several school shootings and the Aurora theatre shooting which I myself nearly went to...

You know the rates of HIV amongst homosexuals is around 10% in cities such as London? should homosexuality be banned? are you aware of the deaths resulting from high salt intake? perhaps we should ban salt or at least regulate it. What about knives? surely people cannot be trusted with them? maybe we should introduce knife carrying classes for all adults and issue licenses.


I only said it because I remember back to the batman shooting where people said they should have been allowed guns inside the cinema so they could have shot the guy before he killed too many people

with that stupid mentality I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to arm their children aswell

The backwards mentality is that people such as yourself call for guns to be banned when, had the public been armed in that situation, many lives would have been saved. The area where the Batman shooting took place had..... you guessed it, strict gun controls which you advocate - yet surprisingly a piece of paper didn't stop a madman from murdering people did it?

The discussion isn't anything to do with children being armed, so please do not try and make your already weak argument into a chunkier one by making up points that no sensible person in favour of gun rights has raised or suggested. If you want to debate this topic sensibly, then respond to actual points rather than making them up as you go along.

If you want an example of a country which has this right, Israel is apparently that country. In Israel, the teachers are armed and carry weapons so that when a situation does arise such as this - they can take action rather than waiting for the state police to arrive after which many people are dead. I have read that in Israel as a result of this policy, only one school has suffered from a gun massacre. There's the solution.

But because it doesn't fit into the "omgz gunz r bad cos lyke ya can shoot ppl" I expect this logical argument to be dismissed.


I almost went to that movie showing, at the exact theatre. I disagree; rather than letting everyone carry weapons to protect themselves, it should be that no one has a weapon to begin with, therefore none can be used against one another wrongly. There is no justification for killing a person.

Ah yes, because a piece of paper (a law) will stop bad guys from murdering innocent people.

Next up; how to legislate and solve war in five minutes with a new world peace law.


Its sad to think that in the past 20/30 years in the UK we've had the same amount of major shootings as America has in 5 months (I think)
if something doesn't get done about the 'right to bare arms' I will be really surprised
RIP

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the United States has population of around 250m to 350m while the United Kingdom has a population of 60m odd.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA

[Absently]

im always so lost for words when these type of things happen. Obviously their mind isn't right, but it's still so strange.. All those innocent victims, especially the young children who had yet to live their lives :( so close to Christmas too ugh. Rip to them all :(

[peteyt]

RIP to all those who have been killed, let's hope this coward faces the noose.



You know the rates of HIV amongst homosexuals is around 10% in cities such as London? should homosexuality be banned? are you aware of the deaths resulting from high salt intake? perhaps we should ban salt or at least regulate it. What about knives? surely people cannot be trusted with them? maybe we should introduce knife carrying classes for all adults and issue licenses.



The backwards mentality is that people such as yourself call for guns to be banned when, had the public been armed in that situation, many lives would have been saved. The area where the Batman shooting took place had..... you guessed it, strict gun controls which you advocate - yet surprisingly a piece of paper didn't stop a madman from murdering people did it?

The discussion isn't anything to do with children being armed, so please do not try and make your already weak argument into a chunkier one by making up points that no sensible person in favour of gun rights has raised or suggested. If you want to debate this topic sensibly, then respond to actual points rather than making them up as you go along.

If you want an example of a country which has this right, Israel is apparently that country. In Israel, the teachers are armed and carry weapons so that when a situation does arise such as this - they can take action rather than waiting for the state police to arrive after which many people are dead. I have read that in Israel as a result of this policy, only one school has suffered from a gun massacre. There's the solution.

But because it doesn't fit into the "omgz gunz r bad cos lyke ya can shoot ppl" I expect this logical argument to be dismissed.

I partly agree and disagree. The problem I think is that because America has been allowed guns for so many years legally in most cases, they have became part of many of the public's lives, something they have become accustomed to. It's important to note the shooter wasn't actually the legal age to buy a gun, so although I agree that more gun laws should be brought in, it does look like it probably wouldn't really help because people would get them via the black market - my point being that people have grown up possibly knowing this stuff.

But also look at the UK we are a lot stricter and yeah we have incidents but you never really here about shootout's at school's like this, it's usually big gangs that have guns not just general people.

I believe somewhere there is a solution, a right balance between allowing guns but strictly. What it is though, well that's the big question.

