Guess What? Another Mass Shooting

[JMHX]

Now I am just shocked, shocked to hear that there has been yet another mass shooting. This time we had a 20-year-old gentleman and father targeting elementary school tykes with a semi-automatic. Didn't we just come off a mass shooting the other week?

Oh yeah, that shooting in the mall in Oregon.

And before that there was that Minneapolis workplace shooting a month ago.

And that one at the Islamic Center. And that one with the Arizona Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords. And that other one. And the other-other-one.

80% of the weapons used in these mass shootings were purchased legally. Most of them involved semi-automatic handguns. A few involved higher caliber weaponry. And since President Obama has done fuck all to control guns (despite the continued fears of the hard Right), there's no real reason to expect much of a change in ownership statistics. But let's ask, for the age-old sake of argument:

Why do gun advocates support murdering children?

[leanlifter1]

Funny if they guy had no access to guns this would have never happened.

[poxpower]

LOOK MAN

If you ban guns, criminals will just get them illegally! And we'll be defenseless!

I am a redneck, and I need my gun. I have prevented 20 robberies and 12 mass shootings thanks to my gun, which I also use for hunting, fishing and driving.

Statistics show that guns prevent 500 million crimes every year in the USA. This would suggest that the US has a crime rate far above any other country on the planet, which is TRUE because; look at how many people we have jailed!

If you disarm people, then the government will take over. They will steal our gold!

[adrshepard]

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote: Why do gun advocates support murdering children?

Because we're such ignorant, redneck twats and cower from the piercing light of your moral righteousness.

Or it's because mass shootings like this account for about 100 deaths per year, or about 1% of all gun-related homicides. Not to mention even the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses (DGUs) annually in the US number several hundred thousand.

[Korriken]

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote: Why do gun advocates support murdering children?

why does the government insist that teachers not be armed and trained in the use of a handgun? a few teachers with pistols could have put a stop to it quickly. Instead, they could do nothing but fall victim.

rather than put the means to stop such things in the hands of the school faculty, they insist that law abiding citizens not be armed. such backwards thinking is what leads to more mass shootings.

[Revo357912]

At 12/14/12 02:47 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote: Why do gun advocates support murdering children?

why does the government insist that teachers not be armed and trained in the use of a handgun? a few teachers with pistols could have put a stop to it quickly. Instead, they could do nothing but fall victim.

rather than put the means to stop such things in the hands of the school faculty, they insist that law abiding citizens not be armed. such backwards thinking is what leads to more mass shootings.

Because giving teachers guns would also increase the chances of things like this happening, so giving more people guns doesn't help either...

Neither does outright banning them.

Perhaps if we equipped guns with an AI that differentiates between children and adults and deactivates the trigger when a kid (Around age 10) is pointed at then could we control irresponsible use. We could also make it so that civilian guns equipped with said AI don't activate in certain areas that can be equipped with very cheap RFID chips, such as banks and schools. Police force guns wouldn't be affected by these chips, thus making it safer.

Also, any attempt to hack the gun would cause it to send a one time GPS signal alerting authorities where said gun is being hacked.

Basically, "Smart guns" Would be an ideal solution is what I'm saying.

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote:

80% of the weapons used in these mass shootings were purchased legally. Most of them involved semi-automatic handguns. A few involved higher caliber weaponry. And since President Obama has done fuck all to control guns (despite the continued fears of the hard Right), there's no real reason to expect much of a change in ownership statistics. But let's ask, for the age-old sake of argument:

Why do gun advocates support murdering children?

Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence, when thoroughly analyzed, that indicates that further gun control would stop these events from happening. Furthermore, these events are caused by the psychosis of the individual wielding the gun...not the availability of the gun.

If we could wave a magic wand and make all civilian guns in circulation disappear...the root cause would remain. The psycho would either get a gun through the black market...or (more likely) switch to something involving explosives or chemicals which are cheaper, more readily available and in some case much more horrible ways to kill people.

But nice writing using descriptive statistics to elicit purely emotional responses! :)

And it appears that the psycho killed his father and it is his brother who is being questioned...but not as a suspect. So it appears that it is only one gunman and not. But again...good job just blasting off without waiting for facts to come in! :)

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 02:57 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Because giving teachers guns would also increase the chances of things like this happening, so giving more people guns doesn't help either...

