Connecticut shooting, gun control laws?

[Biz_R_0]

Here's a thought:

The majority of crazy *** people who have shot up schools are not gang affiliated. They're mentally disturbed people who can still outright just buy guns and ammunition with little to no problems. They are not the kind of people capable of getting these guns on the low because they have no means to do so. Stronger gun regulations wouldnt stop the crazy *** gang violence that everyone seems to assume is going to erupt and murder every non-gun owning american in the country should a ban happen, but it would probably help cut down on crazy *** people shooting school children.

These people usually use someone elses gun. I'm not sure if the gun owner is charged with negligence if someone does something with their gun, but there should be.

 

[Luco]

Give this a thought:

Banning guns wont stop a damn thing. You think im wrong, take a look at the drug war going on.

If you take away the guns, you may as well start learning to defend yourself in hand-to-hand combat, because thats pretty much all youre gonna have left.

Funny that, because I do martial arts. Maybe people should take the effort to learn it though rather than taking the easy way out with a gun.

Also, there are still melee weapons lol. And at least you're more likely to get away from an attacker with a knife than you are from an attacker with a gun.

I'm gonna be contradictory to Johnknight here and say, we don't have as much of an issue here, or at least so it seems. We get robberies and hold-ups but I don't think i've seen any major, school or work-related incident around here for many, many years, if at all. Could just be me but I personally feel like Australia's fine where it is atm without guns lol.

Obviously Jam has a point: Gun regulation is different from banning guns entirely, don't make the mistake. The question is, how are you going to regulate them and is there a guarantee it will do anything?

Basically all i'm saying is, try not to let "Oh but I need a gun to defend myself! Blah blah blah" get in the way of this. Some people act like it's the end of the world if guns are taken away. Well guess what? Some countries have been doing it for years.

That said, teran has a point in that it may be area-related and America having gun-control just wouldn't work.

 

[Alphicans]

Give this a thought:

Banning guns wont stop a damn thing. You think im wrong, take a look at the drug war going on.

If you take away the guns, you may as well start learning to defend yourself in hand-to-hand combat, because thats pretty much all youre gonna have left.

I found this pretty funny because you'd think hand-to-hand combat is exactly what you'd want instead of gun vs gun, or hand vs gun. Hand vs hand is pretty non lethal...

 

[Luco]

I found this pretty funny because you'd think hand-to-hand combat is exactly what you'd want instead of gun vs gun, or hand vs gun. Hand vs hand is pretty non lethal...

I beg to differ! A kick in the nuts will earn you 0.03 seconds of down time before you go in to shock and die. A hand placed to the Jaw will break it and if you can aim right next to that soft spot below the ear, the other person will die. Cotton palm a person's nose hard enough, you push it in to their brain and they die (or at the very least take serious brain damage). Grab in to the person's throat and twist and you rip out their larynx, the person will die. Stop the blood flow on either side of the neck for 10 seconds, the person goes unconscious and if you hold it long enough, they die. Rip out the person's... umm... yeah... down there parts, they die. Dragon punch to the throat hard enough, their throat closes up, they can't breathe, they die. Apparently you can also tap a set of muscles around the heart in a set order and the other person will die.

Hand to hand combat can be seriously brutal, lol.

I think it's worrying that I know that. I remember counting past 10 ways to kill someone un-armed.... Can't remember the other ones right now. Oh well, just one is plenty.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I like how Luco is mentioning all this **** that the average person can't do. Also tapping a set of muscles around the heart sounds like a load of ****, please stop watching so many kung fu movies, martials arts are generally full of ****.

Also "A kick in the nuts will earn you 0.03 seconds of down time before you go in to shock and die." What the **** is this? No one I've ever kicked in the nuts died within .03 seconds, what the **** are you even going on about?

What is going on in here?

 

[Alphicans]

I think you just got trolled actually.

 

[Luco]

Wait, were you talking to falcon or me, alph?

