A person capable of shooting a five year old eleven times is beyond gun control.

[Herlong]

There is something going on here.

[peacebird]

1. Yes, but if there were only 6 bullets per clip perhaps someone could of stopped him when reloading.

Gun laws could help with that.

[AlexSatan]

24. He clearly had to reload several times

So, if what you claim is correct, why didn't someone stop him then?

[exboyfil]

26. He had two 30 round magazines taped together

How many of these magazines did he have on his person? I just don't know if he would have had the same lethality even with using two semiautomatic handguns (his back up weapons). 30 rounds with a quick change to 30. He could have done the same thing with his Glock as well I guess (a 30 round magazine is available).

[AlexSatan]

33. If he didn't have 30 round clips

Then he likely would only have spent one or 2 bullets to kill the kid instead of 11. No change in the net result though.

[PA Democrat]

60. You want to bet the life of someone YOU love on your assertion?

[AlexSatan]

66. Are you willing to bet the life of someone YOU love

on the assertion that smaller clips will keep them alive?

I'm not.

[PA Democrat]

67. Your statement is nonsensical.

Go hug your guns.

[AlexSatan]

76. LOL

I basically repeated your question but simply turned it around.

And yes, I agree. Which is why I posed it back to you.

[PA Democrat]

81. False equivalence.

Don't try for captain of the debate team.

[AlexSatan]

84. Since you want to continue to play

Do you really think having a limit of 6 or 10 shot clips will change or prevent any of the shootings?

Keep in mind how quickly one can replace the clip if they have practice a little AND keep in mind that the larger clips actually are more likely to cause a jam--a condition that limited the use in several of the most recent shootings.

[PA Democrat]

85. Let me explain why your argument is nonsense.

Your "bet" is not equivalent because there is no downside to your bet. My scenario, there is a possibility there would have been fewer casualties. Your scenario, the outcome would be the same. That's not a "bet". Understand?


Sorry, I have interest in "playing" any further. Not much of a challenge frankly.

P.S. - Jared Loughner, the Tuscon shooter was taken down while he was attempting to load a second 33 round magazine.

[AlexSatan]

88. There is also the possibility

there would have been more casualties.

Instead of putting 7-11 bullets per victim, he might have only put in 2-3, since he had to change clips more often.

The victims would be just as dead but he would have had time to hit more of them.

In other shooting cases (like Aurora) the rifle might not have jammed.

But if you want to look at your "solutions" without considering all realistic possibilities, that is your right. Your ideas will quickly get shot down when your unrealistic approach is realized. But that is your right.

[PA Democrat]

89. Keep spinning. Look up when Jared Loughner was taken down.

Bye.

[AlexSatan]

90. One example

And I provided an example when a smaller clip may have HELPED the shooter.

Your point?

Remember, Lanza reloaded many times. As several shooter have.

[PA Democrat]

97. Bullshit and you know it.

If high capacity magazines are so inferior, police would not be seeking their ban, and they would not be the top choice of mass murderers.

Show me some data to support your ridiculous claims, otherwise goodbye.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

[AlexSatan]

100. Let's take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Americas

From most killed on down.

Luby's massacre: used a truck and pistols

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre: Uzi, shotgun and pistol. Used 257 rounds. Obviously reloaded multiple times

Binghamton shootings: 99 rounds from two pistols

2012 Aurora shooting: tried using the longgun M&P 15 but it jammed so used shotgun and pistol

James Edward Pough:M1 carbine, .38 revolver

Hmmm. Looks like pistols were most prevalent and shotguns second for what did the killing

On to school killings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres

Virginia Tech massacre: 170 shots, Pistols. One had a clip with 10 shots.

Well, I think you should get the point.

Your claim does NOT match the data.

[Throckmorton]

103. This one is easy, ban all detachable magazines,

and all magazine extensions.

[AlexSatan]

105. Good luck

And that still does nothing about the shotguns.

And notice that several of the mass killers used revolvers.

[Throckmorton]

121. Well, it is a start

and limit shotguns to a 3 round capacity then.

Ban autoloading handguns, and allow only 6 shot revolvers.

[WinniSkipper]

123. Any of this grandfathered?

Is this a ban on new sales - or does this apply to all the existing guns in circulation?

[AlexSatan]

129. And for the revolvers?

http://www.pistoleer.com/hks/revolver/


Remember they were common in the mass killings. And some of the mass killings went on for over an hour.

Not to mention that most gun homicides are handgun homicides with just a few shots, which could just as easily be a semiautomatic as a revolver. But that is another discussion.

[EOTE]

91. What incredibly tortured logic.

And if he had a tommy gun, then he would have used 50 bullets per kid? Just how well does your asinine theory scale upward? So you're saying that more lethal guns that hold more ammo can never be more dangerous than single fire weapons? Yeah, I'm sure this maniac would have done just as much damage with a musket. Did you even think before posting something so incredibly boneheaded?

[AlexSatan]

92. Please show where I said "can never"

I said no such thing. Can you say "So you're saying that more lethal guns that hold more ammo are ALWAYS more dangerous than single fire weapons?"? Of course you can't. Because I can find a quick, easy counter example.

Stop being blinded by emotion and think.

But yes, if he had a tommy gun, there is a reasonable chance he would have used 50 bullets per kid. Considering he use 11 shots on individual victims, (which I simply cannot comprehend from a logical or human perspective), it is entirely possible.

