# [School shooting] So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...



## Gr8fulFox (Dec 14, 2012)

For those that haven't heard the news, there's been another school shooting. But this time, it wasn't a high school, or a college. It was a goddamn elementary school. I can't imagine what would possess a 20-year-old man to kill _eighteen children._ 26 are dead total =( As of now, the gunman is dead and the entire school district is in lockdown. One of those things that'll just have to remain a mystery. Here's a news link for you.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

What in the living fuck? This is just terrible.


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

I am confused by the thread title. goddamn its ilegal to confuse a European.

/ontopic It's been happening alot now, school shootings. mostly because a student was bullied and it's really sad. my condolonces to all of the dead.

I still remember that bad one in Finland that happend a few years ago >.<


----------



## Kalmor (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

Oh shit...

That is just.... How can someone do that?


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

Sick fucks. School shootings are the worst


----------



## badlands (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

shit

'bout time they had a designated armed member of staff on school grounds.


----------



## Anubite (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

Every campus should have an armed guard, especially with how many psychopaths grabbing the Tec-9 or a shotgun and going on a rampage at school. Just my idea for a safer school zone. 

This is a travesty and sickens me that it was at a middle school. What the fuck.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

I am surprised how long it took for this thread to be made.



Gr8fulFox said:


> I can't imagine what would possess a 20-year-old man to kill _eighteen children._


One cannot imagine any interpersonal reason, but publicity for a cause would make sense.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Anubite said:


> Every campus should have an armed guard, especially with how many psychopaths grabbing the Tec-9 or a shotgun and going on a rampage at school. Just my idea for a safer school zone.
> 
> This is a travesty and sickens me that it was at a middle school. What the fuck.


And preferbly arm the officer on campus with armor piercing bullets in case the next fuck who does something like this has armor or something.  Also have a actual officer and not a rentacop security guard with only mace or such.  A lot of schools do have officers that patrolling, but from what I've seen the majority of them are there for show.

Basically I agree with you and not only that, but we need actual police officers who are actually armed decently for when something like this happens again.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Sick fucks. School shootings are the worst



Yeah, especially at an elementary school. WTF

It makes you wonder what happened to the person to cause all that deep-seeded hostility.


----------



## Tigercougar (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*

...This is why the gutting of mental health hospitals/services in decades past was such a travesty. Had this man received treatment for whatever madness caused him to eventually do this, he may not have felt the urge to kill.


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> Yeah, especially at an elementary school. WTF
> 
> It makes you wonder what happened to the person to cause all that deep-seeded hostility.


In alot of these cases it is done by a person who has been bullied so much that they want to kill everyone in the school, normally looking out for the people that bullied him/her specifically. and it usually ends with them shooting themselfs in the head afterwards. I kinda feel sorry for the bullied students because they have been bullied and pushed so far that they have to go round their school killing everybody, but ofcourse there no is no need to do that at all.


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> It makes you wonder what happened to the person to cause all that deep-seeded hostility.


It was most likely untreated schizophrenia or bipolar. Some kind of severe mental illness.

e:


Tigercougar said:


> ...This is why the gutting of mental health  hospitals/services in decades past was such a travesty. Had this man  received treatment for whatever madness caused him to eventually do  this, he may not have felt the urge to kill.


Yeah, untreated, undiagnosed, mentally unstable people + guns is a pretty nasty recipe.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Sam 007 NL said:


> In alot of these cases it is done by a person who has been bullied so much that they want to kill everyone in the school, normally looking out for the people that bullied him/her specifically. and it usually ends with them shooting themselfs in the head afterwards. I kinda feel sorry for the bullied students because they have been bullied and pushed so far that they have to go round their school killing everybody, but ofcourse there no is no need to do that at all.



Instead it wasn't someone who really had such connections to the school.

It was a 20 year old guy. Possibly a really cooky guy.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Sam 007 NL said:


> In alot of these cases it is done by a person who has been bullied so much that they want to kill everyone in the school, normally looking out for the people that bullied him/her specifically. and it usually ends with them shooting themselfs in the head afterwards. I kinda feel sorry for the bullied students because they have been bullied and pushed so far that they have to go round their school killing everybody, but ofcourse there no is no need to do that at all.



...or the boy was in college and frustrated

Finals just ended for a lot of people, and he was 20 >.>

There are a lot of possibilities, I'm sure. I'm not a frog and you're not a bunny rabbit so we shouldn't be jumping ahead ;3


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Aetius said:


> Instead it wasn't someone who really had such connections to the school.
> 
> It was a 20 year old guy. Possibly a really cooky guy.



Either suicidal or he had some kind of mental disorder.


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> ...or the boy was in college and frustrated
> 
> Finals just ended for a lot of people, and he was 20 >.>
> 
> There are a lot of possibilities, I'm sure. I'm not a frog and you're not a bunny rabbit so we shouldn't be jumping ahead ;3



People do stupid stuff for stupid reasons, killing 27 people because you did bad in your test is just...... words can't describe it.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 14, 2012)

I've no idea what your thread title is about, but i changed it a bit before we get any more threads that didn't notice this one was here because of the odd title.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

My boyfriend just said: apparently CBS News confirmed that the gunman's mother was a teacher at that school and that she died

hmm...


----------



## Azure (Dec 14, 2012)

27 children died from bullets. Happens every day in Africa, so who cares. Oh wait, they're white Americans, prepare for inappropriate shitstorm.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Azure said:


> 27 children died from bullets. Happens every day in Africa, so who cares. Oh wait, they're white Americans, prepare for inappropriate shitstorm.



*18, the others were adults.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Azure said:


> 27 children died from bullets. Happens every day in Africa, so who cares. Oh wait, they're white Americans, prepare for inappropriate shitstorm.



That many children may get shot but how often does someone go on a shooting spree in an elementary school?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> That many children may get shot but how often does someone go on a shooting spree in an elementary school?



Mainly 'happens every day' is why people don't mourn every murder across the world. It would be impossible and perhaps a reason why one death is a tragedy and a million are a statistic. 

