School shooting in US

[The Baron]

Saw an interesting piece on the news about the gunman.

In the UK he would almost certainly bee in hospital, his problems were so sever, in America, with no NHS, he was left to his own devices.

And look what happened when national healthcare was proposed. Sigh.

[Tal]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

[Gemini Kings]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

[kinboshi]

Oh, special offer at the local supermarket:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996?adid=1500000000000027727720

[bobAlike]

Oh, special offer at the local supermarket:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996?adid=1500000000000027727720

I want one.

[Rod Paradise]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

But while it's easy to sit in the UK where we're almost all within calling distance from the emergency services, where the most dangerous wildlife is maybe the wild boar. Our lives aren't too affected by the majority not having access to firearms (although anyone with an interest in the countryside and ecology will tell you they are still needed).

Our population density is 650 people per square mile. the USA is about 80. It's perfectly feasible to live over a hour from the nearest police presence, there are numerous potentially lethal animals, and yes, there's people with guns, some of whom aren't nice people. The gun is actually a necessary tool for some people, and some countries seem to manage with a lot of guns, so perhaps the psyche of the people needs adjusting?

[kinboshi]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

But while it's easy to sit in the UK where we're almost all within calling distance from the emergency services, where the most dangerous wildlife is maybe the wild boar. Our lives aren't too affected by the majority not having access to firearms (although anyone with an interest in the countryside and ecology will tell you they are still needed).

Our population density is 650 people per square mile. the USA is about 80. It's perfectly feasible to live over a hour from the nearest police presence, there are numerous potentially lethal animals, and yes, there's people with guns, some of whom aren't nice people. The gun is actually a necessary tool for some people, and some countries seem to manage with a lot of guns, so perhaps the psyche of the people needs adjusting?

The population doesn't NEED automatic assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds of ammo from the supermarket.  Some people might need certain weapons for hunting, and some might argue the case to have a gun in the house for self-defence (another argument about the effectiveness of this and if it actually causes more deaths or not) - but that's not really what we're talking about here.  Having guns for hunting, etc., can be controlled through licensing and legislation. 

Also your figure for population density of the US is very misleading. Most Americans live in densely-populated urban and sub-urban land: "As of 2011, about 250 million Americans live in or around urban areas. That means more than three-quarters of the U.S. population shares just about three percent of the U.S. land area".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_density

[Rod Paradise]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

But while it's easy to sit in the UK where we're almost all within calling distance from the emergency services, where the most dangerous wildlife is maybe the wild boar. Our lives aren't too affected by the majority not having access to firearms (although anyone with an interest in the countryside and ecology will tell you they are still needed).

Our population density is 650 people per square mile. the USA is about 80. It's perfectly feasible to live over a hour from the nearest police presence, there are numerous potentially lethal animals, and yes, there's people with guns, some of whom aren't nice people. The gun is actually a necessary tool for some people, and some countries seem to manage with a lot of guns, so perhaps the psyche of the people needs adjusting?

The population doesn't NEED automatic assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds of ammo from the supermarket.  Some people might need certain weapons for hunting, and some might argue the case to have a gun in the house for self-defence (another argument about the effectiveness of this and if it actually causes more deaths or not) - but that's not really what we're talking about here.  Having guns for hunting, etc., can be controlled through licensing and legislation. 

Also your figure for population density of the US is very misleading. Most Americans live in densely-populated urban and sub-urban land: "As of 2011, about 250 million Americans live in or around urban areas. That means more than three-quarters of the U.S. population shares just about three percent of the U.S. land area".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_density

Ah, the overdramatic reply to what wasn't said.

Read what I was replying to - another call for removing firearms when it's not that simple. BTW the majority of urbanites in your demographic MAKES my case - because the minority are even more remote then - there was nothing misleading when I'm trying to make a point that some people have very good reasons to have firearms. So my point stands.

The population in general don't HAVE automatic assault rifles, automatic weapons are strictly licensed and I can't find any record of one being used in a massacre. Restricting ammo purchasing would just be unenforceable, and would be just silly TBH. Concealed handguns, meh, yeah you're probably right, can't find any record of lunatic gunmen with concealed carry permits mind you.

A big problem is that the gun control debate comes up in the aftermath of a massacre, leading to oversimplified, overemotional argument without any though to practicality or plain necessity.

