Elementary school shooting

[LeSedna]

LeSedna.
Please clear your mind for a moment and tell me how the hell are you so sure that every shady looking guy that runs up to you in a dark street at night just wants to rob you and not for example kidnap you and make you his sex slave (if you are a young pretty girl or if he is really fucked up) ?

That is what i am unsuccessfully trying to tell you for the last few posts, thats where your main logical flaw lies.

WHAT IF THE CRIMINAL DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD EASILY LET GO OF AND WANTS SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY NEED LIKE YOUR HEALTH OR LIFE OR WIFE FOR EXAMPLE ?

Can you answer this question without making any excuses ?

And i already told you:

I don't see how it is a flaw to consider something so unlikely to happen that it makes it only worse if you go the other extreme route. You're creating more deaths by having everyone carry his own weapon (and make it easier to multiply the odds of meeting a shady looking guy (...) ), than having a few people die from someone that could have been shot down if someone had a gun there. You don't seem to grasp that logic. And http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division. I know we're talking extremes there, but it's in the extremes that you can see the traits of arguments. Sorry, no excuse, you will make me say "Oh right you got a point" when you make a better one than this one, and I truly mean it. I am probably one of the most inclined persons to do so and have happily done it already yesterday.

In your quote you forgot the part where you say "it's not how it is in the real life" or don't mention when you say "sure let's let criminals do what they want" without specific thinking involved (too tired now to quote the exact line nor to say which one was the first chronologically). Or I didn't get it which would be fair enough for that very part of my answer then. You pretty much said almost the contrary of the red line on several occasions, but it might as well that I have received so many informations with my last 2 days of work than it sometimes just need for me to skip a word to completely misunderstand a specific sentence in such a long debate as the one here.

Btw I already answered your question in the first place so it seems I'm done with the very specific subject of "what if someone breaks in your house, wouldn't it be better if weapons were easy to get so that everyone got one at home in case this happens". Because the problem here is not only "what if someone breaks in and you don't have a weapon" because the picture is bigger than that since the gun-law has an (subtle, or not, it's debatable) effect on the chances of someone breaking in with a gun in the first place. That's the whole point of the debate. Otherwise the answer is "it's better to have a gun" (as I said, it still doesn't mean it's better to use it as opposed to play intelligent) but it's a problem a monkey could solve and is not the reason why a whole country is debating on the subject.

Also, your capital letters sentence still imply you're the one entitled to solve all problems. The police could do a better job than you at dealing with "he got my wife and my kids in a room in my house with a gun". I know emotions and what they can do, I would myself maybe rage and try to do the job myself if he got my sister, my mother whatever. Would it be the safest course of action ? No one knows, but the statistics talk in a big scale, and governing a country is a lot about statistics

Also it seems you're taking it personally, don't get me wrong, I would answer the very same message if the pseudo and the avatar on the left of this post would be different.

 

[Mutant]

Just look up the ratio of kidnappings, beatings, rapes, to robberies.
So unlikely ?
OK if that is what you need to believe.
I simply choose to not ignore these types of crimes.

I still mean what i wrote in the edited post above.
Totally pointless trying to argue.
EOT for me.

 

[JeffTD]

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

Maybe SSRI's are behind it. There are lots of cases of mothers that take SSRI's and kill their children supposedly, and lots of cases where people kill themselves. I heard that they can really screw with your head.

This shit? Really? This is pure paranoia and anti-med bullshit. Yes, some specific SSRIs have resulted in people becoming more manic/suicidal, but that is definitely not a common side effect of SSRIs. For the most part they just help people with serotonin deficiencies function like normal ass people.

 

[Jind]

The whole guns for self defense argument (if someone's looking to hurt me I'll pull out my gun and shoot them first) gets really questionable when you consider that the first person shot in this entire killing spree was the actual gun owner. Repeat that 3 times and tell me how owning at least three guns, one of them an assault rifle helped the killers mother. They really helped her a whole lot - didn't they!

Once again - just saying.

 

[Mutant]

http://www.google.com/search?q="defensive+gun+uses"

 

[LeSedna]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

 

[Boerboel666]

I don't get it, how can you use your shotguns for shooting clays if the the only purpose of those shotguns is for killing?
.

Come on, post the whole paragraph not a couple of lines out of context which were in response to your page long rant on regulating banana skins.

 

[Terminus]

The absurdity, the audacity, the abdacity to think we can even begin to keep something like this from happening at all is just ridiculous. You would really have to have mind control for that to happen. People freak the fuck out when one dumbass, ONE dumbass crazy fucker kills some kids, and somehow they think they can stop it from ever happening again on a world of billions with some pills and bills.