[karter]

he killed his own mother. wow just wow, you cannot just kill 20 CHILDREN AND YOUR OWN MOTHER, what have they even done. the killer is the biggest coward ever born, taking your anger on weak children shows how sick he is. RIP to everyone else fallen. My thoughts are for their family and friends

[Eric]

This is horrifying. I personally think that changing the gun laws won't make any difference, we can't entirely blame it on the weapons. I agreed with some of the things Undertaker has said, we can't outlaw everything that could be used as a murder weapon. Removing guns won't do anything to stop these mass killings, if they're evil and insane they could always find other ways to kill people eg. use bombs for massacre. My point is there's nothing to do with guns, they've been around in the US for a long time, its something to do with how the society was being taught.

[karter]

Damn, I feel bad for Ryan Lanza. His profile picture on facebook has about 11k shares most of the people are like "so this is the *******". Really..can't people check sources before doing this? I mean he has lost his mother and brother, it is already too shocking for him to come home and get flooded by abuse for a thing he has not done

[Emz]

Such a tragedy :(
I must admit I´m pretty glad our country has one of the strictest gun-laws in the world. Only hunters(for moose and bird shooting) have guns, and gangs i guess, but not the general people on the streets.

In Norway we have one of the lowest crime rates, and guess what, even policemen on the streets aren't allowed to carry guns . So don´t come here and say that providing everyone with guns and safety goes hand in hand. We have never had a single school massacre or accident where a child or young adult has used parent's/some one else's gun. I haven't even seen a real gun before and I´m 22, lol.

But Americans have grown up with guns i guess, like some people mentioned earlier. So it has always been a part of the society to own a gun and be on "guard". Not easy to change that in a short period of time :-p But I´m not saying that all Americans have their own guns!

[Metric1]

I was driving through CT just as that happened, there were so many state troopers on the highway. I got held up at the border because of it. It's a sin that he did that in a elementary school, those kids were so young and had their whole lives ahead of them.. my heart goes out to the families of the victims..

[Ekelektra]

Those poor children I was talking to someone about this and they were saying how if it was a high school the students would have hidden and run or set the classroom up for lockdown, but an elementary school, those kids would have been so scared and shocked and they probably wouldn't even have thought to hide. And they're so young too.


Damn, I feel bad for Ryan Lanza. His profile picture on facebook has about 11k shares most of the people are like "so this is the *******". Really..can't people check sources before doing this? I mean he has lost his mother and brother, it is already too shocking for him to come home and get flooded by abuse for a thing he has not done

And this too I feel for him getting all this abuse when he'd have so many other things going on right now.

[karter]

This is horrifying. I personally think that changing the gun laws won't make any difference, we can't entirely blame it on the weapons. I agreed with some of the things Undertaker has said, we can't outlaw everything that could be used as a murder weapon. Removing guns won't do anything to stop these mass killings, if they're evil and insane they could always find other ways to kill people eg. use bombs for massacre. My point is there's nothing to do with guns, they've been around in the US for a long time, its something to do with how the society was being taught.


Every year just over 30,000 people die in the US from gunshot wounds. Every two years more US citizens are killed by gunshot wounds than were lost in the entire Vietnam war.

Lets look at this another way. With a population of 310 million and an annual death rate of 8.3/1000 , we can calculate that 2,573,000 people die in the US each year.
Of which 30,000 die of Gun Shot - so if you live in the US you have a 1.166% chance that you will die of Gun Shot wound. The rate of gunshot deaths is about 8 times that of economically comparable nations.

Approximately 8,000 homicides annually occur with gunshot wounds. About 16,000 commit suicide with handguns. Nearly 1,000 die in gun related accidents each year. The number of persons shot by police is slightly elusive.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-I5KNJCAAAUhsS.jpg

Why is this happening only in the USA? It's not like USA has the most potential killers living there. Violence can be stopped by bringing gun restrictions. Killers like these find a motive when they have guns, we cannot change the people but we CAN prevent them from doing so. The problem, obviously will not be entirely solved but thousands of people will get to live.

[Eric]

Why is this happening only in the USA? It's not like USA has the most potential killers living there. Violence can be stopped by bringing gun restrictions. Killers like these find a motive when they have guns, we cannot change the people but we CAN prevent them from doing so. The problem, obviously will not be entirely solved but thousands of people will get to live.

Maybe because USA has a big population and it has something to do with their media coverage and culture influence? You know not only it happens in USA, it happens in other countries as well like India and Thailand.