[Jon MW]

A lot of massacres are done with semi-automatic weapons; which aren't in any way needed for self defence or hunting.

Several states have tried banning them, but because there isn't a Federal nationwide ban they've all found it too difficult to maintain.

You can't fix the gun culture problem in the US with one single piece of legislation - but if they started with something like banning weapons which are basically produced for wars it would at least make a start.

As you suggested I don't think you'd ever need as big a restriction as there is in the UK, but a long term aim could at least be restricting weaponry to the people who might actually need them and at a level which is appropriate to what they need them for.

[kinboshi]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

But while it's easy to sit in the UK where we're almost all within calling distance from the emergency services, where the most dangerous wildlife is maybe the wild boar. Our lives aren't too affected by the majority not having access to firearms (although anyone with an interest in the countryside and ecology will tell you they are still needed).

Our population density is 650 people per square mile. the USA is about 80. It's perfectly feasible to live over a hour from the nearest police presence, there are numerous potentially lethal animals, and yes, there's people with guns, some of whom aren't nice people. The gun is actually a necessary tool for some people, and some countries seem to manage with a lot of guns, so perhaps the psyche of the people needs adjusting?

The population doesn't NEED automatic assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds of ammo from the supermarket.  Some people might need certain weapons for hunting, and some might argue the case to have a gun in the house for self-defence (another argument about the effectiveness of this and if it actually causes more deaths or not) - but that's not really what we're talking about here.  Having guns for hunting, etc., can be controlled through licensing and legislation. 

Also your figure for population density of the US is very misleading. Most Americans live in densely-populated urban and sub-urban land: "As of 2011, about 250 million Americans live in or around urban areas. That means more than three-quarters of the U.S. population shares just about three percent of the U.S. land area".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_density

Ah, the overdramatic reply to what wasn't said.

The reply wasn't overdramatic - it was in response to the fact that automatic assault rifles can be bought at the supermarket when there isn't a need for this.  Some people, might need some guns for some applications.  Doesn't rule out far stricter gun-control laws.  Your argument is irrelevant and really just muddies some relatively simple areas that could be dealt with by legislation.

Read what I was replying to - another call for removing firearms when it's not that simple.

Read what I was saying.  I was talking about controlling assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds with no restrictions.

BTW the majority of urbanites in your demographic MAKES my case - because the minority are even more remote then - there was nothing misleading when I'm trying to make a point that some people have very good reasons to have firearms. So my point stands.

As does mine.  MOST of the population don't need to hunt.  Therefore they don't need guns for this purpose.  Still don't understand why assault rifles are needed. 

The population in general don't HAVE automatic assault rifles, automatic weapons are strictly licensed and I can't find any record of one being used in a massacre. Restricting ammo purchasing would just be unenforceable, and would be just silly TBH. Concealed handguns, meh, yeah you're probably right, can't find any record of lunatic gunmen with concealed carry permits mind you.

You must have looked hard: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/23/a-gunowners-case-against-assault-weapons/

A big problem is that the gun control debate comes up in the aftermath of a massacre, leading to oversimplified, overemotional argument without any though to practicality or plain necessity.

Again, no need for assault rifles, concealed handguns, or the ability to buy loads of ammo (and high-capacity magazines) over the counter without stricter licensing.

[snoopy1239]

Has anything changed since Bowling for Columbine?
Did that film make any difference at all to gun laws or mentality?

[Rod Paradise]

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

But while it's easy to sit in the UK where we're almost all within calling distance from the emergency services, where the most dangerous wildlife is maybe the wild boar. Our lives aren't too affected by the majority not having access to firearms (although anyone with an interest in the countryside and ecology will tell you they are still needed).

Our population density is 650 people per square mile. the USA is about 80. It's perfectly feasible to live over a hour from the nearest police presence, there are numerous potentially lethal animals, and yes, there's people with guns, some of whom aren't nice people. The gun is actually a necessary tool for some people, and some countries seem to manage with a lot of guns, so perhaps the psyche of the people needs adjusting?

The population doesn't NEED automatic assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds of ammo from the supermarket.  Some people might need certain weapons for hunting, and some might argue the case to have a gun in the house for self-defence (another argument about the effectiveness of this and if it actually causes more deaths or not) - but that's not really what we're talking about here.  Having guns for hunting, etc., can be controlled through licensing and legislation.  

