Connecticut Shooting Leaves 28 Dead, Including 20 Pupils

[Love'sReject]

Further: If the government enacted laws to restrict ordinary citizens from owning automatic weapons, then she would never have been able to obtain the types of weapons she ownd (legally). I think that most ordinary citizens would not know who to meet to obtain them illegally.

THANK YOU. But no, Stevewhatshisface thinks legislation shouldn't be passed to fight any crime because "I'ma little bitch; crime is impossible to stop so why do anything to try? wah"

[steviej]

From what I've read there were no automatic firearms used, only semi-auto.

LR, should fat people ban spoons because they use them to shovel food into their mouth, therefore it's the spoons fault that allows them to eat so much food?

The issue is the person behind the gun, not the gun itself. Banning guns is like giving pain killers for a brain tumour. Sure you can't feel the pain, but the tumour is still there. Spend money on mental health provisions, education etc. Sort the root of the problem rather than disguising the symptom.

Using your logic. Can you explain why they do not have this scenerio you paint in Briton where guns are illegal or at the very least very, very difficult to be approved to own?

We have plenty of shootings, almost all by scum having gang war with each other with innocents in the middle or robberies/muggings and the occasional random act of killing for no reason. There has been a couple of high profile cases where a legally owned firearm was used in self defence where burglars broke into someones house and the homeowner shot them. In my opinion this should be a legitimate reason for owning guns.

We have a ridiculously high issue with knife crime as well. It's not the tool, it's the person behind it that's the problem.

You don't win an argument by saying the other person is making assumptions or strange conclusions without evidence or facts or objective reasoning or just pure speculation.

My point about the Olympics being retarded is, you shouldn't use the Olympics as a defense of gun control. That's completely stupid.

How about you try making real points instead of saying I haven't?

But you have no argument, you just repeat the same thing over and over, ignoring virtually all the answers and points i give you because you read with blinkers on. Not much point having a discussion with you if you don't listen to the other side of the discussion.
It's like you don't know how to put your point across, you're full of opinion but unable to express it coherently.

[Love'sReject]

From what I've read there were no automatic firearms used, only semi-auto.

LR, should fat people ban spoons because they use them to shovel food into their mouth, therefore it's the spoons fault that allows them to eat so much food?

The issue is the person behind the gun, not the gun itself. Banning guns is like giving pain killers for a brain tumour. Sure you can't feel the pain, but the tumour is still there. Spend money on mental health provisions, education etc. Sort the root of the problem rather than disguising the symptom.




We have plenty of shootings, almost all by scum having gang war with each other with innocents in the middle or robberies/muggings and the occasional random act of killing for no reason. There has been a couple of high profile cases where a legally owned firearm was used in self defence where burglars broke into someones house and the homeowner shot them. In my opinion this should be a legitimate reason for owning guns.

We have a ridiculously high issue with knife crime as well. It's not the tool, it's the person behind it that's the problem.



But you have no argument, you just repeat the same thing over and over, ignoring virtually all the answers and points i give you because you read with blinkers on. Not much point having a discussion with you if you don't listen to the other side of the discussion.
It's like you don't know how to put your point across, you're full of opinion but unable to express it coherently.

Food and guns are not analogous; as far as I know, dispensing food to citizens doesn't require background checks and trying not to allow the insane to have possession of food. Not comparable at all. That's just an argument some dumb high school'er would use in a mock debate in history class or something.

And you're trying to curry favor by painting me as some illogical guy who isn't conceding on your points and ignoring the other side when that isn't the case. You're also using dishonest tactics.

So the 5 times every year guns are used as defense is justification of stupid mass to possess guns and continue killing in schools or spouses in lovers' quarrels or shooting former bosses because their dumbasses got fired? Amount of times guns used as defense, yearly: like, 10. Times guns are used to flat out murder: like 30k in the U.S.