[EOTE]

94. You said that if he had guns with lower capacity, he just would have spent less bullets on each kid.

That is RIDICULOUSLY stupid. The great bulk of these mass killings used weapons designed for exactly that. Your logic is beyond stupid, it's utterly bereft of any intelligence. It's bad enough that your argument is incredibly offensive, it's the bone headed stupidity that gets me more than anything else.

On edit: According to your pathetic "logic", we should be sending our soldiers into combat with low powered rifles that take 20 seconds to reload, because that would encourage them to be oh-so accurate with their shots. Really, do you think before making such stupid, offensive comments?

[AlexSatan]

95. You are apparently not skilled enough

to put words in my mouth, so please stop.

I said "likely would". Have most mass killers put that many bullets in individual victims? Nope. But this A-hole did. If he had smaller clips, would he have? Maybe. Maybe not. Logic dictates he would have been a bit more conservative with his bullets but we don't know if logic is a consideration here.

But sure. Put your head in the sand and believe that smaller clips will fix the world. And when it doesn't, you can come back and apologize to me.

[EOTE]

96. Once again, utterly asinine logic.

Yep, mass killers don't look to weapons with large ammo capacity. Who the fuck cares if he would have been more conservative if he had lesser weapons, he probably would have. That doesn't change the fact that the reason he killed so many so easily was because of the ridiculous weapons he had available to him. But go ahead and believe what your NRA daddy tells you to. That's right, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Any more brain dead pablum you want to spew from the NRA? And there's nothing to debate about how our gun culture is killing people. We have more guns per than any other civilized nation in the world and we have LOADS more gun violence than any other civilized nation in the world. But you get your two brain cells together and continue to believe there's no correlation.

[AlexSatan]

98. Ah, but he *only* killed as many as he did

because he ran out of time. If he had not spent time shooting individuals multiple times, there would have been more victims.

And sorry, I have nothing to do with the NRA in any form or fashion.

And yes, it is people who kill people. By putting it on the guns, you take responsibility away from the a-holes who commit these atrocities. If these folks weren't selfish scumbags, there would be no killings, no matter how many guns were around. Strangely enough, there are lots of people who work in armories, surrounded by weapons all day but yet they are not compelled by these pieces of metal to suddenly start shooting everyone.

BTW, is Mexico civilized?

[EOTE]

104. Mexico is definitely not a first world country, if that's what you're asking.

And if you think that the U.S. should be looking to Mexico for its gun policy, that's pretty damned sick. You do realize that this sicko had many different guns to choose from. You oddly don't think that he selected guns with high capacity for a reason. You may not have anything to do with the NRA, but you're certainly doing their bidding. If he had less capable guns with lower capacity, he, without a doubt, would have killed less people. Anyone with a functioning brain can realize that.

[AlexSatan]

107. OK

It's not what I asked, but I'm kind of surprised you feel "the U.S. should be looking to Mexico for its gun policy" considering:


"There is now only one legal gun store in Mexico -- in Mexico City -- and buyers must wait months for approval of purchase from the Ministry of Defense. Purchases are limited to small caliber, non-military weapons that must be kept at home; semi-automatic weapons are only sold to military and police. After the 1960s, Mexican law was changed to prohibit private citizens from openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon."

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/news/2012/dec/17/wake-us-shootings-look-mexican-gun-laws/

[EOTE]

112. I'd suggest reading a little bit harder.

I didn't say that the U.S. should be looking to Mexico for its gun policy, I said that's sick. And it would be especially foolish as the U.S. and Mexico are nothing alike. And you should also know that a significant portion of Mexico's gun violence comes from weapons brought in from the U.S. And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Do you have anything other than non-sequitors to offer?

[AlexSatan]

117. My bad

but from context, obviously you could tell I should have put a [n't] in the quote. You claim we don't want to model our laws after Mexico's.

Mexico's gun laws are far more restrictive than ours. I thought you'd be supportive of their model. What part of their laws do you not approve of?

Wait, are you saying their gun violence comes from guns that were obtained illegally from over the border? You mean like much of our illegal drug trade? Well, fancy that. They impose strict gun laws, criminals still are able to obtain them and the homicide rate goes way up. Weird.

[EOTE]

120. You're damned right we don't want to model our gun laws on Mexico's.

Do you think Mexico has the resources that we do to put toward law enforcement? By you continuing to even bring up Mexico shows how little you know of the issue. Comparing the U.S. and Mexico is like comparing apples and condoms. Obviously, a huge contributing factor in Mexico's gun violence is lack of enforcement. Something that certainly could not be said of the U.S. Mexico's politicians have said over and over that a significant amount of their gun violence is directly caused by America's guns coming into the country. Really, you need to start thinking just a little bit before commenting on this issue.

On edit: This is obviously why I initially compared the U.S. to the rest of the developed world. Do you not see that it makes sense to compare us to other first world countries? There are plenty of other first world countries who spend significantly less than we do on law enforcement, yet have significantly less gun crime. I wonder why that could be...

[AlexSatan]

122. You didn't answer the question

What is wrong with Mexico's guns laws? Not enforcement--the actual law.

Once we establish that, then we can discuss the issue about guns coming over the border.

[EOTE]

124. I didn't say that there's anything wrong with Mexico's gun laws.

Their gun laws are as appropriate as they could be for the country given the fucked up situation that they're in. The question that you're asking is baiting. I'd suggest avoiding logical fallacies, but that seems to be all that you can provide.