And yes abdacity is not a real word.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

This shit? Really? This is pure paranoia and anti-med bullshit. Yes, some specific SSRIs have resulted in people becoming more manic/suicidal, but that is definitely not a common side effect of SSRIs. For the most part they just help people with serotonin deficiencies function like normal ass people.

Yup

 

[Boerboel666]

The absurdity, the audacity, the abdacity to think we can even begin to keep something like this from happening at all is just ridiculous. You would really have to have mind control for that to happen. People freak the fuck out when one dumbass, ONE dumbass crazy fucker kills some kids, and somehow they think they can stop it from ever happening again on a world of billions with some d.

You can't stop it but you can make it ALOT harder for crazy cunts to get their hands on assault rifles etc
By doing that at least you may save a few lives which would be worth it.

 

[Terminus]

You can't stop it but you can make it ALOT harder for crazy cunts to get their hands on assault rifles etc
By doing that at least you may save a few lives which would be worth it.

And then when that next one guy comes along, maybe in the US, maybe in Norway, maybe in the UK, people will freak out and yell for even more gun control, more pills, more laws and more social workers to hold hands until the chains get tighter around us, the people who don't do crazy shit and we start paying for their paranoia and fear by having martial law placed on every country, even the ones without guns.

It's a sad thing, the guy is a piece of scum of the lowest order and there are more of him lurking out there waiting for their moment and I wish there was a way to eradicate it, but right now here on earth we have 0 sure-fire ways of weeding this type of person out before the fact. All we can do is implement more laws, more control on EVERYONE, and I ask you where does that end?


Really, there's no winning this war just like there's no winning the war on drugs or the war on terror. It has no clearly-defined boundaries, no clearly-defined enemies, and might as well be an alien invasion ala body snatchers. Until you can predict who is going to go postal, it's a losing battle.

Just my take on it, and I don't own a gun, dont care to, probably never will.

 

[Jind]

The absurdity, the audacity, the abdacity to think we can even begin to keep something like this from happening at all is just ridiculous. You would really have to have mind control for that to happen. People freak the fuck out when one dumbass, ONE dumbass crazy fucker kills some kids, and somehow they think they can stop it from ever happening again on a world of billions with some pills and bills.


And yes abdacity is not a real word.

You can't stop stupid either yet we insist people go to school? What's your point. The argument against doing something, anything, to reduce horrible outcomes simply because you can't stop them all is stupid - so yes my comment was directed.

 

[Jind]

It really is a sad world we live in if any effort is judged by whether it can eliminate a problem completely. I can't solve world hunger either but I can make sure my counties homeless shelter has food and funding to provide assistance to some. See how the reasoning that no effort is the answer is just plain stupid?

 

[DanLights]

I don't see anything but gun people repeating the same point that making the law more strict won't completely eliminate the chances of this happening, even after being refuted in the clearest way possible by Lasse, Marcus, Jind and others. And yes, Mutant, once again you're wrong and probably watch too many movies

I don't see how more points can be made (And no Loren, sorry but your mega list is stupid and makes no valid point), so I'll just add that those saying how the same thing happened in China with a knife, you seem to leave out the part where NOBODY DIED. Think about it ;-)

 

[Terminus]

You can't stop stupid either yet we insist people go to school? What's your point. The argument against doing something, anything, to reduce horrible outcomes simply because you can't stop them all is stupid - so yes my comment was directed.

My point wasnt against doing anything. None of us can stop this stuff from happening, we can only make it happen less, but even then (when it happens again) people will still want more legislation, more more more until what? You tell me.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

I dunno "what", but I do know that we're a long way from it, so it shouldn't be our primary concern at this point IMO considering the potential benefits

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

Also, I wanted to share some facts I found (as well the sources, which are linked to). First though, I want to reemphasize that I'm not advocating disarmament of the populace by any means, just serious revision in the processes for applying for and
obtaining (and renewing) the necessary permits for weapons, especially of the concealable and semi-automatic variety. Now then - out of 185 countries in the world, the United States ranks:

-26th (60%) in highest % of homicides by firearm - however, with
out meaning any offense, I think it can be stated that every country above it at least has sections that are very poor and/or crime-ridden (mostly in South/Central America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, etc.), far more than this country as a whole, the only exceptions being Italy at 18th highest (67%), and, very surprisingly (to me at least) Switzerland at 13th highest (72%).

However, the next countries down that I wouldn't consider similarly poor/crime-ridden (in spots) are Luxembourg at 38th (43%), Ireland at 40th (42%), Belgium at 42nd (39.5%), and down from there, so that's a pretty big jump down if we only compare the US only against equally safe/affluent countries.

-28th (2.97) in rate of homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, with no safe/affluent countries ahead of it (watch your back in most of Central America it would seem), and the next s/a country down is Macedonia at 41st (1.21), Switzerland at 45th (0.77), Italy and Belgium at 48th (0.71) and 49th (0.68), respectively, and down from there.