[Petit Papillon]

Anyways... Everybody has to admit, if this kids mother had her weapons locked in a safe, or even better, didn't have them AT ALL, this kiddo would just continue to be a weird kiddo, not a mass baby killer. Because seriously, who would sell him a gun ( let's say if it was illegal in US ). A gang ? They would kick his butt for asking them such a question in the best case scenario. They would probably take him as a snitch. Just look at this boy.

So even if criminals have access to guns. It's not those who take them and go to a mall or a school and play call of duty. They use their guns for their business or defence. By giving easier access to guns for EVERYONE, we give opportunity to people like this young boy, to take a gun and just go crazy shit and bring his imagination into reality.

[Love'sReject]

Nearly 90% of crimes are actually away from the home, which means guns as defense which are already rare as it is can only take place a majority of the times out in places where a concealed weapon would be illegal.

So what, do we now allow everyone to have a permit to carry guns in public? I can just imagine the thousands of daily shootings "out of self-defense." Yeah; "He was talking shit about me at school so I shot him at a bus stop in self-defense" or "That skateboarder nearly hit me; I had to shoot him to stop him from raping me."

Point is, most Americans are too stupid to use or possess a gun properly. Hell, the founding fathers knew the country would become so stupid and implemented a system to prevent stupid Americans from voting stupidly.

[steviej]

Food and guns are not analogous; as far as I know, dispensing food to citizens doesn't require background checks and trying not to allow the insane to have possession of food. Not comparable at all. That's just an argument some dumb high school'er would use in a mock debate in history class or something.

And you're trying to curry favor by painting me as some illogical guy who isn't conceding on your points and ignoring the other side when that isn't the case. You're also using dishonest tactics.

So the 5 times every year guns are used as defense is justification of stupid mass to possess guns and continue killing in schools or spouses in lovers' quarrels or shooting former bosses because their dumbasses got fired? Amount of times guns used as defense, yearly: like, 10. Times guns are used to flat out murder: like 30k in the U.S.

Most of your argument has been illogical.

Again, you just make things up and throw them around like they are facts. '5 times a year guns are used in defence' In the next sentence it's '10'.

Have a quick look at this, despite its obvious pro-gun stance it does make a good point about the lack of media coverage over defensive use of firearms. http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1174/October-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html

My point with the spoon analogy -It's the person who is responsible for their actions. It's easy enough to use a simple answer to a deceptively complex situation 'ban guns!!' Are guns the problem, or is it the lack of social healthcare provision for mentally ill/those with depression etc etc.

Of course, one of those solutions would involve examining the cause of the rot in american society, the other just sugar coats over it.


As for your '30k gun murders' It's less than 1/3 of that. How many of those are gang/criminal related?

Statistics for the USA aren't exactly simple either - numbers vary a lot from state to state, poverty, population, urban etc all have an effect.

Again, another reason why your points lack validity - you make things up.


To try move this on slightly - Some changes are needed in my opinion. Gun registration should be mandatory. Here in the UK, the police know at any moment where every registered firearm should be. As soon as you buy or sell a gun both parties have to inform their local firearms dept of the fact, giving the details of the gun and serial numbers.
This works very well in stopping legitimate licence holders from supplying weapons illegally. When the handgun ban came into effect (1997ish) within a very short space of time every legally owned handgun (hundreds of thousands) were handed in, something like less than 10 were not accounted for within the time frame given.

This wouldn't have stopped the tragedy though, as it was down to this guys mum who hadn't secured her firearms like she should have.

[Love'sReject]

Because most Americans are too stupid to have a gun. America is largely a moron country. That article is misleading: what do they think constitutes labeling a gun-related incident as "self-defense"?

I read a stat where most criminals in jail who were shot were about 90% not shot out of self-defense. Guns are seldom used like most 'Muricans would picture; most of this country thinks guns save 5 million lives a year! How laughably stupid.

Health care won't change anything; unless "hate" or "anger" become mental diseases, most shooters are regular seeming folk who snap one day and shoot many, or out of motives like hate or revenge. Unless we live in "Minority Report", there's not going to be any way to prevent seemingly normal folk from misusing guns. A majority of gun crime is not by the insane.

