Elementary school shooting

[JHA]

JHA if you insist of interpreting what i wrote your way instead of taking my explanation, i can't help you.

I think it's clear from your post and does not need any interpreting. Anyone here can confirm by reading it. And I don't need help with anything, thank you.

 

[timislegend]

morgan freeman

 

[SocialNumb]

Pfft, already knew that. That's what http://www.snopes.com/ is for. They busted that shit the same day the BS came out.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

Hey guys,

I thought I'd share my thoughts as well: I like shooting, it's a fascinating experience. However, I don't need a handgun, I don't need an assault rifle, and I certainly don't need to carry one with me every day. I wouldn't want to live like that. These are my own personal views, YMMV.

Here's what Richard Dawkins had to say on the matter:

"A "well-regulated militia"? Please consider an evidence-based discussion. There are many law abiding citizens who own guns in America, but how does one respond to the evidence from other countries? Mass murder on this scale cannot be committed with a knife. What better time for a call to action, based on evidence, than right now? Maybe many good Americans who supported the NRA will change their minds based on evidence, or they will please provide solid evidence that supports current policy. NRA policy should not be a form of religion, exempt from evidence."


Consider the evidence: Kid with assault rifle attacks an American school, 27 people die. Guy in China attacks school with a knife, 22 injured, no fatalities. That's not conjecture, that's fact.
http://now.msn.com/china-school-knife-attack-injures-22-children
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is an invalid argument, based on the observed evidence.
The United States has more gun deaths than any other country in the world. Again, that's a statement based on real numbers.

I have to go with Dawkins on this one, and respectfully ask: What evidence supports current gun policy in the US?

 

[Mutant]

Hey guys,

I thought I'd share my thoughts as well: I like shooting, it's a fascinating experience. However, I don't need a handgun, I don't need an assault rifle, and I certainly don't need to carry one with me every day. I wouldn't want to live like that. These are my own personal views, YMMV.

Here's what Richard Dawkins had to say on the matter:

"A "well-regulated militia"? Please consider an evidence-based discussion. There are many law abiding citizens who own guns in America, but how does one respond to the evidence from other countries? Mass murder on this scale cannot be committed with a knife. What better time for a call to action, based on evidence, than right now? Maybe many good Americans who supported the NRA will change their minds based on evidence, or they will please provide solid evidence that supports current policy. NRA policy should not be a form of religion, exempt from evidence."


Consider the evidence: Kid with assault rifle attacks an American school, 27 people die. Guy in China attacks school with a knife, 22 injured, no fatalities. That's not conjecture, that's fact.
http://now.msn.com/china-school-knife-attack-injures-22-children
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is an invalid argument, based on the observed evidence.
The United States has more gun deaths than any other country in the world. Again, that's a statement based on real numbers.

I have to go with Dawkins on this one, and respectfully ask: What evidence supports current gun policy in the US?

You really can't compare these two single cases.
Yes you can use a knife to kill 30 people, but not the way the chinese idiot tried to do it.
Comparing one successful mass murder to one failed one is a very very very poor argument because it only tells us one thing - that the knife is a weapon for a serial killer, not for a mass murderer and should be used stealthily 1 on 1 and preferably slitting throat from behind not 1 vs many.
If i wanted to make an argument just as irrelevant i could add 2 something tonnes of fertilizer mixed with fuel Timothy McVeigh used to kill more than 150 people.
See ? No need for a gun to become a mass murderer. A gun is an ineffective toy compared to a bomb everyone can make.

People kill people, even if you could disarm people which you can't, they would still kill each other with improvised or illegaly smuggled firearms, bombs, gasoline, knives, blunt objects, bare hands.

If we want these mass murders to stop, we need to filter out all bullshit politically correct propaganda and focus on solutions that actually can have an effect.

 

[scorpio01169]

bottom line for me is, I can outrun an idiot with a knife, but an asshole with a gun purchased legally or obtained illegally has the upper hand. These kids didn't have a chance, and this sick fuck murdered them in cold blood. The way I see it, gun rights people aren't saying they want guns so they go out and kill someone, they just feel they should have the "freedom" to if they ever get the itch to do so. its all about being told what they can and cant do.

 

[Mutant]

The way I see it, gun rights people aren't saying they want guns so they go out and kill someone, they just feel they should have the "freedom" to if they ever get the itch to do so. its all about being told what they can and cant do.