Even if there are gun restrictions or a new gun law, it wont put a halt to these gun crimes instantly, instead the crime rate might even goes up or double. UK gun crimes was up 35% with tight gun control laws. If someone wants to commit a crime they'll find ways to gain access to a gun or any weapons that could cause harm eg. a knife. In China, 8 children were murdered at an elementary school with a KNIFE by a man. They are criminals they don't care about laws, they do whatever they want.

[The Don]

You pick the most daft comparisons which really does damage for your credibility. Comparing guns to salt intake or HIV is laughable. First of all, a guns only purpose is to kill, salt is not used in anyway as a weapon and can only damage you from over consumption and I'm not quite sure how you came to use homosexuals and HIV as a comparison.

I'm not quite sure how more guns = better, this isn't the Wild West where armed vigilantes will draw and shoot any criminals thus saving the day. In a situation such as the cinema shooting, somebody else being armed could have potentially resulted in more casualties considering it was in a dark room which had people all over the place, not even taking into account the smoke grenades the shooter had previously used.

I do however agree that in the US the right to bear arms should stay as it is since guns are so widely distributed it would be near impossible to recall them all. Please stop using petty comparisons in the future as it doesn't reinforce your argument, it just makes you look ridiculous.


RIP to all those who have been killed, let's hope this coward faces the noose.



You know the rates of HIV amongst homosexuals is around 10% in cities such as London? should homosexuality be banned? are you aware of the deaths resulting from high salt intake? perhaps we should ban salt or at least regulate it. What about knives? surely people cannot be trusted with them? maybe we should introduce knife carrying classes for all adults and issue licenses.



The backwards mentality is that people such as yourself call for guns to be banned when, had the public been armed in that situation, many lives would have been saved. The area where the Batman shooting took place had..... you guessed it, strict gun controls which you advocate - yet surprisingly a piece of paper didn't stop a madman from murdering people did it?

The discussion isn't anything to do with children being armed, so please do not try and make your already weak argument into a chunkier one by making up points that no sensible person in favour of gun rights has raised or suggested. If you want to debate this topic sensibly, then respond to actual points rather than making them up as you go along.

If you want an example of a country which has this right, Israel is apparently that country. In Israel, the teachers are armed and carry weapons so that when a situation does arise such as this - they can take action rather than waiting for the state police to arrive after which many people are dead. I have read that in Israel as a result of this policy, only one school has suffered from a gun massacre. There's the solution.

But because it doesn't fit into the "omgz gunz r bad cos lyke ya can shoot ppl" I expect this logical argument to be dismissed.



Ah yes, because a piece of paper (a law) will stop bad guys from murdering innocent people.

Next up; how to legislate and solve war in five minutes with a new world peace law.



Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the United States has population of around 250m to 350m while the United Kingdom has a population of 60m odd.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA

[Chippiewill]

a negative or inferior image.
Other than idiots who believe him to be dead it won't make a one jot of a difference to his image.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Switzerland has lax gun laws yet is a rather peaceful country - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership_rate - along with Serbia, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc.

The reason why the US has so much trouble with guns is because a) it's given so much coverage b) the US does have an issue with culture in relation to guns & c) it's population is compartively so large that massacres such as this will happen more just as a statistical fact of life.


Shocking news, feeling terrible for the families involved! I think the topic of US Gun Laws is highly relevant in this thread however many Americans disagree with changes to the gun laws because of traditions dating back to the "founding founders of America..."

I get the feeling that you are taking the piss here with American attitudes to guns, it's not "because the founding fathers had them..." not is it because of hunting - I do wish people when it comes to this topic did just a tiny bit of research. The reason why the gun rights were put into the US Constitution all those years ago is because the founders themselves knew that if the people were armed then the rise of a tyranny and oppressive government would be impossible - and they would know, they lived under one. Do you know what is one of the first laws dictators such as Lenin, Mao, Assad, Hussein, Marcos and the rest brought in? gun laws. Now have a think why.

The Swiss who have very lax gun laws (yet people only talk of the US of A) also know this - except their gun rights are more intended to protect from foreign despots as opposed to home grown ones.


Why is this happening only in the USA? It's not like USA has the most potential killers living there. Violence can be stopped by bringing gun restrictions. Killers like these find a motive when they have guns, we cannot change the people but we CAN prevent them from doing so. The problem, obviously will not be entirely solved but thousands of people will get to live.