Also your figure for population density of the US is very misleading. Most Americans live in densely-populated urban and sub-urban land: "As of 2011, about 250 million Americans live in or around urban areas. That means more than three-quarters of the U.S. population shares just about three percent of the U.S. land area".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_density

Ah, the overdramatic reply to what wasn't said.

The reply wasn't overdramatic - it was in response to the fact that automatic assault rifles can be bought at the supermarket when there isn't a need for this.  Some people, might need some guns for some applications.  Doesn't rule out far stricter gun-control laws.  Your argument is irrelevant and really just muddies some relatively simple areas that could be dealt with by legislation.

Read what I was replying to - another call for removing firearms when it's not that simple.

Read what I was saying.  I was talking about controlling assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds with no restrictions.

BTW the majority of urbanites in your demographic MAKES my case - because the minority are even more remote then - there was nothing misleading when I'm trying to make a point that some people have very good reasons to have firearms. So my point stands.

As does mine.  MOST of the population don't need to hunt.  Therefore they don't need guns for this purpose.  Still don't understand why assault rifles are needed.  

The population in general don't HAVE automatic assault rifles, automatic weapons are strictly licensed and I can't find any record of one being used in a massacre. Restricting ammo purchasing would just be unenforceable, and would be just silly TBH. Concealed handguns, meh, yeah you're probably right, can't find any record of lunatic gunmen with concealed carry permits mind you.

You must have looked hard: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/23/a-gunowners-case-against-assault-weapons/

A big problem is that the gun control debate comes up in the aftermath of a massacre, leading to oversimplified, overemotional argument without any though to practicality or plain necessity.

Again, no need for assault rifles, concealed handguns, or the ability to buy loads of ammo (and high-capacity magazines) over the counter without stricter licensing.

Sigh.

So you have a go and say I'm misleading people when my point is entirely valid in the context I used it, but you're right because you're having a different debate with no-one? Nice one kin.

You must have looked hard: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/23/a-gunowners-case-against-assault-weapons/

[ ]automatic assault rifle. [X] semi-automatic rifle based on an assault rifle platform.

 Understand what you're discussing before being a smart arse. Ignorance doesn't make you right.

Ignoring the selective edit, your reiterated points, meh - you wanted 3 things, 2 are unconnected to massacres & one is an impractical nonsense, so failing completely on practicality.

Have fun with the thread - I'm out.

[kinboshi]

LOL @ "semi-automatic rifle based on an assault rifle platform" not being an 'assault rifle'.

I get your points and the view you're trying to put forward, but they're actually not relevant to overall argument of increased gun-control.  Guns don't have to be used in 'massacres' to have been used in homicides or suicides.  The goal of greater gun-control is to reduce deaths, and restricting the three things I mentioned would help towards this goal.  Saying it's "impractical nonsense" is interesting when referring to the restriction of the sale of high-capacity magazines in supermarkets. 

This is partly why I mentioned that the political debate surrounding gun-control is best had at a distance from a massacre like the one at that school. The large-scale massacres are tragic and very sad, but they don't account for the vast majority of homicides and suicides by firearms in the US.  Gun control needs to be strengthened (imo) to look at the wider picture.  Like you say, those who need guns for hunting, etc., should be allowed to under licensed restrictions, but that doesn't stand in the way of other controls.

[kinboshi]

Has anything changed since Bowling for Columbine?
Did that film make any difference at all to gun laws or mentality?

I think the NRA and others from the pro-gun lobby carry far more weight in legislative terms than the film would have. I'm sure it reinforced the views of those who want greater gun-control, but I'm sure it was largely preaching to the converted (so to speak).

Interestingly (and depressingly), the 'assault weapons ban' expired in 2004, only a few years after the film was released.

So this isn't deemed excessive or worthy of a ban:



Why would anyone need that gun and the magazine carrying 32 rounds?

[redarmi]

. 

This is partly why I mentioned that the political debate surrounding gun-control is best had at a distance from a massacre like the one at that school.

I have to disagree with this.  It is the perfect time to both have the debate and pass the legislation and I dont understand why the politicians always say "now is not the time to have the debate" in the immediate aftermath of things like this.  Action on gun control and ensuring it never happens again is the best possible thing, indeed the only good thing, that can ever come out of these kind of horrific events.