People are, of course, more interested in unusual events which happen to people they know or where they live.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Third-word countries are all fucked up.

It doesn't make this any more trivial, IMO.


----------



## Azure (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> That many children may get shot but how often does someone go on a shooting spree in an elementary school?


Who knows? Would it have been different if somebody just went to the local park and started plinking the kids off? Plus with your last post it sounds like all the guy wanted to do was kill his mother, and decided that the rest of the bullets were for whoever got in the way. All that aside, I just want to say that people conveniently blind themselves to tragedy every day somewhere else in favor of much smaller things closer to home. And of course I'm the biggest asshole when I say that everyone beyond those directly affected who "cares" is full of shit and will forget the whole thing in a few days.


----------



## Heliophobic (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



CannonFodder said:


> And preferbly arm the officer on campus with armor piercing bullets in case the next fuck who does something like this has armor or something.  Also have a actual officer and not a rentacop security guard with only mace or such.  A lot of schools do have officers that patrolling, but from what I've seen the majority of them are there for show.



There're quite a few armed guards at my high school. I see roughly six every day. God damn.



Azure said:


> 27 children died from bullets. Happens every day in Africa, so who cares. Oh wait, they're white Americans, prepare for inappropriate shitstorm.



Watch that edge. You could cut yourself.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Azure said:


> Who knows? Would it have been different if somebody just went to the local park and started plinking the kids off? Plus with your last post it sounds like all the guy wanted to do was kill his mother, and decided that the rest of the bullets were for whoever got in the way. All that aside, I just want to say that people conveniently blind themselves to tragedy every day somewhere else in favor of much smaller things closer to home. And of course I'm the biggest asshole when I say that everyone beyond those directly affected who "cares" is full of shit and will forget the whole thing in a few days.



I'm sure he could have offed his mom without killing 26 other people in the process.

It really seems like something was fucked up in his head, like the one from CO.

I don't think this would have happened in Africa because their priorities aren't as fucked up as ours.

But you're right, there is tragedy happening all the time.


----------



## Dreaming (Dec 14, 2012)

Shit, what is happening to the world lately


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Third-word countries are all fucked up.
> 
> It doesn't make this any more trivial, IMO.



For once I agree with you.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Saliva said:


> There're quite a few armed guards at my high school. I see roughly six every day. God damn.


Unfortunately far too many schools have rent-a-cops with only mace and batons guarding them.


----------



## Azure (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Saliva said:


> Watch that edge. You could cut yourself.


I am the edge and I do the cutting. But hey, har har har and all that, I'm just speaking my mind about things I see repeatedly in one form or another.


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

If America doesn't change it gun laws fast then things like this WILL continue to happen.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Sam 007 NL said:


> If America doesn't change it gun laws fast then things like this WILL continue to happen.



I don't think that's the problem. Guns have always been around.

There has been a lot of this lately but I'm not sure if that's random or indicative of something more systemic.

(superficially, it would seem like that latter)


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I don't think that's the problem. Guns have always been around.
> 
> There has been a lot of this lately but I'm not sure if that's random or indicative of something more systemic.
> 
> (superficially, it would seem like that latter)


It has to be the guns though, students are able to get them. I'll admit even tough it's really hard to get guns in Europe we had some bad ones like Finland and Beslan school massacare which killed up to 500 kids. but eastern Europe is undeveloped and the ones that happen in Western Europe were just odd ones. this shit doesen't even happen in Cina or south America. and they are undeveloped countries. Even if America bans guns or makes it extremely hard to get them massacares will stil happen, I can't deny that BUUUT there would be a MASSIVE decrease.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



badlands said:


> 'bout time they had a designated armed member of staff on school grounds.



Sure. Stop the problem by adding even more guns instead of banning them. Makes sense >__>


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



CaptainCool said:


> Sure. Stop the problem by adding even more guns instead of banning them. Makes sense >__>


Weren't not talking about giving teacher joe a gun, we're talking about more police officers patrolling school ground.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Azure said:


> Who knows? Would it have been different if somebody just went to the local park and started plinking the kids off? Plus with your last post it sounds like all the guy wanted to do was kill his mother, and decided that the rest of the bullets were for whoever got in the way. All that aside, I just want to say that people conveniently blind themselves to tragedy every day somewhere else in favor of much smaller things closer to home. And of course I'm the biggest asshole when I say that everyone beyond those directly affected who "cares" is full of shit and will forget the whole thing in a few days.



Blame the media, they are not reporting on what happens in Africa, not to mention the shit in Africa happens on a daily basis. In regards to forgetting about it in a few days. Just because things fall silent doesn't mean it's forgotten. Lots of things have happened over the years that people don;t talk about much but they are not forgotten about.



Ricky said:


> I don't think that's the problem. _*Guns have always been around.*_
> 
> There has been a lot of this lately but I'm not sure if that's random or indicative of something more systemic.
> 
> (superficially, it would seem like that latter)



There's the problem.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Randy-Darkshade said:


> There's the problem.



It just seems like there has been a lot of this lately. Again, I don't care to get into a gun control debate. It doesn't interest me. According to this article published back in July, mass murders were already on the rise. This adds a significant amount to that.

"Take the guns away" seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a more complicated issue.

If people don't have guns they can burn down a building, or blow it up.


----------



## Percy (Dec 14, 2012)

There was a knife attack in a Chinese primary school as well.

Obviously the massacre in CT was a lot worse, but either way, these shouldn't be happening...


----------



## Conker (Dec 14, 2012)

It's crazy how big the capacity to commit terrible acts is in people. I've been reading this old book on werewolves for shits, and the author brings that up right away, that people are born with some ingrained ability to commit and enjoy brutal violence. He listed a lot of examples that involved children, people killing them and then eating them and the like. 