[AlexSatan]

125. Really?

"And if you think that the U.S. should be looking to Mexico for its gun policy, that's pretty damned sick"

So their laws aren't "wrong", just "sick"?

You STILL haven't said why the US should not have similar laws. Specifically, which part of their gun law do you not like, er, makes you "sick"?

It is not a baiting question not a logical fallacy. Claiming they are just highlights that you won't answer. It is a simple question. That you keep dodging.

[EOTE]

131. Christ, do you need this spelled out for you like a child?

Because it really seems like you have incredible comprehension problems.

Read this really slowly. MEXICO AND THE U.S. ARE FAR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Do you know what a first world is? Do you understand how incredibly different the U.S. and Mexico are? Christ, I hate to treat you like a child, but you kind of forced my hand. Do you know how Mexico and the U.S. differ in terms of per capita money invested in law enforcement? Silly question, of course you don't. Do you realize how incredibly fucking stupid it is to think "Gosh, well it didn't work in Mexico, it certainly can't work here." Are you familiar with MASA? You know, that Mexican organization that sent man to the moon? What's that? MASA doesn't exist? Christ the stupidity is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

On edit: Fuck, are you still so ignorant as to not understand why I compared the U.S. to other FIRST WORLD NATIONS? I've been trying to get you to understand that the U.S. is not the same as Mexico, Somalia and whatever other undeveloped country you'd attempt to use to suggest that the U.S.'s gun laws are just dandy. If you really can't get this simple concept into your head, I'm afraid there's no point in having any conversation with you. LEARN!

[AlexSatan]

133. no, but you COULD actually answer the question

Specifically, which part of their gun laws do you not like, er, makes you "sick"?

Again, we are NOT talking enforcement. Pay attention.

"Gosh, well it didn't work in Mexico, it certainly can't work here." Who suggested it wouldn't? We haven't even gotten to that point because you won't even address their LAWS.

WHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT COUNTRY THOSE LAWS ARE IN. ARE THOSE GOOD LAWS OR NOT? Do I need to list them again?

[EOTE]

134. Fuck you're dense.

I NEVER SAID THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MEXICO'S GUN LAWS. I said it's fucking stupid to model gun laws in the U.S. after them? Do you understand? Of course you don't because you've asked the same fucking question 5 times. If you ask the same question after it's been answered 5 times, that makes you pretty fucking stupid. Have you gotten it through your head yet? Of course not because you're going to ask the same fucking question again.

[AlexSatan]

136. That makes no sense. They're fine laws

and more restrictive than ours but we should not model ours after theirs because ????

it's not the same country???

Well no shit. Neither is any other country we would model them after.

And despite all of your protests, yes, you are dodging. When I get the time, I'll go ahead and have the conversation you are to chicken to have with me.

It start with:

You: yes, those are pretty good laws and much more restrictive than ours...."

[EOTE]

138. Do you STILL not see the difference between Mexico and the U.S.?

Why the fuck you're even discussing Mexico's gun laws is well beyond me. Do you know what a strawman is? You bringing up Mexico's gun laws are precisely that. And you've asked the question five fucking times and I've answered five fucking times. Are you truly so stupid as to not see my answer? I've told you myriad times that Mexico's gun laws are fine for Mexico. You've asked time and time again what my problem is with Mexico's laws and I told you that I don't have a problem with Mexico's laws. But you're so damned daft, you don't realize that MEXICO IS NOTHING LIKE THE U.S. . Not to mention that you've completely abandoned your other argument that the lethality of the weapons used in a mass killing doesn't affect how many people die in it. Abandon one fucking idiotic argument and bring up another. That doesn't speak very well to your intellectual ability.

[AlexSatan]

144. --

[EOTE]

145. So now you've lost even the ability to use words?

Once again chump, I answered your question many, many times. The fact that you don't realize that just speaks to your incredible ignorance. Shall I answer your question another dozen times for you? Would that allow it to sink into your thick head? Probably not.

[AlexSatan]

146. --

[EOTE]

148. Not that I expect an answer (at least not an answer that wouldn't be provided by an infant)

but what am I dodging, exactly? I've answered your question every time you've posed it. Are you really so daft as to not see that (rhetorical question)? But go on ahead and post another picture in response. I would actually be amazingly surprised if a gun nut like yourself provided an intelligent answer, but given your past responses, I know that's not happening. I have to ask, though, does it hurt when you try to put a thought together? Do you have to strain like some people do when they do pull ups? Do you have a limit on the amount of rational thoughts you have in one day? Like do you have 4 for the day and then you're out? I'm really curious as to what it's like having a sub 30 IQ.

[EOTE]

140. Here's a clue for you, chuckles.

How about comparing the U.S. to every fucking other first world country on Earth? Does that work for you? You do that and you'll see that other first world countries have more restrictive gun laws and (now pay attention here, Corky) THEY HAVE FAR, FAR LESS GUN VIOLENCE THAN WE DO! But you keep on comparing the U.S. to Mexico because that's the best thing your brain can come to an analogy.

[EOTE]

132. Get this through your head, I'm NOT DODGING ANYTHING.

It's a simple question that is nothing but baiting. Fuck, it's like dealing with an infant. I said it's SICK to base our laws upon anything that Mexico has done because it would be completely inapplicable. I never said once that Mexico's gun laws should be changed for Mexico. Comprende? Of course not. I haven't dodged shit. You have, on the other hand, used myriad logical fallacies. And even then, your logic is so incredibly tortured that most 5 graders can see right through it. For fuck's sake, is ANY OF THIS getting through to you?

