US School Shooting

[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.

[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...ted_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...ted_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...