I mean, I really can't fathom why someone would go shoot up an elementary school. But then, I couldn't fathom why anyone would do any of the other shootings that happened this or last year. It's really just terrible all around.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 14, 2012)

For people against normal people having guns, please explain to me how criminals follow gun laws. Because if you take away all the guns the criminals will have a shit ton of unarmed prey because you dont see non criminal people commit these heinous crimes. You dont see Old Roy go and shoot up a school. There is something WRONG with these people. Banning guns isnt going to keep these crimes from happening. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm Quite sure the gun mentality is *part *of the problem.


dinosaurdammit said:


> For people against normal people having guns, please explain to me how criminals follow gun laws. Because if you take away all the guns the criminals will have a shit ton of unarmed prey because you dont see non criminal people commit these heinous crimes. You dont see Old Roy go and shoot up a school. There is something WRONG with these people. Banning guns isnt going to keep these crimes from happening. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.


If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail to you...


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> For people against normal people having guns, please explain to me how criminals follow gun laws. Because if you take away all the guns the criminals will have a shit ton of unarmed prey because you dont see non criminal people commit these heinous crimes. You dont see Old Roy go and shoot up a school. There is something WRONG with these people. Banning guns isnt going to keep these crimes from happening. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.



I live in a country in which most do not own guns, this apocolyptic description does not hold true here. 

However weapons are politicaly fetishised in some other countries, like the usa, so I suppose different psychology is in place.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> "*Take the guns away*" seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a more complicated issue.
> 
> If people don't have guns they can burn down a building, or blow it up.


Gee, that meme won't ever die, huh? The gun nuts scored a huge propaganda victory by reducing the gun control debate to that ditty in the public perception.

It's not about unilaterally and indiscriminately dispossess the populace of its guns, it's about enacting common sense gun laws: bans on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, more ex-/intensive background checks with modern physchological evaluation, stricter regulation of inherited arms, etc.

How many more have to be shot till you wake up, smell the motherfucking coffee and make sure homicidal maniacs can't arm themselves like goddamn African warlords?

EDIT: Also gotta love the "people can kill one another with just their hands, too" pseudo-argument. Well, how come that murderers statistically almost never do so?


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Gryphoneer said:


> [...]
> How many more have to be shot till you wake up, smell the motherfucking coffee and make sure homicidal maniacs can't arm themselves like goddamn African warlords?


Considering the mental Yoga "more gun's = more safety, ALWAYS " is kinda common, if what you see of the USA on the internet and co is true, it can take forever.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Gryphoneer said:


> Gee, that meme won't ever die, huh? The gun nuts scored a huge propaganda victory by reducing the gun control debate to that ditty in the public perception.
> 
> It's not about unilaterally and indiscriminately dispossess the populace of its guns, it's about enacting common sense gun laws: bans on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, more ex-/intensive background checks with modern physchological evaluation, stricter regulation of inherited arms, etc.
> 
> ...



A strange response seems to be 'criminals won't obey any laws we make anyway'....and? This doesn't mean you should oppose legislation, making certain behaviours against the law is rather the point, because when people break the law you can legally pursure them for it.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 14, 2012)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> I'm Quite sure the gun mentality is *part *of the problem.
> 
> If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail to you...




no, if i have a hammer and no nails then its a pretty fucking usles bum ass tool. You can smash anything with a hammer but then its not used for its intended purpose. I use guns to hunt because that allows me to feed my family. Guns shouldnt be offensive, only for food or defensive as in someone breaks in your home to molest your family- rather than wait for someone on 911 to answer just pick up a gun and put a bullet into that sick fucks brain. Feeding and defending yourself is one thing but to go and just MURDER- thats wrong. Responsible gun owners are not committing these crimes.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> It just seems like there has been a lot of this lately. Again, I don't care to get into a gun control debate. It doesn't interest me. According to this article published back in July, mass murders were already on the rise. This adds a significant amount to that.
> 
> "Take the guns away" seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a more complicated issue.
> 
> If people don't have guns they can burn down a building, or blow it up.



Relax I was just poking fun. 

People would still commit murder regardless of whether guns were there or not.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Fallowfox said:


> I live in a country in which most do not own  guns, this apocolyptic description does not hold true here.



There's also a much larger number of people in the US, so it's not necessarily a surprise you see more incidents here.



Gryphoneer said:


> Gee, that meme won't ever die, huh? The gun nuts scored a huge propaganda victory by reducing the gun control debate to that ditty in the public perception.
> 
> It's not about unilaterally and indiscriminately dispossess the populace of its guns, it's about enacting common sense gun laws: bans on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, more ex-/intensive background checks with modern physchological evaluation, stricter regulation of inherited arms, etc.
> 
> How many more have to be shot till you wake up, smell the motherfucking coffee and make sure homicidal maniacs can't arm themselves like goddamn African warlords?



These were 9mm's, not machine guns. Also, most murders by guns are committed with handguns, apparently.



Gryphoneer said:


> EDIT: Also gotta love the "people can kill one another with just their hands, too" pseudo-argument. Well, how come that murderers statistically almost never do so?



I didn't say "using their hands" at all. I was talking about how one could commit a mass murder without a gun.

There are more ways to kill people than just using guns.

I looked up "england statistics stabbings shooting deaths" just for shits and giggles, and found this:



> In fact, the most common weapon used in a violent crime in England and Wales is not a gun - but a knife.
> 
> There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings.



So there is a disproportionate percentage of knife killings compared to the US.

Wow, what a surprise. Take away the guns and people still kill other people :roll:


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> It just seems like there has been a lot of this lately. Again, I don't care to get into a gun control debate. It doesn't interest me. According to this article published back in July, mass murders were already on the rise. This adds a significant amount to that.
> 
> "Take the guns away" seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a more complicated issue.
> 
> If people don't have guns they can burn down a building, or blow it up.