[AlexSatan]

137. Oh, it is crystal clear

You are simply too cowardly to even discuss their specific laws and their applicability here because you know it will eventually lead to your position looking silly.

I find it interesting you know "my logic" when you haven't even answered enough for us to begin the conversation.

What exactly is my logic?

[EOTE]

139. Do you ever get tired of using strawmen?

What the fuck is there to discuss about Mexico? You're the one who brought up Mexico, trying to make another incredibly idiotic point, but you've failed miserably. You don't have anything approaching logic, so there's nothing to comment on. Ask a real question and you might get an answer. Ask another question like "Why do you hate puppies?" and you'll get nothing but more ridicule. Really man, learn. It's not that difficult.

[AlexSatan]

142. Mexico has laws which are much more restrictive than ours.

People are proposing we should have laws which are more restrictive. Thus, there is something to discuss about Mexico.

We could look at their restrictive laws and see if they are good and valid for us as well as how effective they are.

But apparently you find it more fun to dodge. You must be outstanding at dodgeball!

BTW, you also failed to explain what "my logic" is.

[EOTE]

143. You don't have logic. You have nothing approaching logic.

Do you know how many times more the U.S. spends on law enforcement on a per capita basis as does Mexico? Do you think we're comparable at all? Which other countries would you like to compare our laws to? Uganda? Kenya? Somalia? Fuck, have you completely abandoned any attempt to be moderately informed? And once again, simpleton, I haven't dodged a damned thing. Just because you continue to ask a question after it's been answered numerous times doesn't mean that anyone is dodging anything. It means that you're a simpleton who can't accept the answer to his question.

[AlexSatan]

147. Do those other countries have more restrictive guns laws

that we should evaluate and consider? If so, then yes, we should take a look.

And again, I've not asked once about enforcement. Enforcement is irrelevant to our country since we will enforce it at a different level.


Should there be just a few locations in the US (maybe one per state) where people can buy guns?

Should buyers have to wait months for approval unless there is employment reason or special decree by a judge?

Should weapons kept at home be limited to small caliber, non-military weapons?

Should semi-automatic weapons be only sold to military and police?

Should our law be changed to prohibit private citizens from openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon?

Simple questions. Time to dodge again.

[EOTE]

149. These are the first times you've asked those questions, chump.

Question 1: No.

Question 2: That depends on the buyer. Some people should obviously not be allowed to own a gun at all.

Question 3: Yes. Duh.

Question 4: Yes.

Question 5: No.

See what happens when you use your words like a big boy? That's a good lil gun nut. I knew you could do it!

[AlexSatan]

150. Not true

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021994467#post107

"What part of their laws do you not approve of? "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021994467#post117

I was expecting you to be capable of reading a paragraph and discuss it's contents. But thank you for finally answering.

OK, now that you finally addressed Mexico's laws like I asked so many posts ago, it is clear you want less restrictive laws than Mexico. Obviously for Q2, some people in Mexico are denied.

So, that being the case, is there any chance more restrictions would actually help?

Mexico's gun homicide rate is more than 3 times higher than ours. Obviously they have some enforcement issues but they managed to arrest an American who brought a gun in from the US.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-10/news/sns-rt-us-usa-mexico-prisonerbre8ba01u-20121210_1_mexico-city-mexican-customs-officials-eddie-varon-levy

And as you pointed out, many of the illegal guns come from over the border.

Even if we had better enforcement, our war on drugs highlighted that we will not be able to completely stop the flow of illegal things across our borders. And drugs have a continuous supply since users use it up. A gun only needs to come over once.

And knowing that 93% of our gun crime is committed using guns that were illegally acquired, how will such restrictions really change our crime rate?


On Edit: We can always talk about how Australia's clamping down on guns changed the homicide rate.

[EOTE]

152. Different question, chump. I answered that as soon as you asked it.

"What part of their laws do you not approve of?" I told you time and time again that I have no quarrel with Mexico's laws in Mexico. Did you miss that the dozen or so times I answered you, Charlie?

And you're damned right more restrictions would actually help. You know, LIKE IN EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD NATION ON THE PLANET? Christ, I know gun nuts are piss poor with logic, but most of the ones I've encountered could at least recognize logic when they see it.

And lemme guess, you want to trot out some more NRA bullshit about Australia? You haven't been able to produce one single, cogent argument so far, you really want to expose yourself to more mockery?

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp


Really, try educating yourself in the slightest before making another boneheaded comment.

[AlexSatan]

153. Is Australia first world?

As the snopes article pointed out, they banned pump sthoguns and semi-automatics. And look how much it helped.



Notice no statistical trickery. Just the homicide rate.

But now you did "forget" to address how we would keep illegal, unregistered guns from coming over the border if restrictions are place here in America. As I pointed out, we were not able to with drugs. What makes you think we could with guns?

[EOTE]

155. Yes, it did help. Can you not see that?

And do you also know that graphs without labeled axes are worthless? And yes, Australia is a first world country. Did you also see how armed robberies decreased by about 50% as well since the ban? Also, you do know that there are FAR more guns going out of this country than going in? And that we're more than capable of doing what every other developed country does regarding illegal imports of firearms? I can tell you're so close to almost learning something. Don't worry, you'll get there soon.