 

[Falconv1.0]

It's always good to know we can turn topics about serious things into a fun one with the help of Luco!

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

Falcon, I have a semi unrelated story for you related to hand to hand combat

Back on topic
I'm not for taking away guns, as someone who likes trap shooting for fun/is in the process of buying a shotgun.....but I'm for keeping assault weapons out of the hands of regular people.
Though, I agree with the whole 'what good is it going to do' mindset, as criminals can basically get their hands on some pretty powerful weapons through illegal means.

Guns are a tricky topic. I'm just hoping the next congress doesn't dwell on gun laws too much....while that's important, economic policy has to take a front seat to things at the moment (despite the fact our government is silly when it comes to the economy sometimes =__=)

Sigh

 

[Luco]

Oh I think with a licence and for recreational purposes, it's fine. I'd also be all for using it to protect homes as well, it's just there's not a lot of ways to tell between the person who wants to use it to protect themselves and the person who wants to use it to hurt other people at face value, is all.

It's like drugs. Drugs can be used for medicinal purposes but they can also be abused. We put regulations on a lot of drugs to stop that happening. The only difference is, there's obviously more incentive to take drugs than to attempt to kill people. I still think guns are damaging enough so that at least some kind of regulation on them should be, at the very least trialled. That's just me though.

 

[Browny]

Im not going to go and say something outlandish and make predictions on what would happen if USA controlled gun laws tighter.

But the statistics are disgusting.

Take a look at this wikipedia page, listing school shootings in every country in the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
So about 42 shootings

But wait a minute, wheres USA? oh thats right, they need their own page just for themselves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
WITH 134 SHOOTINGS

But no, controlling guns tighter is totally not the solution.

The question is and always will be, how many innocent kids have to die before americans change their mind? Do you want to know why so many people dont answer 'no more' instantly as a reflex reaction? Because the delusion of freedom is more important than life.

I still maintain that the absolute best thing for the ordinary American to do, would be to live in another developed country for a few months or a year. Notice how you dont fear for your life every time you go out in public. Then realise 'what the **** would I even need a gun for' because believe it not, civilisation has progressed since what might as well be biblical times when that stupid constitution was written (back in the day when science was illegal OH WAIT IT STILL IS IN USA), and you dont need them.

Yeah im generalising here and attacking americans in general. But it almost brings me to tears how so many intelligent people are brought down by the masses who want threatening power and dominance over your neighbours, those who should be your friends.

Of course mentally unstable kids are going to do bad things. but those statistics dont lie. no guns = roughly 100x less school shootings per capita

 

[Falconv1.0]

Are there any stats on how many gun crimes in America involve illegally owned guns/guns that were stolen from someone who legally owned them?

Also man it would be nice if both sides stopped making ridiculous generalizations. There are reasons to own a gun, and not just a ****ing hunting rifle. Different countries have different circumstances but gee somehow I feel like things are being taken to a hyperbolic level where America is a country where I can never feel safe ever but boy oh boy if I go to the UK I only have to worry about getting stabbed! Oh that's right I know some people who have been threatened and/or attacked with melee weapons and straight up beaten to levels where they had permanent brain damage, oh but I guess that's just an American thing.

Because angry people only live in America.

And here's the thing, citizen gun use always saves lives, these stories of course never get reported because those stories aren't sad and we as a people are only interested in bad news stories. Somehow I'm pretty sure that if I looked at the news I could find a bunch of parents with the kids who witnessed the blood and horror take place, because that what the child needs right. He/she needs mom to take them up in front of a bunch of cameras and tell us details that they probably can't even retell correctly while reliving that trauma over and over again.

Now excuse me, I need to go smash my head on a wall for awhile.

 

[Browny]

Different countries have different circumstances but gee somehow I feel like things are being taken to a hyperbolic level where America is a country where I can never feel safe ever but boy oh boy if I go to the UK I only have to worry about getting stabbed! Oh that's right I know some people who have been threatened and/or attacked with melee weapons and straight up beaten to levels where they had permanent brain damage, oh but I guess that's just an American thing.

