Shooting at small town elementry school in Conneticut

[Tsukiyumi]

If it went off when it was supposed to rather than too early or not at all, and if there was anyone around when it did go off, and if the offender had enough (and a good enough arm) to go round lobbing them at people legging it.

People didn't immediately run; if he'd managed to lob even three working devices into three classrooms, more people would've been dead. The rifle could've jammed just as easily; it was a Bushmaster .223.

Ignoring the fact that there are 300 million guns in the country already, the border is so porous we can't stop weed from getting through by the truckload; guns would be no different.

I'm sure criminals would try, but having to go to the effort of smuggling them in would at least make obtaining a weapon more difficult than currently and a handgun ban would make it far easier to identify criminals.

I'm going to guess that you missed the point of that first part on accident. There are 300 million legally-held firearms in America. Getting them all back, even if the law changed, would require the military, and a great deal more bloodshed than these isolated shooting sprees. Besides, a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd is just not going to happen. We might as well be discussing a tea ban in Britain.

An IED does the same thing, and requires no skill beyond assembly.

I.e. far more specialised skills than "point it and pull the trigger".

If that's what you think using a firearm correctly entails, then you have about as much knowledge of this subject as I do of mesozoic paleobotany. Namely, zero.

People (anti-gun folks in particular) seem to be of the mistaken impression that killing someone with a firearm is easy - the majority of people who actually practice can barely hit a target, let alone a moving person.

The ease, in absolute terms, of killing someone with a firearm is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that it's a piece of piss compared with doing so using a bat or knife.

Pure crap. One lucky solid swing with a bat can be just as lethal as a lucky shot with a firearm. And, knives? Quieter, requires basically no training or skill beyond which end to hold, and where to stick it. Of course, as you say, a swung bat isn't likely to harm anyone else by accident, but that's not the topic here.

Also, for the record, most of the deaths in this incident were caused by the rifle apparently. Not the handguns.

And, just for good measure: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/29 ... s-20100430

I suppose, with the frequency of those incidents, a ban on kitchen knives, hammers and gasoline would be in order, right? Surely, stricter controls are needed for such dangerous items.

[Tsukiyumi]

In the end, though, politics aside, this is seriously fucked up. If free mental health care was available, this might not have happened. Instead, we spend billions a year spying on our own people.

[Vic]

The only improvement would be for the criminals who wouldn't have to worry about being shot by Granny anymore when they break into her house.

Have you even been reading the fucking thread? Yes, banning handguns is not a panacea. It does however have significant advantages over not banning them. It removes the possibility of legally-owned handguns being used in crimes, be that through theft or someone going nuts. It makes getting hold of handguns more difficult and expensive. It also removes the risk of some bystander having a go if they see a crook with a weapon - as Tsu pointed out they're unlikely to hit anything or anyone they're aiming at, and will simply increase the chance of people getting hit by stray bullets.

Yes I have been reading the thread! Clearly you don't get the point, the only thing gun control quackery does is create more victims, not less. As for Tsu and your comments on accuracy under stress, dead on (forgive the pun), this is pure physiology. One of the first things to go out the window is fine motor control, even for trained personnel (law enforcement, and yes, soldiers). The only things that can counteract that is long experience in combat, psycopathy, or a natural bent for coolness under fire.

[Vic]

The ease, in absolute terms, of killing someone with a firearm is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that it's a piece of piss compared with doing so using a bat or knife.

Please excuse me, that is a contradiction, if it is in "absolute terms" irrelevant then no matter how small you parse it, it is still irrelevant. Bad grammar aside, the fact that virtually any inanimate object can be used to kill means everything. Before anything is said about it, design intentions are immaterial, only the end results count.

[Captain Seafort]

People didn't immediately run; if he'd managed to lob even three working devices into three classrooms, more people would've been dead.

Assuming he didn't blow himself up trying to make said pipe bombs, and that any of them went off.

I'm going to guess that you missed the point of that first part on accident.

You mean the bit that you specifically said to ignore?

There are 300 million legally-held firearms in America. Getting them all back, even if the law changed, would require the military, and a great deal more bloodshed than these isolated shooting sprees.

Note that I'm consistently using the word "would" rather than the word "will". I'm well aware that all semblance of rationality frequently goes out the window when the US starts talking about guns. Besides, of those 300 million, how many of them are handguns? That's what I've been concentrating on because they a) have no use between target shooting and killing people and b) are far easier to conceal.

I.e. far more specialised skills than "point it and pull the trigger".

If that's what you think using a firearm correctly entails, then you have about as much knowledge of this subject as I do of mesozoic paleobotany. Namely, zero.

Alright. Assuming you've checked that the weapon is clear, hold the weapon by the pistol grip in your right hand, butt pulled firmly into your right shoulder. Magazine in your left hand and insert it into the housing behind the grip, making sure it clicks. Grip the foregrip in your left hand, grasp the cocking handle in your right, pull it fully to the rear and release. In your own time, go on, targets will fall when hit.

No chemistry or engineering skills required.

Pure crap. One lucky solid swing with a bat can be just as lethal as a lucky shot with a firearm.

And utterly harmless from more than six feet away.

And, knives? Quieter, requires basically no training or skill beyond which end to hold, and where to stick it.

Harmless from three feet away, and knowing where to stick it is difficult enough that someone going on the rampage with one frequently results in lots on injuries but few or no deaths.

Of course, as you say, a swung bat isn't likely to harm anyone else by accident, but that's not the topic here.

It's part of the issue - as I pointed out about the risk of idiots with their own handguns going after the bad guy and achieving nothing except more bullets flying around risking hitting bystanders.