[Xithras]

118. History doesn't bear that out

There are multiple examples, during previous shootings, where bystanders have charged shooters while they were reloading and simply ended up dead themselves. Why? Simple.

Stand up with a book. Hold that book out in front of your head. Let go of it. A skilled and practiced shooter can reload a gun in less time than it takes that book to hit the floor. Adam Lanza was a skilled shooter who practiced at the range regularly. Several of the victims, including the principal, were apparently killed when they tried to stop him. There have been many, many people killed in previous shootings who tried the exact same thing. "Charge the shooter" sounds good, but in practice it almost never works.

The Jared Loughner example is actually a bit of a rarity, and only worked because he was a novice who had almost NO experience with firearms and who actually DROPPED his magazine while attempting to reload. If he had been even slightly more skilled, it's overwhelmingly likely that the two people who tackled him would have simply been the next two victims.

[The Link]

2. Theres something going on all right.

Too many fucking guns.

[Squinch]

7. +1

[RetroLounge]

29. +1000

and too many fucking posters deflecting the conversation away from guns

RL

[cthulu2016]

3. No, not really

There are people at least this evil in Japan. Believe it. Yet Japan doesn't have very many of these deals.

[etherealtruth]

4. ^^^ This ^^^

[Azathoth]

14. No, Japan just has sarin gas attacks in their subways

[Gold Rush]

16. That was 1995

Wow the one example you use the level the playing field was from 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

More people died in mass shootings THIS WEEK in the US. I think the now common shootings at high schools, mall,s offices, restaurants, elementary schools, churches, and so one far far outweigh something that happened in 1995. But yeah, your statement totally negates any discussion of gun regulation. Well done.

[Azathoth]

18. I'm not trying to "negate" any discussion of gun regulation

I'm pointing out that countries with strict gun prohibitions still suffer massacres. Gun legislation might have positive effects on things like inner city crime, but it doesn't stop maniacs who are bent on planning and executing mass murder.

[Azathoth]

20. lol, let's see here

23 posts, half of them in the gungeon, and you're screaming at people to get off DU? Nice try little fella

[Gold Rush]

22. Yep

and out of both of us, im the only one espousing Democratic views. Thanks, junior. Sorry Romeny lost, Im sure you were crushed.

[RetroLounge]

30. Sure you are

RL

[Azathoth]

35. Profound

[RetroLounge]

36. Did mommy buy you a thesaurus?

RL

[Ikonoklast]

43. Wow, I didn't know they sold dinosaurs!

Wait, what?


Oh.


Didn't know that.


Never mind.

[JI7]

48. so what ? people still die in car accidents, does that mean we should not regulate

things like drinking and driving, using phone while driving, speed limits etc ?

people die from faulty products and we have recalls on them if one dies .

why is it when it comes to guns just because people might still die another way or we can't say it would prevent something 100 percent we should do nothing at all ?

[Recursion]

80. We do regulate guns in that sense

Gunmakers that make guns that blow up in the shooter's face, or send bullets off in the wrong direction, get shut down.

And we do limit who can get guns and what they can do with them: where they can carry them, where they can shoot them, etc. And whatever we're doing, we've seen the firearms murder rate plummet by 50% over the past 20 years.

why is it when it comes to guns just because people might still die another way or we can't say it would prevent something 100 percent we should do nothing at all ?

My complaint isn't that it wouldn't work 100% but that it wouldn't be any good at all. I lived in DC through the worst of the 1990s crime wave and there was a total ban on gun ownership at that time. It was as effective as the total ban on marijuana has been.

[baldguy]

65. Other counties get massacres once every ten yrs or so.

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)

America has massacres every other month. If you don't think that's a problem, then you are soulless. Your continued promotion of the RW fascist NRA talking point proves it.

A society's first responsibility is to protect it's children. If we can't get that right, we've failed.

[elehhhhna]

27. once a week?

comparison fail

[Azathoth]

34. We have mass shootings once a week?

Fact fail.

[treestar]

62. As often as we have gun massacres?

No. That happened once. And is harder to do than pick up a gun and start shooting.

[LanternWaste]

68. Consistently, or merely an aberration?

Consistently, or merely an aberration?

Seems relevant...

[Azathoth]

151. Several possible answers to that

1) The only overseas mass killings that get reported here in the States are the large-scale, truly unspeakable "media events" like the Breivik rampage. I would be interested in seeing the numbers of smaller scale murder sprees (i.e. three or more people killed, not necessarily with a gun, reported in local papers, no international coverage) from those countries.

2) I'm willing to concede that draconian gun bans -- ie complete bans on handguns, shotguns, etc. -- make it more difficult for maniacs to go on opportunistic killing sprees and may therefore reduce the "snap" incidents where someone goes nuts over a short period of time and ends up slaughtering people. But I am not convinced those kinds of laws would have stopped a guy like Holmes, who was smart enough to get into a neuroscience PhD program and who spent several months planning and preparing for his rampage. Individuals like that are in the same category as terrorists: they will find a way to hurt large numbers of people, one way or the other. Besides, from a practical standpoint, blanket bans on handguns and similar provisions are now unambiguously unconstitutional, so they aren't available options in the United States.

3) Looking at the numbers of mass killings in the United States, it seems the past couples years may be an aberration themselves. We've been a heavily armed country since 1776. One chart posted recently showed that in the late 70's, between 50% to 60% of people -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike -- owned a firearm. There has been no great advance in the lethality of gun technology since that time, yet the incidence rate (or at least the body-count) of these mass killing sprees seems to be spiking, and that spike began while the AWB was in effect. That suggests to me there are underlying sociological factors at work here which will not be solved through gun control.