The simple fact is that guns make it far easier to kill large amounts of people. Most people do not have the know how to create explosives and even then explosives can be made from house hold items, something that you just can not get rid of and you arent going to kill mass amounts of people easily by setting fire to it (unless its a huge building made of wood but thats just poor design). Guns have but one use, to kill.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> There's also a much larger number of people in the US, so it's not necessarily a surprise you see more incidents here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




[I'm well aware of that, so I will make it clear that my comment was in reference to per-head-of-population]
Overall homocide rates are lower, especially gun related homocides. There are still violent offenses although the majority are minor assaults. We should of course consider that the UK doesn't have Mega-cities, whereas the USA does, so the UK doesn't face as massive challenges anyway.

In addition you have not shown there is a disproportionate amount of knifings in comparrison to the usa, as you did not quote the usa's statistics on this matter.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



FenrirUlv said:


> The simple fact is that guns make it far easier to kill large amounts of people. Most people do not have the know how to create explosives and even then explosives can be made from house hold items, something that you just can not get rid of and you arent going to kill mass amounts of people easily by setting fire to it (unless its a huge building made of wood but thats just poor design). Guns have but one use, to kill.



People blow up buildings all the time.

If you get rid of guns you're not going to get rid of mass murder.

(ED) Also, if you make guns illegal bad people can still get them.



Fallowfox said:


> [I'm well aware of that, so I will make it  clear that my comment was in reference to  per-head-of-population]



There aren't mass murders in the US all the time.

If you look at it proportionally to the population, I'm sure 0 incidents in the UK over the past few decades might not really mean that much.

EDIT: ...and it looks like there was one in 2010, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Europe


----------



## Brazen (Dec 14, 2012)

I think I've established the motive


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> no, if i have a hammer and no nails then its a pretty fucking usles bum ass tool. You can smash anything with a hammer but then its not used for its intended purpose. I use guns to hunt because that allows me to feed my family. Guns shouldnt be offensive, only for food or defensive as in someone breaks in your home to molest your family- rather than wait for someone on 911 to answer just pick up a gun and put a bullet into that sick fucks brain. Feeding and defending yourself is one thing but to go and just MURDER- thats wrong. Responsible gun owners are not committing these crimes.



Depends on the hammer, not all hammers are designed to smack nails. 

But now I'm just being pedantic.

Even responsible gun owners can and do snap and go nuts. Like the guy over here that drove around with a shot gun taking random shots. All his friends and family described him as such a "great" person yet he still snapped and went nuts with a gun.

Ya know, some of these people that go nuts with guns may have started out as a responsible gun owner but something clicked and made them go berserk.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> People blow up buildings all the time.
> 
> If you get rid of guns you're not going to get rid of mass murder.


I never said they dont, but creating explosives is a difficult (and dangerous) task where as buying a gun and pulling the trigger is not. I never said it would get rid of mass murder. Most explosives are made of house hold things that have other uses besides to kill, guns do not.




Brazen said:


> I think I've established the motive



You sir, got me to laugh.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> People blow up buildings all the time.
> 
> If you get rid of guns you're not going to get rid of mass murder.
> 
> ...



Forgive me, I may have mislead you. I wasn't talking exclusively about mass-murder events.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Dec 14, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> no, if i have a hammer and no nails then its a pretty fucking usles bum ass tool. You can smash anything with a hammer but then its not used for its intended purpose. I use guns to hunt because that allows me to feed my family. Guns shouldnt be offensive, only for food or defensive as in someone breaks in your home to molest your family- rather than wait for someone on 911 to answer just pick up a gun and put a bullet into that sick fucks brain. Feeding and defending yourself is one thing but to go and just MURDER- thats wrong. Responsible gun owners are not committing these crimes.


Responsible gun owners, those who could pass stricter tests than "write your name here"? So those that would have to jump a hoop more but ultimately wouldn't be locked away from guns? Like having driver licenses and appropriate education and tests and traffic rules and enforcement of those don't keep people from driving cars? (And, while not completly avoiding them, reduce the number of accidents)


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Fallowfox said:


> Forgive me, I may have mislead you. I wasn't talking exclusively about mass-murder events.



I thought we were because that's the subject of this thread.

If you're talking about murders in general, obviously it's easier to kill someone with a gun than stab them to death. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of murders went down if you outlawed guns, but you're stepping over people's constitutional right to defend themselves in the process. That's why I'm on the fence with the whole gun control debate. Just because someone can use something in a bad way doesn't mean we need to fucking outlaw it and take away people's freedoms.

I don't really care though, because I don't own a gun.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Ricky said:


> I thought we were because that's the subject of this thread.
> 
> If you're talking about murders in general, obviously it's easier to kill someone with a gun than stab them to death. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of murders went down if you outlawed guns, but you're stepping over people's constitutional right to defend themselves in the process. That's why I'm on the fence with the whole gun control debate. Just because someone can use something in a bad way doesn't mean we need to fucking outlaw it and take away people's freedoms.
> 
> I don't really care though, because I don't own a gun.



I apologise for giving that false impression. I am not sure what the mass-murder rates are like in my or other countries, though I suspect they are erratic?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: So my father just called me to tell me that he loves me...*



Fallowfox said:


> A strange response seems to be 'criminals won't obey any laws we make anyway'....and? This doesn't mean you should oppose legislation, making certain behaviours against the law is rather the point, because when people break the law you can legally pursure them for it.


Lax legislation leads to an oversaturation of firearms and naturally gives criminal elements the means to do more harm than without.

Said oversaturation in turn leads to a gun culture, i.e. to a lowering of the violence threshold. People begin to think life's an action movie in which you can solve all problems by shooting the bad guys (whoever those bad guys are in the eyes of the armed person, that is).

Ergo: more guns = more gun violence.



Ricky said:


> Wow, what a surprise. Take away the guns and people still kill other people


Still less often than in the states if you adjust for population size.

If British culture were as militaristic as that of their former colony, possession of firearms would be higher and the gap between the crime rates smaller.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Sam 007 NL said:


> It has to be the guns though, students are able to get them. I'll admit even tough it's really hard to get guns in Europe we had some bad ones like Finland and Beslan school massacare which killed up to 500 kids. but eastern Europe is undeveloped and the ones that happen in Western Europe were just odd ones. this shit doesen't even happen in Cina or south America. and they are undeveloped countries. Even if America bans guns or makes it extremely hard to get them massacares will stil happen, I can't deny that BUUUT there would be a MASSIVE decrease.