How will you change them from doing so when guns circulate freely in every country amongst the criminal classes? very much in the same way that drugs do, that alcohol in the early 1900s USA did and so on. Do you think a piece of paper will stop people committing these acts? criminals and wackos do not pay attention to law - all you do with law is disarm the law abiding majority.


Maybe because USA has a big population and it has something to do with their media coverage and culture influence? You know not only it happens in USA, it happens in other countries as well like India and Thailand.

Even if there are gun restrictions or a new gun law, it wont put a halt to these gun crimes instantly, instead the crime rate might even goes up or double. UK gun crimes was up 35% with tight gun control laws. If someone wants to commit a crime they'll find ways to gain access to a gun or any weapons that could cause harm eg. a knife. In China, 8 children were murdered at an elementary school with a KNIFE by a man. They are criminals they don't care about laws, they do whatever they want.

Thank you, some common sense at last and some +rep to somebody who isn't stupid enough to believe that a piece of paper passed in the US Congress will stop mass murderers from murdering people. You know what I find ironic though? that the people who are most against gun rights (usually) are the ones who usually make the case for decriminalising drugs on the basis that regulation has failed and "people will get hold of them anyway". I happen to agree with that argument, but I do wish people were a bit more consistent in their own logic.


You pick the most daft comparisons which really does damage for your credibility. Comparing guns to salt intake or HIV is laughable. First of all, a guns only purpose is to kill, salt is not used in anyway as a weapon and can only damage you from over consumption and I'm not quite sure how you came to use homosexuals and HIV as a comparison.

The purpose of a gun isn't to do anything - a gun cannot make its own decisions anymore than a salt shaker or a penis can. The logic you people use is that guns are bad because they lead to death, and that the state should protect people from hazard or death. Well that's fine, but aslong as you're prepared to apply that same logic to other things in life such as HIV which harms both innocent people and which is also spread purposely by a small group - something that amounts to murder (sounds like guns with the small minority, ey). If you want to save people from guns, then why not other things which have an even higher death rate than guns? For example, it's well known that while HIV rates remain more or less low - if HIV rates that exist in homosexuals were applied to the general population, we'd have a medical epidemic on our hands. So why not protection from the state in this matter, or at least enforced regulation, why only apply it to guns? the logic doesn't make sense.

The instant reaction of 'BAN IT BAN IT' when something bad takes place is the exact same of moronic thinking we saw when people went on murder sprees 'thanks to' the GTA games series.


I'm not quite sure how more guns = better, this isn't the Wild West where armed vigilantes will draw and shoot any criminals thus saving the day. In a situation such as the cinema shooting, somebody else being armed could have potentially resulted in more casualties considering it was in a dark room which had people all over the place, not even taking into account the smoke grenades the shooter had previously used.

I don't think you understand that people who own guns can actually point them and aim - otherwise they wouldn't own one as it'd be worthless in self defence. A pitiful argument, try harder.


I do however agree that in the US the right to bear arms should stay as it is since guns are so widely distributed it would be near impossible to recall them all. Please stop using petty comparisons in the future as it doesn't reinforce your argument, it just makes you look ridiculous.

Why thanks for the agreement.

[Chippiewill]

Switzerland has lax gun laws yet is a rather peaceful country - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership_rate - along with Serbia, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc.

It is notable that only Officers are allowed Pistols in Switzerland and regulations in all of those countries are fair bit tighter than america.

[karter]

Maybe because USA has a big population and it has something to do with their media coverage and culture influence? You know not only it happens in USA, it happens in other countries as well like India and Thailand.

Even if there are gun restrictions or a new gun law, it wont put a halt to these gun crimes instantly, instead the crime rate might even goes up or double. UK gun crimes was up 35% with tight gun control laws. If someone wants to commit a crime they'll find ways to gain access to a gun or any weapons that could cause harm eg. a knife. In China, 8 children were murdered at an elementary school with a KNIFE by a man. They are criminals they don't care about laws, they do whatever they want.

Now that you mentioned India, I need to tell you that I have lived in India for four years and never have I heard of a man on a killing spree with a gun. Total Firearm related death rate in India is 0.93, for USA it is 9.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) Why do you think it is this way? It's not like there is no media coverage here or no cultural influence. It is because there is a strict gun law here.

I am obviously not implying that a law will not ensure 0 crime rate but at least it will go down.

---------- Post added 15-12-2012 at 09:08 PM ----------


Switzerland has lax gun laws yet is a rather peaceful country - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership_rate - along with Serbia, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc.