The bottom line, from my perspective, is that gun control is designed to get guns off the streets and reduce violent crime. Even purging every gun from a country will not stop massacres there, nor will it address whatever underlying sociological issues are driving those massacres.

[Quixote1818]

5. There was an attack like this in China on Friday but with a knife

22 children injured but zero dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

[Dokkie]

56. My guess is he didnt want to kill

any of the kids. I read somewhere that he was trying to disfigure them instead of killing em and thats the reason why he avoided vital organs. Do you think if he really wanted to kill those kids that he would strike out on 20 of 20?

[Zoeisright]

70. Yes.

God, your post is unbelievably fucking stupid.

[Dokkie]

106. Care to explain yourself

or are you just going to sit there and call me stupid?

[upaloopa]

6. Look here is the equation mental illness + AR-15 = 27 dead.

Now which one of the factors can we really have a positive effect on the soonest?

This mental illness thing is a good idea with most of us, but gunners are using it as a smoke screen. Don't look at the gun problem look at all our mental illness. It's a diversion.

We will never get rid of mental illness but we can do something about the proliferation of guns.

[srichardson]

10. Exactly!

[Herlong]

15. Most of the people who are considered mentally ill

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)

have never committed any acts of violence. Let me remind you, a 20 year old walked into an elementary school and killed people. These are the realities of the moment.

[LaydeeBug]

8. No they're not. nt

[democrattotheend]

9. I'm really glad he was killed in the shooting

Or killed himself? I am not sure which it was.

Either way, I am glad he died because if he had lived it would have forced me to struggle with my opposition to the death penalty.

[GreenPartyVoter]

58. If he had lived, though, we might have gotten some answers.

[coalition_unwilling]

101. I'm not 'glad' about anything that happened, except that maybe, just maybe, the

Newtown Massacre will cause this country to grow up a little bit. I'm not holding my breath.

[Herlong]

11. When I see a five year old child the only thing I can do is smile

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

This individual by the very fact that he walked into an elementary school had deeper problems than gun control.

[Herlong]

12. What is a twenty year old doing

that makes him think walking up to kindergardeners and shooting them dead is okay. This has nothing to do with gun control.

[laundry_queen]

23. Fucked up people think fucked up things

fucked up people who think fucked up things who have free access to guns kill kindergarteners.

It's ALL about the gun control.

[Zoeisright]

71. You get dumber with every post.

Buh-bye, creep.

[jeff47]

108. Yet those deeper problems would be far less leathal without a gun.

Which is why the same deeper problems are less lethal in other countries.

[riderinthestorm]

17. This family had the cash to get the finest mental health services in the world. This is about guns

Period.

Whether Adam Lanza had "enough" mental health services, or "not enough" isn't relevant anymore. This family had the resources to do WHATEVER it took to get this kid under control.

And that didn't happen.

So he went on a rampage because he had access to a small arsenal of killing weapons regardless of mental health services in this country.

[scarletwoman]

25. Exactly! +1,000!

Whether Adam Lanza had "enough" mental health services, or "not enough" isn't relevant anymore. This family had the resources to do WHATEVER it took to get this kid under control.

Well said!

[renate]

50. that's a very good point in favor of gun control

(But I kind of feel like going "shhh...." because mental-health care is so pathetic in this country that I wouldn't want to offer any counterpoint to the need for improving it.)

Because I think that guns are vile, I appreciate your pointing out that, whatever the shooter's mental problems, it was GUNS that made this massacre possible.

They're two different issues that happened to converge in this horror, as in many others, and I think what you're saying is a really important counterpoint to the gun lovers who are putting ALL the emphasis on mental health.

[uponit7771]

52. +1!

[Dems to Win]

54. +1

[Abq_Sarah]

55. Lanza was 20 years old

His parents actually had limited control over him. You can't force someone to a state of good mental health.

[blueamy66]

59. But the govt can force someone to get mental

help.

Sorry, but methinks the parents dropped the ball big time.....especially the Mother, by keeping all of those guns in the house.

[AndyA]

87. Saw an interview on The Ed Show on MSNBC last night with Dr. Gail Saltz

She said that if a person were under medical care, it's possible they might say or do something that would allow their doctor to determine they might harm themselves or others. In this case, she said the doctor could have told the mother to get the guns out of the house, because it wasn't safe.

(I paraphrased her comments.)

[blueamy66]

99. And the Mother should have gotten rid of the guns

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Sounds like she had her own issues.

[jeff47]

109. Except he was exibiting all sorts of mental health issues back when he was under 18

when the parents had absolute control over him. While they could not have flipped a switch to "fix" him, they had the authority to force treatment.

[treestar]

63. [phone]

Mental illness is a completely different issue. Most people who are mentally ill would not kill anyone. And those few that would can only do it due to easy access to guns.

[smirkymonkey]

21. K&R

[sellitman]

28. It is ALL about guns

I find it sick so called Democrats can think anything else.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. There certainly is, but it's just ever so much more satisfy to scream at each other to no purpose.

[99Forever]

32. The person might be...

... but the fucking machines of death (s)he uses to do it, sure as shit aren't.



Thanks for the fresh steaming pile of fail.