This post is really naive.

In some parts of London, many weapons of all kinds are turned up weekly. Pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, submachineguns, explosives, you name it. All illegally obtained, none of them licensed.

Guns are _everywhere_. The massively strict gun laws caused gun crime in britain to _quadruple_. Law-abiding citizens won't have guns (only a few will), criminals on the other hand are getting them from all over the place. Russia, eastern europe, middle east, and even the USA. 

And hey, we still have violent crime happening all over the place despite the gun bans.

Knives and blunt objects. Tons of them.

Banning guns just makes gun crime more likely than letting everyone having guns. When citizens obey the laws, they are left defenseless. That way, violent criminals will ALWAYS have the upper hand. The only way people can protect themselves then is through the use of discreet calls to the police.

Quite a shit-state, isn't it?


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Banning guns just makes gun crime more likely than letting everyone having guns.


Yeah, uh, you're going to have to reference some sort of study for that claim, please.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Kazooie said:


> Yeah, uh, you're going to have to reference some sort of study for that claim, please.



Not even a minute of searching:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

I can get you more if you fancy it.


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Not even a minute of searching:
> 
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
> 
> I can get you more if you fancy it.


Yes, please find one that compares Canadian gun crime rates to US, if possible. 


e: Or any country that has had guns banned for long periods of time.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Not even a minute of searching:
> 
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
> 
> I can get you more if you fancy it.


NCPA is a right wing think tank, come on give us some reliable sources.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 14, 2012)

In Australia they banned guns and bought them back.  It appears that overall people still figured out how to kill themselves and others without firearms.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

cobalt-blue said:


> In Australia they banned guns and bought them back.  It appears that overall people still figured out how to kill themselves and others without firearms.
> 
> http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html


... Thats some weak sauce.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Kazooie said:


> Yes, please find one that compares Canadian gun crime rates to US, if possible.
> 
> 
> e: Or any country that has had guns banned for long periods of time.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/07/17/f-toronto-shooting-canada-crime-trends.html 

When you take weapons away from law-abiding citizens, they won't be able to defend themselves or otherwise deter criminals that still are and always will be packing. It's really simple logic.

There are legal gun-owners in britain, and the crime rates for legal gun-owning brits are pretty damn low compared to non-legal gun users.


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 14, 2012)

I found one comparing Canada's gun crime rate to the US's:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm

A comprehensive comparison of countries that have banned guns vs. countries that have not would be interesting.


----------



## Sam 007 NL (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> This post is really naive.
> 
> In some parts of London, many weapons of all kinds are turned up weekly. Pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, submachineguns, explosives, you name it. All illegally obtained, none of them licensed.
> 
> ...



But those are normally ilegal, they take effort and time to obtain. in the US you need to fill in a few forms and shit, get a lisence and you got your gun in a week or two. Because of this gun crime is extremly low in developed European countries. hey atleast knive crime isn't as bad as gun crime.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
> 
> ...



You do realise some of these articles are from publications over 11 years old that were commissioned by pro-gun campaigners such as the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting?

Other sections in the sources state that reasons for rises in gun crime in Toronto were not clear, so this doesn't support your hypothesis.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Sam 007 NL said:


> But those are normally ilegal, they take effort and time to obtain. in the US you need to fill in a few forms and shit, get a lisence and you got your gun in a week or two. Because of this gun crime is extremly low in developed European countries. hey atleast knive crime isn't as bad as gun crime.



This looks pretty bad to me.

Also have you heard about knife massacres?

You take away guns, they're just gonna use something else, or get guns from somewhere else.

"Not as bad as gun crime" - that's not the fucking point. There shouldn't be ANY knife crime or ANY gun crime in the first place. If people were at least able to defend themselves, that would be much better.



Fallowfox said:


> You do realise some of these articles are from  publications over 11 years old that were commissioned by pro-gun  campaigners such as the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting?
> 
> Other sections in the sources state that reasons for rises in gun crime  in Toronto were not clear, so this doesn't support your  hypothesis.



You should notice by now that I'm not looking at numbers alone. I'm looking at the fact that when you take a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves, they're gonna get their asses shot, stabbed, or beaten, and there's not really much they can do about it without breaking the law, of course.

Can you explain to me how I would have an advantage or chance of staying alive as an innocent unarmed guy getting shot at by some punk with an AK-47 that he got from eastern europe?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> This looks pretty bad to me.
> 
> Also have you heard about knife massacres?
> 
> ...



In countries awash with guns the overall crime rates still manage to be higher. Providing weapons to the masses doesn't automatically enable everyone to defend themselves and it provides others with the means to attack.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> This looks pretty bad to me.
> 
> Also have you heard about knife massacres?
> 
> ...



You seem to forget that knives have other purposes besides killing people. I cant believe I have to keep reiterating this damn point but guns serve no other purpose then to kill.


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> This looks pretty bad to me.
> 
> Also have you heard about knife massacres?
> 
> ...


OK, could we just give everyone knives so that they can defend themselves against knife massacres?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> In countries awash with guns the overall crime rates still manage to be higher. Providing weapons to the masses doesn't automatically enable everyone to defend themselves and it provides others with the means to attack.



That's why there has to be some compromise. I think that the UK laws are too restrictive, and the US laws are too lax.



FenrirUlv said:


> You seem to forget that knives have other purposes besides killing people. I cant believe I have to keep reiterating this damn point but guns serve no other purpose then to kill.



And you seem to forget that if you take away guns, _people are gonna get killed by criminals anyway.

_


Kazooie said:


> OK, could we just give everyone knives so that  they can defend themselves against knife massacres?



Because the justice system and self defense laws in the UK are pants-on-head retarded, no.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> ... Thats some weak sauce.