Also, for the record, most of the deaths in this incident were caused by the rifle apparently. Not the handguns.

I know. When I said that it was accurate according to the most recent information. The point that handguns have fewer legitimate uses and are more easily concealed stands.

And, just for good measure: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/29 ... s-20100430

Lots of knife attacks: ten dead, 60+ injured. One firearms attack: 26 dead. Thanks for demonstrating the point I made above

I suppose, with the frequency of those incidents, a ban on kitchen knives, hammers and gasoline would be in order, right? Surely, stricter controls are needed for such dangerous items.

Such items have far more legitimate uses than handguns.

[Deepcrush]

Just going to point out a simple fact. Firearm laws in the US are pointless. Both Canada and Mexico pour out firearms every year, so even passing a law against them here does nothing. Except leave law obeying people defenseless of course. Producing explosives or just running into a school with a baseball bat and knives can be just as deadly as a firearm, its simply a matter of effective use. No matter what you ban, criminals will still use them and there are always other options. Another thing that is pointless is blaming mental health. While it would be nice to treat someone, that isn't important from the stand point of protecting lives. Killing isn't going to be stopped or controlled by hugs. If someone decides they want to kill then they will. Even in England, if you know who to talk to getting firearms is pretty easy, if you've got about 1500$ US you can walk out with an AR15.

Violence itself, no matter the object in use by the people causing it, will forever be countered by a single thing. The ability of those that person intends to harm to defend themselves. Be it by their own hands or arms, or by having someone there in the form of security for protection. This is even more important in the US with the extreme of culture mixing that occurs here. Tempers will fly, its only a matter of where and when. Saying guns are the cause of violence is absolute stupidity because remember, with as much a surprise as it is, there were still people fighting before firearms were invented. The cause of violence is a person and nothing more. This isn't countered by laws intended to create increased numbers of victims. It is countered by another person.

Forks don't make people fat, eating poor diets do. Banning forks because they are one of the things used by people to eat won't stop people from eating. Guns are the same, it takes a person to use it and the person is the matter at blame.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

my condolences to those who lost loved ones. Beyond senseless. I hope he enjoys his sulfur bath!

[Reliant121]

I genuinely don't understand the need for law abiding citizens to even bare arms in the first place. The overwhelming majority of Europe is equally safe, if not dramatically more so, than America and doesn't require its population to bear arms in order to be safe.

[Captain Seafort]

I genuinely don't understand the need for law abiding citizens to even bare arms in the first place.

Keeping cool in the summer is usually a pretty good reason.

[Reliant121]

I walked into that one.

[stitch626]

I genuinely don't understand the need for law abiding citizens to even bare arms in the first place. The overwhelming majority of Europe is equally safe, if not dramatically more so, than America and doesn't require its population to bear arms in order to be safe.

It is half based on tradition, and half based on the fact that it would take many billions of dollars and man hours to collect all the firearms already out there.

My problem isn't the guns, but the lack of recognition and screening for sociopathy (which would require large amounts of free but skilled criminal psychologists... so yeah not gonna happen). And the blame of everyone's favorite area (be it guns, violent games, autism).

[Reliant121]

Its traditional for us to wander around with slaves, pillaging half the known planet and yet its not longer feasible and practical to do that. Surely however many dollars this costs is worth it if it prevents shootings of this magnitude 10 or 20 years down the line. You always get some gun crime even in countries with control laws more stringent than over there, but its so dramatically reduced. So far I'm hearing two different arguments: its too costly so we shouldn't and we don't want to give up our guns. The first point; the hardest and most necessary thing always does. Maybe operating a slightly smaller and less costly military could balance the books, no one else comes even close to threatening the US in that front. As for needing guns; why? Self defence? Is law enforcement that ineffectual that the population must become vigilantes to be safe?

[Vic]

You have heard of the saying that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"? The Police are not there to protect the individual, but to protect the society. The only way for law enforcement to achieve individual protection is place an officer with every single human being in existence 24hours a day 365 days a year.

[Tsukiyumi]

The absolute second that they can guarantee my safety 100% of the time from assault, burglary, robbery, etc. I'll gladly turn in my firearm. Until then, responsibility is mine to protect myself. Let me be clear: police do not prevent crimes, they investigate crimes after the fact.

If I can help it, the other guy will be the chalk outline, not me.

[Praeothmin]

You know what's way more easily accessible than firearms? Saltpeter, charcoal and sulfur. Along with nails and pvc pipe. In an enclosed space, that would be far more dangerous than a 9mm handgun.

Quick question here:
How many gunnings in the last ten years in the US were perpetrated using those objects?
Was Columbine?
Were the Dark Knight movie house killings?
Was this one?

Ignoring the fact that there are 300 million guns in the country already, the border is so porous we can't stop weed from getting through by the truckload; guns would be no different. Excessive legislation just disarms the law-abiding citizenry, not criminals. We already have sufficient gun control measures in place; now we need to actually spend some time and money on the mental health crisis in America (of course we have no money for things like that, which is why most state-run mental hospitals closed down years ago).

Again, simple question:
How many criminals were actually responsible for the gunnings that happened in the US in the last 10 years, such as Columbine, and this latest one, as opposed to "law-abiding citizens" who just went crazy?

If there were less guns, if guns were harder to come by, then the crazies would most likely have ti use the objects you described above, which, AFAIK, are nowhere near as reliable as a gun and would have created much less bloodshed...

One thing I entirely agree with, as we also have the same problem here in Canada:
Mental issues research and treatment are way underfunded, and should have much bigger budgets...