[upi402]

37. So... more guns?

F dat
didn't work out so well.


stop it

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. Not true. Keep guns off the street. We don't need them.

Same person would have had a very difficult time fighting past adults to kill so many children.

Get rid of guns and SHUT down the gun industry.

No more.

[Lex]

39. It was a GUN

that was used, however.

[rrneck]

40. Sure there is.

He was batshit crazy and the owner of the guns didn't seem to think it was necessary to lock them up.

[Herlong]

41. Watch look listen

And think.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. ...

No access to guns=twenty babies still alive.

Pretty simple, no?

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Fuck that.

There is no fucking legitimate reason for "sportsmen" or "gun enthusiasts" or even "self defense proponents" to own one of these:



it's "not about gun control"? Yes, it is.

[Herlong]

44. Personally, I think gun control is a problem

We can't seem to wrap our mind around the fact that our culture may be killing us. A generation from now, gun control may be the least of our concerns.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. If it was the culture, violent crime in general would be going up. It's not.

However, we have these horrific instances perpetrated by single figures who clearly have mental problems who, nevertheless, have access to tools which allow them to kill lots of people in a short period of time.

The "culture" isn't the problem here. The guns are.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. This isn't about "true human evolution", this is about machines designed to kill lots of people in a

short period of time.

Your response doesn't make very much sense, frankly.

[Abq_Sarah]

57. It would make a good varmint rifle

Telescoping stock and pistol grip for better control. Put some decent sights on it and it would be a great tool for when the coyotes are circling your cattle during calving season. The .223 cartridge is one of the most popular varmint rounds sold today.

[99Forever]

74. And when those "varmints" are kindergartners?

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

How does it "work" then?

Do you ever think about the shit you are typing before you hit "Post my reply"?

[Abq_Sarah]

156. If those children had been killed by a nut with a knife

Or even ONE child, would you throw away all your knives and push for a total ban on all knives or anything with a sharp edge?

The important part of my post, which you missed because you don't have any real knowledge of firearms, is that the appearance of something doesn't necessarily dictate it's use. Buying a Mustang Shelby doesn't mean it will always exceed the speed limit and be driven by a middle aged guy looking for arm candy.

[99Forever]

158. Non sequitur

All of these deaths were caused by a semi-automatic rifle, not a knife or a Shelby Mustang.

I cannot use a semi-automatic rifle to prepare my dinner or drive it to a needed destination.

I didn't "miss" any part of your post, I just saw through your gun "enthusiast" babble.

[Not Me]

78. Then build a fucking wall around your cattle

like the gun nuts expect us to do around our kindergartens.

[jeff47]

111. Why do you need a 30-round clip on your varmint rifle?

Wouldn't, say, a 5 round clip be ample for that task?

Many of these massacres are limited by ammunition - can't shoot while reloading. While reloading isn't exactly a lengthy process, it does take time and carrying lots of clips makes the attack more cumbersome. Thus slowing the attacker and saving lives.

[Abq_Sarah]

157. Convenience

It takes a competent person between 2-3 seconds to drop the magazine from an AR and insert a new one.

[jeff47]

159. Yes, but if you're shooting a varmint, you aren't going to be firing dozens of rounds (nt)

[Amak8]

47. WWII recordings

It turns out atrocities were extremely common even from German foot soliders, not just the SS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204160/Darkest-atrocities-Nazis-laid-bare-secretly-recorded-conversations-German-prisoners-war.html

[villager]

51. So let's just give the fuck up and put increasingly deadly weapons into their hands!

There's something go on here with the pro-gun, anti gun-safety apologias.

[treestar]

61. He was capable of doing it because he had the gun

Had it been more difficult or impossible for him to get the gun, he could not have done this, period.

[sir pball]

102. If by "the gun" you mean "any gun" then yes

But if you mean "evil black scary army-man gun", well...Grampa's old pump-action shotgun might have been more effective. This is the problem working from emotion, you're going to miss other obvious things that aren't in your current laser-like focus.

Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with licensing, registering, and mandating access-controlled storage for all of 'em.

[jeff47]

113. No, Grampa's pump-action doesn't carry enough ammuntion.

While he could have killed a few kids, he could not have killed as many kids. Reloading and carrying a lot of shells would have made this attack far slower, thus he would have reached fewer kids.

[sir pball]

119. Carries more, actually.

An 870 holds up to 8 shells, plus one in the chamber. Nine rounds, each one (if 00 buckshot) loaded with nine more or less .357 Magnum bullets, that come out all at once when you pull the trigger. Eighty-one projectiles. Given the spread of shot across a classroom and the penetrating power, I'd wager the toll would be at least 15 if not the same 20. I've taken deer with that round, it's utterly devastating and would definitely kill anything behind the animal. And probably 10 yards back.

If they were as useless as you opine, they wouldn't be THE indoors weapon of choice.

[jeff47]

135. Reading, you might wanna try it.

I never said they are useless.

1-shot-per-person is a reasonable assumption: It's unlikely that those 15 people would be bunched together in an ideal pattern. If you get lucky, you might get 2-3 in one shot, but you'd still have lots of 1-per-shot on the remaining people. Plus, this is close range - there's not much time for the pellets to spread.

So he'd have to reload many times during the course of his attack, which gives people time to run, and reduces the number of people he can shoot before police arrive.

They're a fantastic weapon for people who actually want to defend themselves against an intruder. Key being "an". They're very slow when used in mass killing.

