Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[PsychoIncarnate]

So therefore, AR's for everyone?

Sure, why not?

 

[Claire Diviner]

So therefore, AR's for everyone?

Yes, let's put an Action Replay in the hands of everyone. How else are we going to catch all of those event Pokémon otherwise?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Yes, let's put an Action Replay in the hands of everyone. How else are we going to catch all of those event Pokémon otherwise?

What I do with AR is make pokemon like "Misty's Starmie" and write the OT as Misty and put it in an event ball.

I feel as if I have the pokemon of the actual trainers

 

[Mic_128]

No, the point is there are gun crimes that do not involve assault weapons

True. However the ones that do, are almost always the worst. Serious question, how many massacres have there been where a pistol/shotgun is/are the only weapon(s) involved?

Also, in other news, there was a dude in the US a few days ago who se fire to a number of houses in his neighbourhood to set a trap for firefighters, who he then shot 4, killed 2 of them before killing himself, using the same semi-auto that was used in the school shooting.

I suppose we should arm firefighters now too?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Maybe we should outlaw crazy people

 

[Mic_128]

Should you perhaps develop a better mental health system? Hell yes. Should you also stop letting them obtain these things so amn easily? Another hell yes.It's not a one-or-the-other thing.

 

[Claire Diviner]

True. However the ones that do, are almost always the worst. Serious question, how many massacres have there been where a pistol/shotgun is/are the only weapon(s) involved?

To my knowledge, not very many. However, the vast majority of gun crimes don't really involve massacres now do they? The reason we hear about these high grade military weapons used in shootings on the news is because massacres, like the Aurora theatre, or the Sandy Elementary School are the only shootings we hear about nationwide, while most pistol/shotgun-only shootings are heard on the local news, wouldn't one say?

 

[Mic_128]

To my knowledge, not very many. However, the vast majority of gun crimes don't really involve massacres now do they?

Sure. It makes sense, they're small, easy to carry and conceal. And restrictions should be on those too.

But for assault rifles, weapons designed specifically for killing a large number of people in a very short time, there's no reason for anyone to own one outside a military compound.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Sure. It makes sense, they're small, easy to carry and conceal. And restrictions should be on those too.

But for assault rifles, weapons designed specifically for killing a large number of people in a very short time, there's no reason for anyone to own one outside a military compound.

Well yeah. Truth be told, I always thought assault weapons were banned anyway. Anyway, this pretty much goes with my point of not banning guns in general; banning assault weapons, on the other hand, would be fine, though if a criminal really wanted one (via the black market), I would assume assault weapon bans would do little in preventing people from using them in murders - all I see a ban doing is adding an additional charge should the criminal in question be tried in court.

 

[Mic_128]

banning assault weapons, on the other hand, would be fine, though if a criminal really wanted one (via the black market), I would assume assault weapon bans would do little in preventing people from using them in murders - all I see a ban doing is adding an additional charge should the criminal in question be tried in court.

A lot of these are crimes of anger or mental illness and, using the readily available (and legally obtained) guns of family members. These aren't planned, thought out bank robberies or the like, which I'm pretty sure would be smart enough to use black market guns in the first place. Would you use your car as a getaway vehicle or a stolen car?

All I'm getting from this is "The solution isn't 100% perfect, so we should just do nothing"

 

[Claire Diviner]

All I'm getting from this is "The solution isn't 100% perfect, so we should just do nothing"

I'm not saying we should do nothing. If they want to put restrictions on guns, that's fine. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be surprised if such restrictions/bans does little to reduce the amount of shootings - be it mass massacres, or single-person murders. I can see the point of your first paragraph, though.