And this is where we compare a mugging to indiscriminate mass murder.

Id love for pro-gun people to go up to their parents faces and tell them that guns make the nation safer.

Not a single one of them has half a ball to ever do such a thing.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Why not just restrict bullets instead of guns? Your gun can't do crap if it ain't loaded.

edit: Browny is either trolling or 12. I can't think of another reason why someone would both say that taking away guns will solve violence and that all Americans are violent idiots.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Why not just restrict bullets instead of guns? Your gun can't do crap if it ain't loaded.

This is an idea that should be taken much more seriously.

 

[Falconv1.0]

And this is where we compare a mugging to indiscriminate mass murder.

Yes, that was the point of what I was saying. Absolutely.

Glad we're all keeping a level head in this discussion.

Edit-How exactly do we restrict bullets? Does the government keep track of every single bullet on the market? Do we take that farther, since as we all know our guvment is deathly afraid of terrorists, so why don't we also keep track of anything that could be used to make a bomb? Maybe specific people should be watched more closely due to them being of middle eastern descent! You can call it ridiculous but the American government has a history of pulling **** like that.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

If they take our guns away, we have no self defense. At all.

I don't have much of an opinion on gun control laws, but this has always been a pretty hollow argument to me. I moved to Portugal a year and a half ago, and here and in many european countries, guns are not very available. Guns are restricted only to hunters and usually only found in rural areas. Yet Portugal has one of the lowest rates of violent crime and related deaths in the developed world.

I've always felt the question we should be asking isn't how we can defend ourselves but what we're defending ourselves against and how we can avoid those situations.

There are plenty of reasons the US has a pretty high rate of violent crime compared to other countries: poverty and wealth gap, access to health and mental care, ridiculous drug laws and legislation and so on. Giving everyone a gun doesn't make any of the causes of violent crime go away. And although person without a gun that wants to kill someone can kill them with something else, and that is true and can't be denied, it takes a gun (or high-powered weapon) for a single person to kill 20+ people in a one room. It would be a little harder to do that with a knife, lol.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Edit-How exactly do we restrict bullets? Does the government keep track of every single bullet on the market?

I'm not entirely sure how they'd do it, although that doesn't mean they can't.

Do we take that farther, since as we all know our guvment is deathly afraid of terrorists, so why don't we also keep track of anything that could be used to make a bomb? Maybe specific people should be watched more closely due to them being of middle eastern descent! You can call it ridiculous but the American government has a history of pulling **** like that.

Careful, that slope is slippery.

 

[Mindnight64]

You are obviously new here.

Yeah, I am, whether I like it or not.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I'd like to repeat what's been said already in here, the guns he used were stolen. So, the only way this could have been stopped would be for her to be unable to legally get a gun because her son is crazy, right? So if you have anyone in the house who might be a little weird, then you don't have the right to get a gun for personal safety?

Was he on record for being violent? If not, then how does the government draw the line?

Edit-Also, with a **** like this, do you think he'd go "oh well I don't have guns so I'll use a knife"? Really? What about bombs, aren't those pretty easy to make? Here's a fun question, if bombings became more common, would we be willing to start allowing the government to track supplies that could be used to make bombs? Think hard about what that means, how much silly **** that is banned on air planes that has prevented next to nothing.

 

[ndayday]

I'd like to repeat what's been said already in here, the guns he used were stolen. So, the only way this could have been stopped would be for her to be unable to legally get a gun because her son is crazy, right? So if you have anyone in the house who might be a little weird, then you don't have the right to get a gun for personal safety?

Was he on record for being violent? If not, then how does the government draw the line?

Edit-Also, with a **** like this, do you think he'd go "oh well I don't have guns so I'll use a knife"? Really? What about bombs, aren't those pretty easy to make? Here's a fun question, if bombings became more common, would we be willing to start allowing the government to track supplies that could be used to make bombs? Think hard about what that means, how much silly **** that is banned on air planes that has prevented next to nothing.