This is where understanding the psychology of terrorists and killers comes in to play. One of the reasons they pick schools is they are a 'soft target'. They know that their intended victims are unarmed and lack the means to resist and/or stop the killer from achieving his objective.

If one of your security measures is having some teachers carrying, but who carries is a tightly kept secret even from other teachers, you make your school a hard target. Because now there is someone on scene who can respond immediately (and no...police cannot respond immediately).

[JMHX]

At 12/14/12 03:55 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote:

But again...good job just blasting off without waiting for facts to come in! :)

I call this the "Benghazi Blitz."

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 04:02 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 12/14/12 03:55 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote:

But again...good job just blasting off without waiting for facts to come in! :)

I call this the "Benghazi Blitz."

Touche old bean!

[Feoric]

So, how many kindergartners need to be killed to be in favor of the pro-gun control side?

[JMHX]

At 12/14/12 04:09 PM, Feoric wrote: So, how many kindergartners need to be killed to be in favor of the pro-gun control side?

If those children had been armed, the crossfire would've been amazing.

[Feoric]

I also find it hilarious that there are people in this thread unironically calling for all the teachers to have guns.

[Ceratisa]

At 12/14/12 04:09 PM, Feoric wrote: So, how many kindergartners need to be killed to be in favor of the pro-gun control side?

Because the mental healthcare in America remains abysmal as people are drugged up or ignored and commit acts of violence.

It sounds like you want to control guns but allow violence to continue.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 12/14/12 04:33 PM, Feoric wrote: I also find it hilarious that there are people in this thread unironically calling for all the teachers to have guns.

I can imagine a teacher getting annoying at the kid and points a gun at him. Could have been worse though, anyway there is a thread to discuss the tragedy. Feel free to post your thoughs there but since this thread is about the incident in general as there is an incident at the mall, something have got to be done.

Question is "what?"

[Camarohusky]

At 12/14/12 03:55 PM, TheMason wrote: Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence, when thoroughly analyzed, that indicates that further gun control would stop these events from happening.

Gun control studies in the US fail to recognize how just one state in the US having very loose gun control effectively undermines all of the other states' attempts to control guns. Not entirely, but enough to neuter the laws like a brand new puppy.

Furthermore, these events are caused by the psychosis of the individual wielding the gun...not the availability of the gun.

This is 100% true. Sure the gun may enhance their ability to attack and the breadth with which they can execute the attack (sorry for the pun, not intended, just can't of better word), the person who thinks killing innocents will help their personal plan (political terrorism is different) is going to do it unless specifically stopped. No broad low will stop them from attacking, all it may do is change the method of the attack or the amount of time and resources needed to prepare.

At 12/14/12 04:01 PM, TheMason wrote: This is where understanding the psychology of terrorists and killers comes in to play. One of the reasons they pick schools is they are a 'soft target'.

Really? When the hell has a school shooting ever happened because it was a 'soft target'? The ONLY one I can think of is that school in Norway, but that entie country is a soft target and the school was targetted more because of the emotional impact and the geography.

Other schools shootings, this one included, were targetted based on the location of a specific person or people. This shooter wanted to kill his dad. Kinkel wanted to teach the popular kids a lesson. Harris and Klebold chose their school because they wanted to target the other students.

If one of your security measures is having some teachers carrying, but who carries is a tightly kept secret even from other teachers, you make your school a hard target.

Guns in a school is never ever a good idea. No mass of random children should ever be in an enclosed space with very outnumbered amount of adults and a gun. EVER. Not only are the children a massive danger to themselves, the last thing you want to do is give a disgruntled teacher access to a weapon when they're near hundreds of kids.

The risks outweight the very slight chance of a school shooting to an extent where the idea shouldn't even be brought up.

At 12/14/12 04:15 PM, JMHX wrote: If those children had been armed, the crossfire would've been amazing.

Solution to a lost hole punch.

[JMHX]

Britain's gun violence rate is 40 times less than America. Strong gun laws.
Japan's gun violence rate is 30 times less than America. Strong gun laws.
Germany's gun violence rate is 20 times less than America. Strong gun laws.
America's gun violence rate is equal to America's. Weak gun laws.

The solution?