[sir pball]

160. Well..

The huge number of wounds reported probably means a lot of through-shots...as much as I hate to even begin to think about this, I'd guess they were bunched up, huddled in the corner. I'd be, if I were 5 and a bad man broke down the door

Say 1.5 fatalities per shot, 9 rounds gives 15 dead children...I guess it's a little improvement.

Anyway, my point (and control measures I've offered) is that shotguns are too effective to not restrict as well - Holmes did well with one.

[jeff47]

161. The gun he used at that range will over-penetrate a lot. A shotgun would not as much.

Anyway, my point (and control measures I've offered) is that shotguns are too effective to not restrict as well

Sure, could put a similar limit as are being proposed on clip sizes for other guns. Such as having the shotgun only hold 5 rounds.

[undeterred]

64. But his mother wasn't.

And now she's dead.

[Zoeisright]

69. So fucking what?

Please, tell me how he could have massacred that many people in such a short time without the fucking guns you idiots worship.

[Recursion]

77. The "without" is the problem

What makes you think legal prohibition would have kept him from getting a gun?

[jeff47]

114. Because it's worked in every other first-world country.

Or do you believe there's a ton of unreported mass shootings in, say, Australia?

[Cleita]

72. Where are you guys coming from?

It seems I've been reading the same talking points that originated back from the Heritage Foundation decades ago and that the National Rifle Association adopted along the way and now you guys are bringing the same old tired bull shit here.

[99Forever]

73. Precisely.

Too fucking many guns, easily available to too many fucking gun psychos.

[PA Democrat]

75. Why don't you explain why we in the US have the highest incidence of these types of massacres then

if gun control would have no impact?

Is mental illness unique to the US?????


Please..... I await your explanation with bated breat.

[get the red out]

79. But if he couldn't have gotten the guns

There wouldn't be 20 dead kids and 6 dead adults.

[Recursion]

82. Agreed, but

I can't think of a law that would have kept him from getting a semi-automatic with detachable magazines.

[jeff47]

115. You aren't thinking about this too hard, are you?

Ban the ownership and sale of semi-automatics with detachable magazines. Couple it with a buy-back program.

Would people turn them all in? Of course not. But it means that gun is no longer just sitting in the house. It becomes extremely valuable and is locked away - to protect it and to hide it from people who would report it. Thus preventing the insane kid from getting his hands on it.

Now, I think a better approach is limiting clip sizes with a buy-back program, in that I'm sure the gun manufacturers will come up with something that isn't technically a "semi-automatic with detachable magazines" but would be similarly effective when abused by the mentally ill.

[Recursion]

116. Well, I'm with you magazine size

That's something that could do some good, because they wear out a lot more quickly than the guns themselves.

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. Nope

If that person couldn't get the monstrously easy access to a gun that could shoot a six year old eleven times, we wouldn't have to be speculating on whatever else is going on.

Even using your own logic, you should be screaming that nobody with the depth and complexity of the problems that Adam Lanza had should have been even marginally capable of getting his hands on that Bushmaster rifle and those 30 round clips. It should have been as impossible as him getting his hands on a F-22 Raptor, as outlandish as him having access to a Patriot missile system. By your own fucking logic of "something else going on," that how difficult it should have been.

[Mass]

86. Another gun enabler!

[Historic NY]

93. Some of these kids were so destroyed the ME had to show pictures for ID.

[jeff47]

110. Such a person is beyond gun control, but gun control isn't for them

It's for the sane people around him in order to prevent his access to guns.

If mom had been forced to lock her arsenal in a safe, it's likely he wouldn't have been able to get his hands on those guns.

[Liberal_in_LA]

126. yes.

[jberryhill]

127. The larger problem is not about this one incident

[Bradical79]

128. Probably from a mental perspective, but gun control isn't about mental health.

He probably would've been homicidal regardless of the tools available to him.

Different tools provide different levels of efficiency and safety for the user however. There's a reason our military uses modern guns rather than swords and spears. It's because you can kill people faster with them, from greater range, with more accuracy, and the target has less defense against them.

You've got at least 2 or 3 parts to the equation of reducing gun violence that I can think of (depending on how you divide things up).

1. Gun/arms control: Limit the access people have to high powered killing devices.
2. Improved mental health care: This is probably best done through a good universal health care system, imo.
3. Sharing of our country's prosperity: Basically income redistribution. I'm not saying socialism, capitalism, or any other specific system here, but closing the income gap between rich and poor would be a key to improved mental health in that you'd have less people feeling desperate and hopeless. I would think you'd also have less robberies.

You could also look at the "drug war" as another key area for serious change, as a lot of gun violence seems to involve the illegal drug market. For as much money as is poured into it, it seems to be a colossal failure.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

130. Gun Control Enters The Picture BEFORE This Kid Ever Gets His Hands On One

A person who owns a gun and snaps isn't going to obey gun control laws, it's true. But what if those gun control laws kept that person from ever getting his hands on a gun in the first place? THAT'S what it's all about. Keeping guns out of the hands of the people who would use them irresponsibly.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know that there MUST be SOMETHING that can be done (at least more than the NOTHING we're currently doing) to prevent these kinds of people from ever getting a gun in the first place.

[jmg257]

141. It's OK - you'll understand eventually - the control works it way out and around

till suddenly the person unaffected directly DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS to the deadly weapons he otherwise would have.

[bowens43]

154. with no guns, no ammo and locked doors how many would he have killed?

guns are the problem.