Really this is all that needs to be said as far as the gun issues go. As sad as it is, if some guy decides he really wants to shoot up a school, then I think he's going to ****ing get his hands on a gun and some ammo and do it.

The earlier discussion just makes it seem like a societal/easy access issue to me.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'd like to repeat what's been said already in here, the guns he used were stolen. So, the only way this could have been stopped would be for her to be unable to legally get a gun because her son is crazy, right? So if you have anyone in the house who might be a little weird, then you don't have the right to get a gun for personal safety?

It's actually not that difficult. This guy's neighbors had sensed something off about him for years, but there was no way for them to report this--what could the police do? What could the state do? Maybe if we gave more attention to improving mental health facilities, and gave more power to the state to act on reports from family members or neighbors of disturbed and potentially dangerous people, we'd see fewer incidents like this. In other words, if I feel my neighbor might be unstable, I should be able to report that to state authorities, who would then examine my claim, see if it has any worth, and if it does, they should have the power to assess the person in question, and if the person is found to be a potential danger to others, the state should have the power to require that the person be treated and/or committed.

So, the only way this could have been stopped would be for her to be unable to legally get a gun because her son is crazy, right?

Actually, yes, something like this. Not necessarily prevent her from buying guns (though in this case, that probably would've been advisable, given what is coming to light about her personality), but there should be more monitoring. In other words, if someone in your household has issues with violence or certain mental illness, you basically ought to have to submit to some form of periodic monitoring or evaluation. So, maybe once a year, or twice a year, you'd have to submit psychiatric health evaluations of the mentally ill person in your household to the state in order to be allowed to retain your gun license. And if you have such a person in your household, you need to have a state inspector come visit your house once a year to ensure that you keep your guns in a safe place, or in a gun locker at a shooting club. I don't think that's a lot to ask, and I don't think most people would be against it.

Was he on record for being violent? If not, then how does the government draw the line?

As a matter of fact, the individual in this case had had trouble with the law numerous times in his life due to his mental conditions, but the nature of these incidents is confidential on account of him being a minor at the time. So it's not like he was entirely unknown to law enforcement, but again... the state is afforded very little power in such cases. He should have been required to see a psychiatrist every x months, and if found to be potentially dangerous, committed to a mental health facility.

Edit-Also, with a **** like this, do you think he'd go "oh well I don't have guns so I'll use a knife"? Really?

A guy in China did it almost exactly at the same time this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

The guy, who of course was mentally ill, attacked 22 primary school children with a knife. The difference between what happened in China with a knife and what happened in the US with a gun? The former resulted in 22 wounded children who all survived. The latter resulted in over two dozen fatalities.


Another thing to keep in mind: the shooter attempted to purchase guns not long before the incident, but was denied because he was under 21. And if his mother hadn't kept a bunch of guns easily available at home for her unstable son to take (and she knew full well he was unstable, and so did others; new reports are surfacing that she'd expressed concerns about her son. Moreover, the guy caused enough concern at school that he'd had a psychologist assigned to him), this very well could have been avoided.

In other words, this was a breakdown on several levels: gun laws, mental health laws/facilities, and personal/civic responsibility. The mother should either not have been allowed to purchase firearms, or she should have had to go through much more stringent assessment and background checks and licensing/education. On top of that, the school/state/authorities should have had the power to commit the guy to an institution, given his history and given the concerns of the people around him.

 

[Alphicans]

I think the point of americans living somewhere that isn't america is a pretty decent idea tbh. Where I live, basically no one owns a gun, and if they do it's a hunting rifle (I know someone who has an AK47 but those are illegal to own, and if he gets caught he's ****ed). When I was in the states and I watched the news, I couldn't help but notice how dramatic the news is, and how fear inducing it is. I think this really affects the psychological state of the entire country to the point where you all feel like guns are a necessity.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Don't really have the mental stamina to answer all of that, but I do like how you brought up the knife wielding guy, as if that invalidates my claim that there are other ways to kill people, like...you know...bombs! My point wasn't that no one would use a knife, you know that, right?