Outlaw countries with better gun laws.http://www.newgrounds.com/store/category/apparel

[Ceratisa]

Correct me If I'm wrong but doesn't the UK have a higher violent crime rate in general?
And Japan has a much higher suicide rate.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 12/14/12 01:35 PM, JMHX wrote: Why do gun advocates support murdering children?

to increase the supply of Veal.

or maybe we have a little thing called the second amendment which insures ourRIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON

At 12/14/12 02:57 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Perhaps if we equipped guns with an AI that differentiates between children and adults and deactivates the trigger when a kid (Around age 10) is pointed at then could we control irresponsible use. We could also make it so that civilian guns equipped with said AI don't activate in certain areas that can be equipped with very cheap RFID chips, such as banks and schools. Police force guns wouldn't be affected by these chips, thus making it safer.

Also, any attempt to hack the gun would cause it to send a one time GPS signal alerting authorities where said gun is being hacked.

Basically, "Smart guns" Would be an ideal solution is what I'm saying.

like your crap thread in the General section it wouldn't work one WE DONT HAVE AIs no Cortana (as SWEET AS THAT WOULD BE) RFID chips can easily be disabled VIA microwaves and removal I could even do it with with my basic gun smithing skills. and tamper proofing the GPS does not save it from microwaves

not to mention it would not be cost efficient to produce the guns with these systems and retro-fitting older firearms pre-implementation.

then you would have to get it passed the Pro-gunners the Gun lobby (NRA, Gun rights, American hunter society) then get it through a Republican controlled congress (which is payed off by the Gun lobby to pass 0 Pro-gun bills) the Senate then the President.

real long shot there buddy

[Feoric]

At 12/14/12 04:42 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Because the mental healthcare in America remains abysmal as people are drugged up or ignored and commit acts of violence.

That's very true, there needs to be more funding for mental health care.

It sounds like you want to control guns but allow violence to continue.

Very acumen. That's exactly what I want, more violence.

No, the reality is that there is never going to be any meaningful gun control law ever passed in this country because of the shitty second amendment. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, and neither are guns and their nutty supporters. There's no political capital to solve any of these issues in any meaningful way, because that would require handgun bans and whatnot. People would literally take up arms against the government if we tried any of that. Guns have been an extremely important aspect of American culture since the very beginning. Events like this should be a wake-up call, but we get the same fucking bullshit arguments every time they come up. It's a highly politicized issue for a reason: it goes nowhere, and never will. Not in my lifetime.

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 04:09 PM, Feoric wrote: So, how many kindergartners need to be killed to be in favor of the pro-gun control side?

None...if the pro-gun control side can offer an argument based upon reason and logic (not that hard) that is supported by facts. (That's the hard part for them.)

[Revo357912]

At 12/14/12 05:03 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Correct me If I'm wrong but doesn't the UK have a higher violent crime rate in general?
And Japan has a much higher suicide rate.

Japan does.

Japan also has cultural roots in something called Seppuku and that one should work for the greater good.
To them, suicide is not the same as to us (hence the reason they would do Kamikaze's as well).
In other words, "bringing shame" to put it simply merits suicide, no matter what the way that is to be achieved.

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 05:21 PM, Feoric wrote: ...we get the same fucking bullshit arguments every time they come up.

Here's the thing...the only bullshit arguments come from people like you. Everything you're saying about this issue is just emotionally fueled drivel with no consideration of fact. Essentially it is a thought experiement or pen-and-paper logical exercise:

People are killed by guns.
If we make guns illegal or take them away people will not have guns.
Ergo mass killings and murders will cease.

The problem is academics have looked into this logic. What they have found is there is NO causal relationship between gun availability and violent crimes and/or suicides.

GUN CONTROL WILL SOLVE NOTHING...YOU ARE TILTING AT WINDMILLS. Furthermore, you will take away time, money, people and resources from things like mental illness which will actually DO SOMETHING to solve these problems. If you had your way MORE PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY DIE!

Now...you want emotion?

Two weeks ago a kid at the high school I sub at (and hopefully will teach at next year) was expelled for writing a list of the people he was going to kill (everybody). It was divided into two: people who would get a head shot (people he liked...he didn't want them to suffer) and people he'd gut shot (people he wanted to die slowly).

Then with my first wife we took her brother in when he was junior. This was before Columbine. He had a plan. He was going to use guns, homemade explosives (HME) and chemicals. Oh...he was also going to kill my mother a Kindergarten teacher because my ex and mom did not get along. We took him in and tried to solve the problem. Took some extraordinary things...but we helped him get to a better place.