The reason why the US has so much trouble with guns is because a) it's given so much coverage b) the US does have an issue with culture in relation to guns & c) it's population is compartively so large that massacres such as this will happen more just as a statistical fact of life.



I get the feeling that you are taking the piss here with American attitudes to guns, it's not "because the founding fathers had them..." not is it because of hunting - I do wish people when it comes to this topic did just a tiny bit of research. The reason why the gun rights were put into the US Constitution all those years ago is because the founders themselves knew that if the people were armed then the rise of a tyranny and oppressive government would be impossible - and they would know, they lived under one. Do you know what is one of the first laws dictators such as Lenin, Mao, Assad, Hussein, Marcos and the rest brought in? gun laws. Now have a think why.

The Swiss who have very lax gun laws (yet people only talk of the US of A) also know this - except their gun rights are more intended to protect from foreign despots as opposed to home grown ones.



How will you change them from doing so when guns circulate freely in every country amongst the criminal classes? very much in the same way that drugs do, that alcohol in the early 1900s USA did and so on. Do you think a piece of paper will stop people committing these acts? criminals and wackos do not pay attention to law - all you do with law is disarm the law abiding majority.



Thank you, some common sense at last and some +rep to somebody who isn't stupid enough to believe that a piece of paper passed in the US Congress will stop mass murderers from murdering people. You know what I find ironic though? that the people who are most against gun rights (usually) are the ones who usually make the case for decriminalising drugs on the basis that regulation has failed and "people will get hold of them anyway". I happen to agree with that argument, but I do wish people were a bit more consistent in their own logic.



The purpose of a gun isn't to do anything - a gun cannot make its own decisions anymore than a salt shaker or a penis can. The logic you people use is that guns are bad because they lead to death, and that the state should protect people from hazard or death. Well that's fine, but aslong as you're prepared to apply that same logic to other things in life such as HIV which harms both innocent people and which is also spread purposely by a small group - something that amounts to murder (sounds like guns with the small minority, ey). If you want to save people from guns, then why not other things which have an even higher death rate than guns? For example, it's well known that while HIV rates remain more or less low - if HIV rates that exist in homosexuals were applied to the general population, we'd have a medical epidemic on our hands. So why not protection from the state in this matter, or at least enforced regulation, why only apply it to guns? the logic doesn't make sense.

The instant reaction of 'BAN IT BAN IT' when something bad takes place is the exact same of moronic thinking we saw when people went on murder sprees 'thanks to' the GTA games series.



I don't think you understand that people who own guns can actually point them and aim - otherwise they wouldn't own one as it'd be worthless in self defence. A pitiful argument, try harder.



Why thanks for the agreement.


Again as I said, it cannot be stopped obviously, nothing can be stopped entirely, there will still be criminals but at least there will be less deaths. Gun laws in USA are like knife shops next to a house of criminals. As you mentioned drugs, if drugs were legalized then everyone would just go buy them. That is the point, there is a need to cut the restriction, cut the access to firearms which could prevent future deaths. Killers are blooming in this enviroment when they know they have easy access to guns and they can kill anyone whenever they want.

[Eric]

Now that you mentioned India, I need to tell you that I have lived in India for four years and never have I heard of a man on a killing spree with a gun. Total Firearm related death rate in India is 0.93, for USA it is 9.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) Why do you think it is this way? It's not like there is no media coverage here or no cultural influence. It is because there is a strict gun law here.

I am obviously not implying that a law will not ensure 0 crime rate but at least it will go down.

maybe i've picked the wrong example but what i meant by media coverage was USA is more media dominated than other countries like Honduras, Guatemala and other countries with high gun crimes, so you often hear more news about them.

ok first of all, the man has mental illness. Secondly, he stole the guns from his mother and shot her just to hurt people which means stricter gun laws wont stop him from stealing guns and killing people and outlawing weapons probably won't stop criminals from getting them. so lets face it, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself from a psychopath that is willing to kill himself. enough said.

[karter]

maybe i've picked the wrong example but what i meant by media coverage was USA is more media dominated than other countries like Honduras, Guatemala and other countries with high gun crimes, so you often hear more news about them.

ok first of all, the man has mental illness. Secondly, he stole the guns from his mother and shot her just to hurt people which means stricter gun laws wont stop him from stealing guns and killing people and outlawing weapons probably won't stop criminals from getting them. so lets face it, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself from a psychopath that is willing to kill himself. enough said.