That is insulting, you can't be serious.
I thought the biggest pro gun rights argument is "we want to be able to defend ourselves during the 5 to 15 minutes it will take the police to arrive" and the biggest anti gun rights argument is "we don't want to be able to defend ourselves during the 5 to 15 minutes it will take the police to arrive".

 

[scorpio01169]

That is insulting, you can't be serious.
I thought the biggest pro gun rights argument is "we want to be able to defend ourselves during the 5 to 15 minutes it will take the police to arrive" and the biggest anti gun rights argument is "we don't want to be able to defend ourselves during the 5 to 15 minutes it will take the police to arrive

ok, then why the need for more than one gun? why the need for assault type weapons? I don't have a problem with gun ownership for self defense, I have a problem with collectors and people who like to own guns to shoot at targets. why not go to the gun range and rent the gun while you're there?

 

[Glenn Fricker]

Thanks for commenting, Mutant! Perhaps you can answer "What evidence supports current gun policy in the US?"

 

[Mutant]

ok, then why the need for more than one gun? why the need for assault type weapons? I don't have a problem with gun ownership for self defense, I have a problem with collectors and people who like to own guns to shoot at targets. why not go to the gun range and rent the gun while you're there?

I actually agree that for self defense a handgun and for home defense a shotgun are enough.
IDK USA law, but don't they require some harder to get special permits for military style guns in most states ?

Perhaps you can answer "What evidence supports current gun policy in the US?"

You mean the inability of the police to be present all the time everywhere to protect every tax payer and the practical impossibility to disarm criminals ?

Maybe in the distant future it will be possible to automatically teleport all unregistered weapons to the government owned atomizer facility, then the argument for disarming law abiding citizens AND criminals equally will be a little more sensible.

 

[JHA]

Mutant, I think you are intentionally ignoring the fact many here are trying to explain that a gun is way more fatal and easier to kill lots of people with in very short amount of time and at range. While knives, blunt objects, rocks etc. are way less effective. If you see someone charging with a baseball bat or a knife at you, you still have a chance to run and survive. Not so when he has an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol with big magazine. I'm not and expert but I believe a certain type bullet does lot more inner damage than a knife for example. Even a shotgun and a normal rifle are a lot less effective because of the limited capacity, which are used for hunting/shooting most of the time btw.

 

[Mutant]

Mutant, I think you are intentionally ignoring the fact many here are trying to explain that a gun is way more fatal and easier to kill lots of people with in very short amount of time and at range. While knives, blunt objects, rocks etc. are way less effective. If you see someone charging with a baseball bat or a knife at you, you still have a chance to run and survive. Not so when he has an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol with big magazine. Even a shotgun and a normal rifle are a lot less effective because of the limited capacity, which are used for hunting/shooting most of the time btw.

Of course a gun is way more effective in the situation like in that school.
But we are talking about mass murderers here - people who want to kill so strongly that having no access to a weapon can't possibly stop them.
Don't tell me you believe that someone who planned to end their life taking 30 more lives with him would be discouraged by not having a gun.
"Oh, but i don't have a gun... ok then i will not do it."
Really ?

And what difference is it if 30 children died in few minutes in a school to 30 children died during 10 years of the serial killer streak ?
Btw there are/were way more serial killers using very ineffective weapons like knives than mass killers using effective weapons like guns.
AFAIK this guy didn't have a gun, but created much bigger terror for much longer time than all recent school mass killers did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo


---
Tell me why is it even relevant in this topic if we can't (can we?) prevent mass murderers getting guns ?

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

Of course a gun is way more effective in the situation like in that school.
But we are talking about mass murderers here - people who want to kill so strongly that having no access to a weapon can't possibly stop them.
Don't tell me you believe that someone who planned to end their life taking 30 more lives with him would be discouraged by not having a gun.
"Oh, but i don't have a gun... ok then i will not do it."
Really ?