Let me tell you...if smelting my AK, my handguns and all of my fucking guns would save just one life...I would be the first in line. You would not need to come to my door or pass a law. I would do it willingly.

But the social science says otherwise. It won't stop it.

I have worked with these kids at school. Hell, I even brought one into my own to live with me when I had a wife and infant daughter. So I know it is not gun availability that is the cause of these killings.

I also know how they think...and gun UNavailibility would be just a momentary impediment. They would just substitue something else that will cause more death, more destruction and more horror.

Have you ever watched even video of someone dying from Chlorine? I have. Very horrible...and harder to save a victim than a victim with a GSW. It was also one of the first chemical agents used in WWI. It is also incredibly easy to make.

So if you think taking guns away will stop this you are nothing but a naive fool. The irony is your self-righteous, pompous ignorance and foolishness would only increase human suffering.

[leanlifter1]

At 12/14/12 02:20 PM, poxpower wrote:

If you ban guns, criminals will just get them illegally! And we'll be defenseless!

High power professional criminal organizations like the Hells Angels and affiliates will always have access to all kinds of firepower but you know what it's not them I am worried about no it's the armed and ignorant rednecks that I am worried about. Not saying all rednecks are armed or ignorant but many are both and it's really the armed and ignorant part I am worried about and you don't need to be a redneck to be armed and or ignorant.

If you disarm people, then the government will take over.

They already have you will never defeat the Government/Police/Military not to mention the Hells Angels which are primary upholders of the statuesque.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 12/14/12 06:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: High power professional criminal organizations like the Hells Angels and affiliates will always have access to all kinds of firepower but you know what it's not them I am worried about no it's the armed and ignorant rednecks that I am worried about. Not saying all rednecks are armed or ignorant but many are both and it's really the armed and ignorant part I am worried about and you don't need to be a redneck to be armed and or ignorant.

yeah but at heart they are good people that dont want to be treaded upon.

They already have you will never defeat the Government/Police/Military not to mention the Hells Angels which are primary upholders of the statuesque.

fun fact 1/2 of the armed forces and police would fire on unarmed civilians WHICH IS A DOCUMENTED FACT. BUT WATCH OUT FOR DEM HELLS ANGELS!

[Feoric]

At 12/14/12 05:58 PM, TheMason wrote: "emotionally fueled drivel"

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[leanlifter1]

At 12/14/12 06:16 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

yeah but at heart they are good people that dont want to be treaded upon.

LOL.

They already have you will never defeat the Government/Police/Military not to mention the Hells Angels which are primary upholders of the statuesque.

fun fact 1/2 of the armed forces and police would fire on unarmed civilians WHICH IS A DOCUMENTED FACT. BUT WATCH OUT FOR DEM HELLS ANGELS!

That's unquantified wishful thinking I would say. Also it's not the HA that are the problem it's the people they control that you have to worry about.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 12/14/12 06:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's unquantified wishful thinking I would say.

you could ask any cop or service member here if they were order to fire on civilians they would disobey it. they swore to uphold the constitution and protect the people.

Also it's not the HA that are the problem it's the people they control that you have to worry about.

oh please HA doesn't control people they just have people that are in a mutual interests (money, drugs, sex, etc) HA finds a guy who has a legally clean background and ask them to buy: X,X and this many Y of firearms. give the guy the money he buys them gives them to HA and gets a small amount for his cooperation.

[leanlifter1]

At 12/14/12 06:32 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

you could ask any cop or service member here if they were order to fire on civilians they would disobey it. they swore to uphold the constitution and protect the people.

Oath keeping is bull shit propaganda as most Cops will "Do as they are ordered" in order to collect a "pay check" that will ensure the safety and property of there own family/Children. A Cops Oath is to his family and Children first and he needs that "Pay Check" in order to protect his family. A few Cops will disobey but not many and that's why they have a screening process for Police members so as to ensure that they will obey at any cost.

[JMHX]

In seriousness, can I get us to agree that the current lack of registration, mental health screening and background checking in the gun market now is a serious problem that needs to be fixed? I'm not proposing any ban on guns, and as a gun owner myself I respect the ideals of the Second Amendment. But I'm certain the Founders never intended children to die because a lunatic purchased a weapon.