613 replies to this topic

[FireMarshallBill]

O a a has killed more children in Pakistan via drone strikes than the ct shooter did. Where's the outrage? Where are the threads to ban drones?

Are dark skinned children less valued in your eyes?

I wonder how she would explain that to the grieving parents.

[ladypanther]

People get 10 years for murder. You want 30 for owning a gun?

Yes. They should get life for murder.

[Happy Panther]

After Columbine people wanted to ban trenchcoats in schools. And did.

[FireMarshallBill]

No death penalty?

[Happy Panther]

Yes. They should get life for murder.

That is pretty unrealistic.

[ladypanther]

That is pretty unrealistic.

Should not be.

[Davidson Deac II]

Fwiw, I was listening to a criminal psychologist on NPR yesterday, who had studied mass killings. He said that the number of mass killings in the US has remained pretty consistent thoughout our history, at about 150-200 per year. The ease of access to automatic weapons really hasn't had much of an impact on the numbers. Of couse, this includes all types of mass killings.

[CarolinaNCSU]

Fwiw, I was listening to a criminal psychologist on NPR yesterday, who had studied mass killings. He said that the number of mass killings in the US has remained pretty consistent thoughout our history, at about 150-200 per year. The ease of access to automatic weapons really hasn't had much of an impact on the numbers. Of couse, this includes all types of mass killings.

To add to this point, recently just finished up an education class where we studied school violence/bullying, etc.

It's gone down dramatically from what it used to be and school violence cases are few and far between now. Media simply uses the few instances as much as they can.

[Floppin]

Fwiw, I was listening to a criminal psychologist on NPR yesterday, who had studied mass killings. He said that the number of mass killings in the US has remained pretty consistent thoughout our history, at about 150-200 per year. The ease of access to automatic weapons really hasn't had much of an impact on the numbers. Of couse, this includes all types of mass killings.

This is very true, and the gun related murder rate totals can be attributed, in large part, to the drug trade and gang culture. Eliminate the black market drug trade (through ending prohibition and beginning a government controlled market) and you eliminate a greed driven violent drug culture.

People all to often just see that someone was killed by a gun and blame guns, without looking at the other factors. WHY was the person trying to kill someone to begin with, not what they used to do it.

[Happy Panther]

If we spend $1T on banning guns and putting anyone who owns one in jail for 30 years (!) there will still be school massacres. Maybe you get 15 dead kids instead of 20. It's still going to happen. That's a lot of money to address something that is very very unlikely to happen. My kid is more likely to get hit by lightning than get killed in a school massacre.

Banning guns because of this is a non-sequitur. You are going to save a couple of lives a year that you actually care about. The media sensationalizes when a rich kid goes bonkers but there were probably that many people killed in Chicago in the last fortnight (Chicago averages a little less than 10 murders a week.)

Gun deaths in the US are mostly related a) self inflicted deaths and drugs.

Take a country like Brazil that has much more strict gun laws and way fewer guns per capita. People get murdered just as much as in the US because of drug wars.

You want to address the issues we have it goes way beyond gun laws.

[FireMarshallBill]

OP just wants everyone to admit that yes, a complete and total ban on certain types of weapons would have saved these particular people. First off, you can't even prove that to be a fact, secondly, she ignores the facts that have been mentioned that prove that people are going to be homicidal monsters whenever they want. The whole concept of the OP is beyond logic and is based purely on emotion.

[stirs]

Emotion is well spent greiving and mourning, not creating new policy.

As I have said many times, if both sides got together for the purpose of making things better they could. But, political axes need grinding, so one side tries to strike while the iron is hot so to speak.

This will solve nothing.
You cannot ban guns because a few nuts abuse them, same with video games.

This guy could have done equal damage with a short barrel semi automatic shotgun with buckshot, maybe more with less blasts. I think some restrictions on assault weapons are warranted, but then the next guy who uses one handgun with multiple clips will call for bans on them, and on down the line.

I think a comprehenseive get together is warranted, not emotional repsonses to a horrible tragedy.

[ladypanther]

No one has yet given an argument against banning these weapons. Not to mention, there has been no argument for these weapons.

I am saddened by the callus disregard for life here.

[Floppin]

As I said before in another thread. I'm not comfortable with government being able to own weapons that the public cannot. I believe in the idea that the public, should be they be able to afford to purchase it, should be able to own any weapon that those who rule over them can own.

If it's too dangerous for the public to own, then it's too dangerous for those who make the laws to own. Otherwise what is there for us to resist against oppression?

I would gladly support a ban on all projectile weapons, so long as the government, local PD and up, unilaterally disarm as well.

[CatofWar]

No one has yet given an argument against banning these weapons. Not to mention, there has been no argument for these weapons.

I am saddened by the callus disregard for life here.

I did and it was ignored. I'm not exactly shocked by that either.