???? Here is a country that took 600,000+ firearms off the streets and the immediate stats and the long term trend lines hardly moved?  Lots of good it did.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> That's why there has to be some compromise. I think that the UK laws are too restrictive, and the US laws are too lax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that is a middle-ground fallacy.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I think that is a middle-ground fallacy.



Which part of my post and why?

Also,

If any of you anti-gun people can give me some great sources to back up your own arguments, that'd be appreciated. Because every time I put something up and you just dismiss it instead of providing something back that is helpful and informative, which does not really get anyone anywhere. Granted the US has a higher amount of gun crime than Canada, but the UK has a pretty fat amount of gun crime that arised after the gun bans. Can anyone explain or somehow magically disprove that for me?

Thanks.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Which part of my post and why?



You said that somewhere between the UK and the USA would be the best solution. A 'middleground'. 

I don't want to import a gun culture into the UK, I think they become self-perpetuating because of the arms race psychology.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You said that somewhere between the UK and the USA would be the best solution. A 'middleground'.
> 
> I don't want to import a gun culture into the UK, I think they become self-perpetuating because of the arms race psychology.



I personally think that guns are a part of a legitimate hobby, and that's proved itself over a very very long time. There are very many gun owners out there, some of which own assloads of guns, and they have never shot anybody once, ever. They exist in the UK too, but they are fewer, and their hobby is also limited.

It'd be a shame for law-abiding citizens to get shat on while the criminals still get their way in the end.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the giant rise in UK gun crime after the bans.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> And you seem to forget that if you take away guns, _people are gonna get killed by criminals _


You keep dodging the point. Of course criminals can still kill people, I can still kill people, but guns make it far easier to do so and serve absolutley no other point then to kill. Knives, fire, etc are used mostly as tools, not weapons, were as that is the sole purpose of a gun. Its far too easy for an irresponsible or mentally unstable person to get a gun in the US, not to mention that high capacity magazines are somehow still completely legal.



cobalt-blue said:


> ???? Here is a country that took 600,000+ firearms off the streets and the immediate stats and the long term trend lines hardly moved?  Lots of good it did.


You dont know 4chan speak I assume. sauce = source, yours was a complete joke.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I personally think that guns are a part of a legitimate hobby, and that's proved itself over a very very long time. There are very many gun owners out there, some of which own assloads of guns, and they have never shot anybody once, ever. They exist in the UK too, but they are fewer, and their hobby is also limited.
> 
> It'd be a shame for law-abiding citizens to get shat on while the criminals still get their way in the end.



Well...the criminals in the UK don't 'get their way in the end'...the proportion of gun-related crimes is quite a bit lower, as is the proportion of deadly crimes, than some other nations recognised for their relaxed attitude to firarms. 

I have mixed feelings about people who use guns for hobbies...I feel like it's close to playing with deadly weapons and I usually hate the hunting aspect which goes with it.


----------



## Kazooie (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Granted the US has a higher amount of gun crime than Canada, but the UK has a pretty fat amount of gun crime that arised after the gun bans.


"Higher". As in, what, _five time or so_? Furthermore, you can't possibly believe trends that occur _immediately after a ban _to be indicative of a long-term trend. You have sited no studies, only news articles documenting short term phenomena.

Hey, let's compare homicide rates in countries. By your logic, countries with lax gun laws should have fewer homicides, as the guns will act as a deterrent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (hurrr wikipedia)

Germany has a, what, .7 homicide rate. Guns are strictly controlled in Germany. This is compared to the US' 4. That's _five times the rate of homicide_. 

Is that a result of guns being banned in the long-term? I have no fucking clue. Are countries that have lax gun laws safer than those that don't? Not to my knowledge. 

This is why I'd like to see a comprehensive study comparing gun crime rates of countries with long-enacted gun control laws vs. countries that do not. I am currently having trouble finding one.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Which part of my post and why?
> 
> Also,
> 
> ...


I dont live in England and have no idea how the laws are there, so Id rather not jump into something I dont know the first clue about. My personal stance is where you suggested, a middle ground between the two. Keep guns for those who can prove to be responsible and for those that require them (eg. Hunters, cant think of another but Im assuming there is something out there).


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> You keep dodging the point. Of course criminals can still kill people, I can still kill people, but guns make it far easier to do so and serve absolutley no other point then to kill. Knives, fire, etc are used mostly as tools, not weapons, were as that is the sole purpose of a gun. Its far too easy for an irresponsible or mentally unstable person to get a gun in the US, not to mention that high capacity magazines are somehow still completely legal.



Knives and blades and other pointy things were invented to kill, too. They could also be used as tools.

Guns were invented to kill also. They could also be used as decoration, sporting equipment, and antiques.

So what?



Fallowfox said:


> Well...the criminals in the UK don't 'get their way in the end'...the proportion of gun-related crimes is quite a bit lower, as is the proportion of deadly crimes, than some other nations recognised for their relaxed attitude to firarms.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about people who use guns for hobbies...I feel like it's close to playing with deadly weapons and I usually hate the hunting aspect which goes with it.



It is a bit lower, yes, but when someone breaks into your house with a gun and he's found you, what are you gonna do? Normally, I'd shoot him before he could shoot me, but, eh, you know.



FenrirUlv said:


> I dont live in England and have no idea how the  laws are there, so Id rather not jump into something I dont know the  first clue about. My personal stance is where you suggested, a middle  ground between the two. Keep guns for those who can prove to be  responsible and for those that require them (eg. Hunters, cant think of  another but Im assuming there is something out there).



In my opinion, guns should be kept for responsible people, yes. And for hunters and gun clubs and other people who have a clear interest in the sporting side of it.

I really don't know how to go about self-defense though. It's pretty much an even tougher thing than gun legislation. Though I will say that it's ironic that there's no castle doctrine in a country famous for castles.



Kazooie said:


> "Higher". As in, what, _five time or so_? Furthermore, you can't possibly believe trends that occur _immediately after a ban _to be indicative of a long-term trend. You have sited no studies, only news articles documenting short term phenomena.
> 
> Hey, let's compare homicide rates in countries. By your logic, countries  with lax gun laws should have fewer homicides, as the guns will act as a  deterrent:
> 
> ...