Also I take serious issue with the idea of people able to report others for having a mental illness, it's one thing if they actually cause a disturbance or do some kind of illegal act, but is that where you draw the line, or do you actually want people to have the ability to ****ing call in the government just because a guy seems "off".

 

[Biz_R_0]

When I was in the states and I watched the news, I couldn't help but notice how dramatic the news is, and how fear inducing it is. I think this really affects the psychological state of the entire country to the point where you all feel like guns are a necessity.

I don't even watch the news, it's less about "x happened" and more about "this is how you should feel about x". And even if it did sway people in the issue of gun control, it would probably make them all anti-guns because of how much left wing bias is on almost every news network.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I don't even watch the news, it's less about "x happened" and more about "this is how you should feel about x". And even if it did affect people, it would probably make them all anti-guns because of how much left wing bias is on almost every news network.

lol

 

[Alphicans]

Lol @ "even if it did affect people."

Of course it affects people, it's your culture dude. Canadian news is very different from american news because our mentality about how things should be reported and what should be reported is different. American news is more fear inducing, and when people are reminded of death and that death could easily happen to them, they take actions to make them feel safer, and since guns are easily accessible, americans use them as their safety net. These are basical social psychological principals too :/.

 

[GoldShadow]

Also I take serious issue with the idea of people able to report others for having a mental illness, it's one thing if they actually cause a disturbance or do some kind of illegal act, but is that where you draw the line, or do you actually want people to have the ability to ****ing call in the government just because a guy seems "off".

Yes, I want people to have that ability. Then the authorities could take a look at my claim, interview others and see if it holds any weight, and if it does they could take the matter further. And if they (law enforcement, law, state, and mental health professionals) decide I'm full of crap, or that I'm wrong, then great, at least we investigated the issue.

Do you know how many mass murders could have been prevented that way? These things never come out of nowhere. People, often family members and neighbors/acquaintances or coworkers or teachers, can tell when someone is disturbed or a "ticking time bomb." We need to give them a way to report this and we need to give the state power to investigate these claims.

So yes, you bet your *** I'm in favor of allowing citizens to report someone they think is "off."

Most of the time, by the time these types of people "cause a disturbance" it's too late.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Oh, I'm sorry for not being extremely specific, as apparently context means nothing. I was speaking in regards to the issue of gun control, if the media swayed people they'd be swaying them against guns.

edit: Alphicans, you're generalizing the actions of people way too much. If what you said was true, pretty much everyone would own a gun, which they don't.

 

[Alphicans]

Sadly if that was the media's goal then they're doing exactly the opposite thing they should be doing. Inducing fear in anyway, even if it makes people scared of guns will not make people want harsher gun control laws, it'll just make people to want guns even more.

EDIT: I am pretty sure the stats for gun ownership in the states is really high. Even still though, it seems americans think owning a gun is a right, while most Canadians do not have this mentality.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Have you ever actually seen the news? Right now it's all "GUNZ R EVUL DEY KIL PPLZ!!!!", and if you honestly believe that that would make peoople want to buy a gun, I think you're just being stubborn with your image of Americans.

it seems americans think owning a gun is a right, while most Canadians do not have this mentality.

Generalizing entire groups of people + my country is right yours is wrong = ignorance

 

[Alphicans]

I never said my country is right. I am just stating what I observe, and it seems like most americans view gun ownership as a right, while candians view it as a privilege. I know that's how I view gun ownership and I know basically every one I know views it like that as well.

Also my conclusions about the news have nothing to do with how I view americans, I am simply apply psychological principals that I know to this situation, and I think that fear inducing of any kind would lead to higher gun ownership. And lets see... More fear inducing news AND high gun ownership do exist in America. I wouldn't say this evidence proves my theory, but it's worth noting I think.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I am pretty sure the stats for gun ownership in the states is really high.