-And from the Guardian article:

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

Which leads me to this:

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abs...e,_Suicide,_and_Unintentional_Firearm.35.aspx

"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher."

Again, I'm not saying I want to disarm everybody - but I really really hope everyone can agree that clearly SOMETHING needs to change in the permit application processes; I leave the details to legal experts.

As for the source of my data above:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

[Terminus]

I dunno "what", but I do know that we're a long way from it, so it shouldn't be our primary concern at this point IMO considering the potential benefits

True. It's very hard to speculate what to do, at least for me. I just am finding it hard to see how it would work, even though I agree it's something to think about.


Let me just add that I think Morgan Freeman has it right when he says that we should forget the perp's name and try to remember who was killed. Maybe that's a start in keeping this crap from happening.

Charlotte Bacon, 6

Daniel Barden, 7

Rachel Davino, 29

Olivia Engel, 6

Josephine Gay, 7

Ana Marquez-Greene, 6

Dylan Hockley, 6

Dawn Hochsprung, 47

Madeleine Hsu, 6

Catherine Hubbard, 6

Chase Kowalski, 7

Jesse Lewis, 6

James Mattioli, 6

Grace McDonnell, 7

Anne Marie Murphy, 52

Emilie Parker, 6

Jack Pinto, 6

Noah Pozner, 6

Caroline Previdi, 6

Jessica Rekos, 6

Avielle Richman, 6

Lauren Rousseau, 30

Mary Sherlach, 56

Victoria Soto, 27

Benjamin Wheeler, 6

Allison Wyatt, 6

 

[Mutant]

https://www.google.com/search?q="police+response+time"
Got imagination ?
How many times will the psycho killer that just broke in to your house kill you during that time if you can't defend yourself ?

(I am not linking specific pages because i don't need to find the longest possible official time to prove my point - it is obvious that it will be shorter in big urbanized areas and slower in the countryside.)

And yes, Mutant, once again you're wrong and probably watch too many movies

I don't like crime story action movies, but from what i remember they are often very accurate in one thing... the police always arrives after all the action already ended.

So yes, keep thinking that the police will instantly teleport to your location (even if you never had any chance to call 911 and explain your situation to the dispatcher) and brave heroic and very handsome police officers will save you from that evil guy.
Right ! That often happens in a fairy land

 

[LeSedna]

I still don't see how in the world it's normal to be able to own a military rifle at home, and how removing at least this kind of availabilities is gonna make streets less safe.

To play the devil's advocate : are there reliable sources to check if it's true that, in a non biased way, including all sorts of crimes, the US has quite a low crime rate or at least an average one ? Because to be fair, I would see a point if it were true than having guns available create more gun kills because that's the preferred method. I have seen many numbers which just explode non gun-friendly country by far but I wanna know if there were a reliable source for that number. Just to have a bigger picture

Oh and +1 for the china knifer example. That's what I just can't stop saying to one of my friends (absolutely pro-guns and who thinks having a rifle is no problem). She says no matter the tool, if a killer has to use something he will eventually get around it and get to his goal.

- 1 young guy with a rifle (+ 2 guns but apparently he used the rifle) : 27 kills (3 to 7 rounds per person), also broke into the school thanks to his rifle
- 1 guy with a knife : 23 wounded at hospital, so far no death

Now tell me how having easy access to military grade rifles (let's start with this example before going down to "weapons" as a whole) doesn't have an impact. "But if you really want one, you will find one eventually around somewhere, $$ can buy anything". I would say "then why this guy didn't do that and went with a knife instead ?". That's basically Marcus' point as well. "A knife is worse than a bullet, you can be better with it". Only true if you stab dirty and deep, and with a big one (btw I think it shouldn't be possible to buy big ass war knives by principle) and you know where to hit. In fact if you're a professional and trained well enough to do that efficiently under a fucking dose of adrenaline. Usually if you are that good you have better things to do than kill kids. You're not killing anyone if you can't hit a vital part or the correct arteria. A few bullets do the job easier, from a distance, and apparently it looks like well proven recently. A random burst of bullets will eventually end up having a few ones placed well enough to kill.

Now you can always say "you don't make rules out of 2 examples". But that's starting to be a lot of coincidences.

Also, a rifle is not a self defense weapon. For random people, it's certainly better handling a short weapon in his apartment if someone breaks in. This is the main weapon of the french elite intervention unit and they seem to be doing pretty well with it. Not that they don't use rifles more than obviously, but that's for example the only one they were equiped with when they did this .

Also I don't accept the argument "remove right for a dangerous type of weapon" => "omg you're removing freedom and tomorrow we'll be so controlled by evil forces"

EDIT:Mutant you still don't get the point do you