I don't believe the trends occur _immediately _after the ban, where did you get that from?

The UK has a lot less gun murders than the US, yes. But my point is, yes indeed, the trend DID occur over time, we know that law-abiding citizens have trouble defending themselves, and we know that criminals can get guns in the UK.

But the question is, how do we stop the crime? We can't stop guns getting into the wrong hands, we know that. What I personally want is for guns to be _controlled_ to consider the civilian use, self-defense laws to be reviewed, and something that keeps the actual criminal acts under control. The UK police forces are pretty shit - there's somewhere where we can start.

It would be interesting to see such a study though.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

I see this thread is about gun control now.

Wow, who saw that one coming? :roll:


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

In the UK the only region which allows guns for 'self defence' is Northern Ireland...which is a bit messed up, but probably not just because of the guns.



Ricky said:


> I see this thread is about gun control now.
> 
> Wow, who saw that one coming?



Sorry ;^;


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> You dont know 4chan speak I assume. sauce = source, yours was a complete joke.



So your saying the numbers are incorrect,  point me to where the correct ones are.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Knives and blades and other pointy things were invented to kill, too. They could also be used as tools.
> 
> Guns were invented to kill also. They could also be used as decoration, sporting equipment, and antiques.


The fact is no one knows how they were developed but they provide a productive and often times necessary use as tools. Guns as decoration or antiques is NOT a use of a tool. I could have a nuke as decoration or antique too, but thats no reason to make it so I can have one. (Purposefully exaggerated with nuke to show point) If you want it as a decoration or antique, then buy a replica. The point also remains that guns make it far easier to kill than a melee weapon. Id like to point out that I am not anti-gun though. I see only a problem with weapons with high rate of fire and high ammunition capacity without reloading. For instance, I have no problem if someone were to own a standard  .30-06 or other similar hunting rifle, but if someone has an AR15 with extended magazines... Well now we have a problem.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Which part of my post and why?
> 
> Also,
> 
> ...



I used to be all anti-gun but I have read so many gun threads on here I came to the conclusion that with or without guns, people will still be murdered and crime will still exist.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

cobalt-blue said:


> So your saying the numbers are incorrect, point me to where the correct ones are.


No, Im saying the source you provided is not credible in the least. Provide a reliable source and then you can begin to talk numbers.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> The fact is no one knows how they were developed but they provide a productive and often times necessary use as tools. Guns as decoration or antiques is NOT a use of a tool. I could have a nuke as decoration or antique too, but thats no reason to make it so I can have one. (Purposefully exaggerated with nuke to show point) If you want it as a decoration or antique, then buy a replica. The point also remains that guns make it far easier to kill than a melee weapon. Id like to point out that I am not anti-gun though. I see only a problem with weapons with high rate of fire and high ammunition capacity without reloading. For instance, I have no problem if someone were to own a standard  .30-06 or other similar hunting rifle, but if someone has an AR15 with extended magazines... Well now we have a problem.



I'm all for replicas really, and I agree with not letting people personally own military-grade weapons designed specifically for mass killing.

My own personal wants lie on old second world war rifles above all. There's also a lot of responsible fun to be had with one too, especially at a club. And if I needed to defend myself in my home, I'd also have the gear to do it.

I don't see why someone would want a machinegun of their own for anything other than killing en masse. I think all gun lovers would love the chance to _try_ a machinegun, but that's something that could be controlled in special locations/events, no? Modern military-grade weapons don't belong in the home.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I'm all for replicas really, and I agree with not letting people personally own military-grade weapons designed specifically for mass killing.
> 
> My own personal wants lie on old second world war rifles above all. There's also a lot of responsible fun to be had with one too, especially at a club. And if I needed to defend myself in my home, I'd also have the gear to do it.
> 
> I don't see why someone would want a machinegun of their own for anything other than killing en masse. I think all gun lovers would love the chance to _try_ a machinegun, but that's something that could be controlled in special locations/events, no? Modern military-grade weapons don't belong in the home.


Thats how I feel, keep the automatics at ranges or events for gun enthusiasts to be able to play around with them, but dont allow them to be owned by the civilian masses (Though I do think there should be a way of getting a license for it, though it should be VERY difficult and require many classes). Personally Im a fan of the modern bullpup and standard AR styles in addition to my obsession with blades.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I'm all for replicas really, and I agree with not letting people personally own military-grade weapons designed specifically for mass killing.
> 
> My own personal wants lie on old second world war rifles above all. There's also a lot of responsible fun to be had with one too, especially at a club. And if I needed to defend myself in my home, I'd also have the gear to do it.
> 
> I don't see why someone would want a machinegun of their own for anything other than killing en masse. I think all gun lovers would love the chance to _try_ a machinegun, but that's something that could be controlled in special locations/events, no? Modern military-grade weapons don't belong in the home.



I agree. The problem america has is that you can walk into a gun shop and buy military grade weapons and in the home, that isn't necessary. All they should be able to buy are hand guns (which if I could own I would) rifles and shot guns. Machine guns of any type are not needed.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Thats how I feel, keep the automatics at ranges or events for gun enthusiasts to be able to play around with them, but dont allow them to be owned by the civilian masses (Though I do think there should be a way of getting a license for it, though it should be VERY difficult and require many classes). Personally Im a fan of the modern bullpup and standard AR styles in addition to my obsession with blades.



I think it's pistols or weapons that are under a certain length that are a real issue, mainly because they're easily concealable. Bulky bolt-action rifles aren't something you'd use in a killing spree, mostly due to its nature of being near-impossible to conceal on your person.

I don't know how legalising pistols would work though. It'd probably have to be a special case thing. I don't think anyone should be able to get one, I think it'd be reserved for long-time responsible gun owners. As someone said earlier in the thread (I think) pistols are the most-used weapons in gun crime, and it makes sense. Most models you could slip into your pocket.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I agree. The problem america has is that  you can walk into a gun shop and buy military grade weapons and in the  home, that isn't necessary. All they should be able to buy are hand guns  (which if I could own I would) rifles and shot guns. Machine guns of  any type are not needed.