If we look upon your point then Murder should be legalized because murderers will kill people anyways even if it is illegal

[The Don]

It's impossible to debate with someone if they are unwilling or unable to understand that there are clear differences between salt and guns. Guns serve no other purpose other than either hunting or combat. Salt can't be used to maim an individual, unless I've missed the various news articles about people going on mass killing sprees using salt. Literally a pathetic comparison.

Your second point is a classic example of nirvana fallacy. Because people own guns doesn't necessarily mean they can use them properly, and being able to use them properly doesn't mean they will always be able to use them properly (like the cinema shooting for example)... Perfect example of black and white thinking there Dan.



Switzerland has lax gun laws yet is a rather peaceful country - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership_rate - along with Serbia, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc.

The reason why the US has so much trouble with guns is because a) it's given so much coverage b) the US does have an issue with culture in relation to guns & c) it's population is compartively so large that massacres such as this will happen more just as a statistical fact of life.



I get the feeling that you are taking the piss here with American attitudes to guns, it's not "because the founding fathers had them..." not is it because of hunting - I do wish people when it comes to this topic did just a tiny bit of research. The reason why the gun rights were put into the US Constitution all those years ago is because the founders themselves knew that if the people were armed then the rise of a tyranny and oppressive government would be impossible - and they would know, they lived under one. Do you know what is one of the first laws dictators such as Lenin, Mao, Assad, Hussein, Marcos and the rest brought in? gun laws. Now have a think why.

The Swiss who have very lax gun laws (yet people only talk of the US of A) also know this - except their gun rights are more intended to protect from foreign despots as opposed to home grown ones.



How will you change them from doing so when guns circulate freely in every country amongst the criminal classes? very much in the same way that drugs do, that alcohol in the early 1900s USA did and so on. Do you think a piece of paper will stop people committing these acts? criminals and wackos do not pay attention to law - all you do with law is disarm the law abiding majority.



Thank you, some common sense at last and some +rep to somebody who isn't stupid enough to believe that a piece of paper passed in the US Congress will stop mass murderers from murdering people. You know what I find ironic though? that the people who are most against gun rights (usually) are the ones who usually make the case for decriminalising drugs on the basis that regulation has failed and "people will get hold of them anyway". I happen to agree with that argument, but I do wish people were a bit more consistent in their own logic.



The purpose of a gun isn't to do anything - a gun cannot make its own decisions anymore than a salt shaker or a penis can. The logic you people use is that guns are bad because they lead to death, and that the state should protect people from hazard or death. Well that's fine, but aslong as you're prepared to apply that same logic to other things in life such as HIV which harms both innocent people and which is also spread purposely by a small group - something that amounts to murder (sounds like guns with the small minority, ey). If you want to save people from guns, then why not other things which have an even higher death rate than guns? For example, it's well known that while HIV rates remain more or less low - if HIV rates that exist in homosexuals were applied to the general population, we'd have a medical epidemic on our hands. So why not protection from the state in this matter, or at least enforced regulation, why only apply it to guns? the logic doesn't make sense.

The instant reaction of 'BAN IT BAN IT' when something bad takes place is the exact same of moronic thinking we saw when people went on murder sprees 'thanks to' the GTA games series.



I don't think you understand that people who own guns can actually point them and aim - otherwise they wouldn't own one as it'd be worthless in self defence. A pitiful argument, try harder.



Why thanks for the agreement.

[GirlNextDoor15]

Take a look at the table in this link and you'll know you whole ******* debate is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
It should neither be legalized nor banned. Hong kong has the lowest homicide rate with firearms and guns are banned there while on the other hand, Colombia has the highest rate and guns are legalized. However, Zimbabwe is ranked fourth with 66% homicides with firearms and guns are banned there. So, it varies according to different countries and what differentiates them in my opinion is their culture and education. The gun culture, how they are brought up and how educated they are about weapons.
Education is always the most important element in one's society. Without the right education, one will fail to know what's right and what's wrong.
Last edited by GirlNextDoor15; 22-07-2012 at 11:28 AM.

it seems they have a culture which promotes violence ie nicki minaj, lil wayne etc.

[October]

There was another shooting in Colorado just recently...

[dbgtz]

The purpose of a gun isn't to do anything - a gun cannot make its own decisions anymore than a salt shaker or a penis can.

What a silly statement lol. Definition of purpose: "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists", therefore nothing to do with consciousness.
-:Undertaker:-;