[steviej]

Nearly 90% of crimes are actually away from the home, which means guns as defense which are already rare as it is can only take place a majority of the times out in places where a concealed weapon would be illegal.

So what, do we now allow everyone to have a permit to carry guns in public? I can just imagine the thousands of daily shootings "out of self-defense." Yeah; "He was talking shit about me at school so I shot him at a bus stop in self-defense" or "That skateboarder nearly hit me; I had to shoot him to stop him from raping me."

Point is, most Americans are too stupid to use or possess a gun properly. Hell, the founding fathers knew the country would become so stupid and implemented a system to prevent stupid Americans from voting stupidly.

I can only answer your point with my opinion, which is that CC would be allowed by persons over 25 who have been vetted and approved to CC. Stipulations like not being allowed to drink whilst CC'ing would apply.

In fact i'm sure some states do have similar CC rules.

Anyways, It boils down to this: assuming you were able to ban all legally owned guns, overnight every single one was handed in. Chances are you would prevent this killing of 28 people. Yet how many who were previously able to defend themselves from rape, assault, murder now can't and end up dead?
Is the trade off worth it, even if far more people are killed, injured, raped etc than would be killed by not revoking firearms?

[Love'sReject]

You have yet to show a statistic the rate of guns used as self-defense in your favor. Those who were "previously able" is just a bunch of madeup BS.

[steviej]

Because most Americans are too stupid to have a gun. America is largely a moron country. That article is misleading: what do they think constitutes labeling a gun-related incident as "self-defense"?

I read a stat where most criminals in jail who were shot were about 90% not shot out of self-defense. Guns are seldom used like most 'Muricans would picture; most of this country thinks guns save 5 million lives a year! How laughably stupid.

Oh, they answer that in november's report:
http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1902/November-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
Basically they only print the obvious, clear cut cases of self defence. They go on to give examples, have a read of the ones they feature and see if you agree or not.

Criminals using guns to shoot criminals... good! lol.
Something which wouldn't change by the way with banning guns, they're not likely to hand them in.

So why are you so scathing of americans? Having visited the west coast and met varied amount of people there, yes the stereotypes exist but there is a lot of normal, well balanced intelligent people there. (I'd never normally admit that )

[steviej]

You have yet to show a statistic the rate of guns used as self-defense in your favor. Those who were "previously able" is just a bunch of madeup BS.

You've yet to give any statistic that you haven't just made up, lol.

By 'previously able' have a read of those articles where self defence was used and justified. Now if you had your wish and guns were banned, those situations COULD have turned out very different. This is the point I'm making - all those self defence situations involving firearms COULD have now resulted in the innocent person being killed/raped/assaulted.
Do you think it's worth the trade off?

[stephenmusic]

That is so horrible. Its amazing how evil some people are...

[Love'sReject]

I don't really care anymore. All I know is, I'm sick of the same stupid ad nauseum moron typical 'Murrican arguments:

A) That there guver'ment goin' to take our guns, o noes! We needs them to prevent martial law

B) Because the Constitution.

C) Derr, cuz Baby Jesus would have wanted us to has guns, derr.

D) To prevent crime (but instead, shoot their families, or kill possums for dinner or to have stolen by their dimwit son to shoot kids at school)

E) Uh derr, if theyz takes our guns away, Obama will become dictator for life, uhh der.

That represents the typical American's argument for guns.

'Murrica believes you should accept everything you're told and **** all to questions of ethics or validity.

[steviej]

No, it represents what you think the stereotype think.

Why so much hatred for your fellow americans?

[Love'sReject]

No, actually; it really DOES represent the majority of the nation. Alexis de Tocqueville whose "Democracy in America" I just finished reading points out exactly what goes wrong when a nation goes "democratic" (this country is actually a Constitutional republic, but 'Murricans like to yell "Democracy!" while drinking their beer in pickup trucks and shooting at birds). Majority opinion in a stupid nation is a dangerous thing and that's exactly what we have in this country.

'Murricans are a stupid, shallow people whose brief empire is crumbling and the world is laughing.