I do believe that it's a possibility, yes, because of the impulsive factor I touched upon before, and the fact that if it seemed like too much effort/difficulty /risk to obtain guns, maybe some would have been dissuaded - we'll never know now

 

[Mutant]

I do believe that it's a possibility, yes, because of the impulsive factor I touched upon before, and the fact that if it seemed like too much effort/difficulty /risk to obtain guns, maybe some would have been dissuaded - we'll never know now

Yes you can be right if it would be a sudden impulse.
But from what i read about the 3 last such incidents in USA all 3 looked like they were planned for a long time, not impulsive.
I mean Virginia Tech, Batman, Newtown.

But to be sure we would have to consult it with pro psychologists...
I am only an enthusiast, read few books, thats it.

 

[arvoitus]

And what difference is it if 30 children died in few minutes in a school to 30 children died during 10 years of the serial killer streak ?
Btw there are/were way more serial killers using very ineffective weapons like knives than mass killers using effective weapons like guns.

The difference is that the first one is way less likely to happen in a country where people can't legally own guns.

I am not saying that people in the USA can't/shouldn't own guns. But as long as there are people involved in the process of "owning guns" ... accidents like this will happen. Mistakes happen with permits/background checks or gun-owners that are not careful enough with hiding/securing their gun/ammo.
And those mistakes sometimes lead into those mass shooting events.

 

[JHA]

Of course a gun is way more effective in the situation like in that school.
But we are talking about mass murderers here - people who want to kill so strongly that having no access to a weapon can't possibly stop them.
Don't tell me you believe that someone who planned to end their life taking 30 more lives with him would be discouraged by not having a gun.
"Oh, but i don't have a gun... ok then i will not do it."
Really ?

Yes, really. A semi-automatic pistol or assault rifle gives them more gourage, a feel of superiority and it will boost their ego. Their whole assault is most likely based on the fact that they have several high caliber rapid fire guns at their possession and it's the final straw that draws them to do it.

And what difference is it if 30 children died in few minutes in a school to 30 children died during 10 years of the serial killer streak ?
Btw there are/were way more serial killers using very ineffective weapons like knives than mass killers using effective weapons like guns.
AFAIK this guy didn't have a gun, but created much bigger terror for much longer time than all recent school mass killers did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo

---
Tell me why is it even relevant in this topic if we can't (can we?) prevent mass murderers getting guns ?

Are you serious? You actually have a chance to defend yourself against a serial killer without a gun. Not so against someone with a rapid fire gun. We can prevent whackos getting guns by stopping making them and ammo.

 

[Mutant]

The difference is that the first one is way less likely to happen in a country where people can't legally own guns.

"Way less". That is where i disagree with you.
I imagine that making a decision to kill children is so hard and all the cons weigh so much, that for the whatever sick pro to outweigh the cons the pro killing reason has to be so big that having no access to an effective tool is a very small obstacle to get over on the way to realize the goal.

 

[Mutant]

Yes, really. A semi-automatic pistol or assault rifle gives them more gourage, a feel of superiority and it will boost their ego. Their whole assault is most likely based on the fact that they have several high caliber rapid fire guns at their possession and it's the final straw that draws them to do it.

Again how would you prevent them from getting "A semi-automatic pistol or assault rifle" ?
Again how can you be sure that an improvised bomb or an incendiary charge would not give them exactly the same if not bigger feel of superiority ?

Please instead of talking about solutions that will not pass due to political reasons and will not work due to being very easy to circumvent lets focus on solutions that can work.
We all want this world to be peaceful and safe for children right ?

Are you serious? You actually have a chance to defend yourself against a serial killer without a gun. Not so against someone with a rapid fire gun.

I gave an example of how there is no need for a firearm if someone wants to kill many people.
His victims obviously had 0 chances.
It is not about me and my ability to fight or flee - i believe i could easily beat him to a bloody pulp with bare hands even with him holding a knife.

We can prevent whackos getting guns by stopping making them and ammo.

In a fairy land.
A gun is a very simple mechanism.
If factories stop making them, local garages will start.
Without mass thought scanning future technology there is absolutely no way of stopping people making firearms.
Forget about this argument - it is just impossible for it to become a reality.

 

[JHA]

I'm sure people felt the same way about slavery back then like you feel about having guns now. No slavery=only in a fairy land, they thought. Maybe we just need to wait the old redneck rampage generation to die away so we can start making changes. We finally got rid of the lead gasoline after a long time, why not guns too.

 

[DanLights]

I'd really like to see Mutant or anyone else answer Glenn's (Dawkins') question. EVIDENCE.