About a third of people own a gun and only half of those are handguns (the kind you'd get for self defense). And even then, we don't know how many of those handgun owner's are enthusiasts and how many have them for self defense.

 

[Alphicans]

Holy ****... Half the households in the states own a gun? Goddamn.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Also my conclusions about the news have nothing to do with how I view americans, I am simply apply psychological principals that I know to this situation, and I think that fear inducing of any kind would lead to higher gun ownership. And lets see... More fear inducing news AND high gun ownership do exist in America. I wouldn't say this evidence proves my theory, but it's worth noting I think.

"Oh no the news made me scared of guns, better get a gun!" Does that actually make sense to you?

Holy ****... Half the households in the states own a gun? Goddamn.

Nice job looking at the stat that benefits your point the best and ignoring the others. You know that a house can't fire a weapon, correct? So why does that matter more than who owns the gun? And once again, you don't know how many of those people are enthusiasts or hunters and how many have them solely for self-defense.

 

[Alphicans]

It does make sense to me, because it's the fear that matters not necessarily the source of the fear.

And I am not ignoring any data. First off, a third of the population owning a gun is really high on it's own. Now half of the households owning a gun means every person in that household can use that gun... So no a house can't fire a gun, but the 4-5 people living in it can.

I'd say the vast majority of people who own a gun own it for either hunting purposes or for self defense.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Before I moved out of the country, I never noticed how defensive Americans are about our culture and cultural leanings. lol

It's weird: anyone who doesn't live in America knows how big the American cultural export industry is. If you aren't from the US, you have to keep in mind that most Americans don't understand the kind of exposure their lives have to you. We don't think about the fact that our news, movies, and music are all over the world. It was so weird to me coming to Europe and having people ask me how I feel about our gun laws, fast food obsessions, and whether or not we really sit in front oa TV eating ice cream when we're depressed. It was borderline offensive because, well, people make a lot of assumptions about you. An American doesn't have the knowledge necessary to make those kinds of assumptions, frankly.

Americans are also not by-and-large emotionally prepared to have a conversation about the differences between their cultures and other cultures because we are raised mostly to believe in our own superiority and also because we're a very large country that is very far away from most developed western nations, barring Canada.

Conversations about cultural differences in europe are uh, definitely more common. If it's brought up in the US it's immediately assumed to be an insult.

 

[Biz_R_0]

It does make sense to me, because it's the fear that matters not necessarily the source of the fear.

Yeah it does, if the source is the thing that you are willingly taking into your home. For example, I'm severely arachniphobic, but I'm not getting a Wolf Spider to eat all the others.

And I am not ignoring any data. First off, a third of the population owning a gun is really high on it's own. Now half of the households owning a gun means every person in that household can use that gun... So no a house can't fire a gun, but the 4-5 people living in it can.

Every person has access to that gun? It's not unloaded in a locked container? If everyone in the house has access to the gun instead of just the owner, that's the problem.

All Americans are ignorant, therefore the non-American is right. Also nothing we say is an insult or generalizing, you just take it that way because you're an ignorant American.

It's not that you're saying things against America, it's that both of you are generalizing all Americans as cowardly gun-toters. Generalizing a group of people based on geographic location is never something I'd be okay with.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I never said any of that. And I'm talking from personal experience. When a portuguese person wants to start a conversation with me about cultural differences in America and Portugal I am (or was, rather) unprepared, while he seemed to know an awful lot about the US. This made the conversations very one-sided and assumptive, which is why Americans feel a little bit attacked in discussions like this one.

 

[Alphicans]

Well yeah cause you can kill spiders in other ways, but if you're scared of guns, how else are you going to protect yourself from guns? More guns or other weapons would really be the only way it seems. Unless you can think of some other ways?

I don't think SFP said that at all, but thanks for showing me exactly what he meant.