I think the first large problem with the gun legislation in the US is the walk-in-and-buy nature. There is a five-day waiting period involved IIRC, at least in some states, but it's just _far too lax_. It's not so much what they're selling, it's how they're selling it.

I still think their laws on more advanced weapons or potentially concealable weapons need an adjustment though. As it stands, the only requirement is being 21 to buy one, as opposed to 18 to buy a rifle.

It's a bit silly and not very careful at all.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I agree. The problem america has is that you can walk into a gun shop and buy military grade weapons and in the home, that isn't necessary.



Right, that's the problem with *all of America* when the gun laws *vary by state* and you can't even buy one in some of them.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I think it's pistols or weapons that are under a certain length that are a real issue, mainly because they're easily concealable. Bulky bolt-action rifles aren't something you'd use in a killing spree, mostly due to its nature of being near-impossible to conceal on your person.
> 
> I don't know how legalising pistols would work though. It'd probably have to be a special case thing. I don't think anyone should be able to get one, I think it'd be reserved for long-time responsible gun owners. As someone said earlier in the thread (I think) pistols are the most-used weapons in gun crime, and it makes sense. Most models you could slip into your pocket.



Its a good point, but the way I see it are the handguns are the only legitimate form of protection when it comes to guns (unless you are already prepared). Keeping concealable sized guns away is definitely something that should be done, maybe keep civilian handgun use to models like a revolver? Low capacity, high accuracy and depending on which one not that concealable.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Right, that's the problem with *all of America* when the gun laws *vary by state* and you can't even buy one in some of them.



Didn't California ban guns/restrict guns, yet still have gun crime? Was it a rise in gun crime, or a reduction?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Right, that's the problem with *all of America* when the gun laws *vary by state* and you can't even buy one in some of them.



This is one of things that bug me about the states, instead of having universal laws like most other countries that are placed by the government, in America law vary state by state. It's confusing. 

Either way, America has a big problem involving these mass shootings (apparently there has been 8 this year alone) and needs to realize something needs to be done.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Didn't California ban guns/restrict guns, yet still have gun crime? Was it a rise in gun crime, or a reduction?


I tried looking for you, all I could find is bitchy NRA members and a few things that I dont think are reliable. What I saw from a quick glance was basically you can only carry handguns in public but they must be concealed, handgun purchases are registered with the buyer though no permit (just like everything else) is required. Id have someone double check it though, I only looked quick.


----------



## Recel (Dec 14, 2012)

What would happen, if instead we take away things people can kill with, like guns, than knifes, than baseball bats, than the kitchen table, than your hands and legs, we try to find the people who are either about to snap, or are already planing to kill? I mean, there are millions of people in a city. You can't go from A to B without someone seeing you, meeting someone or, god forbid, talking to someone. 
Think about this. Why are these people able to go unnoticed? People don't go "Arhmarhgahd, I'll kill everyone!" from one second to the next without reasons. No one is born as a murderer. It takes time, long periods of time. And yet, no one notices, no one does anything, they don't get help.

You don't actually have to answer that question. I know the answer, you know too, probably even better than I do.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> What would happen, if instead we take away things people can kill with, like guns, than knifes, than baseball bats, than the kitchen table, than your hands and legs, we try to find the people who are either about to snap, or are already planing to kill? I mean, there are millions of people in a city. You can't go from A to B without someone seeing you, meeting someone or, god forbid, talking to someone.
> Think about this. Why are these people able to go unnoticed? People don't go "Arhmarhgahd, I'll kill everyone!" from one second to the next without reasons. No one is born as a murderer. It takes time, long periods of time. And yet, no one notices, no one does anything, they don't get help.
> 
> You don't actually have to answer that question. I know the answer, you know too, probably even better than I do.



What are you suggesting? We should arrest people and force them to go to counseling based on what we think they are thinking?

Can't we just figure out what's causing people to snap and try to fix the problem?

Maybe these people wouldn't go on a shooting spree if it were easier for them to talk to someone and get help.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> What would happen, if instead we take away things people can kill with, like guns, than knifes, than baseball bats, than the kitchen table, than your hands and legs, we try to find the people who are either about to snap, or are already planing to kill? I mean, there are millions of people in a city. You can't go from A to B without someone seeing you, meeting someone or, god forbid, talking to someone.
> Think about this. Why are these people able to go unnoticed? People don't go "Arhmarhgahd, I'll kill everyone!" from one second to the next without reasons. No one is born as a murderer. It takes time, long periods of time. And yet, no one notices, no one does anything, they don't get help.
> 
> You don't actually have to answer that question. I know the answer, you know too, probably even better than I do.


I have to be honest I dont really understand your question. are you for more gun control or against it?


----------



## Recel (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> I have to be honest I dont really understand your question. are you for more gun control or against it?



Neither. Guns are tools, nothing more. Their amount won't change the amount of people who want to kill. It only changes the method.

Also, if gun control was the first thing that popped to your mind from that question, than you read the thing wrong, or just too caught up in the gun control debate to actually see I'm not talking about guns at all.



Ricky said:


> What are you suggesting? We should arrest people  and force them to go to counseling based on what we think they are  thinking?
> 
> Can't we just figure out what's causing people to snap and try to fix the problem?
> 
> Maybe these people wouldn't go on a shooting spree if it were easier for them to talk to someone and get help.



Are you even reading? Or just looking at letters? From where on earth did you get I suggested anything on that line, for once?


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> Neither. Guns are tools, nothing more. Their amount won't change the amount of people who want to kill. It only changes the method.
> 
> Also, if gun control was the first thing that popped to your mind from that question, than you read the thing wrong, or just too caught up in the gun control debate to actually see I'm not talking about guns at all.


Well, that was were the discussion was. I read the first part of removing all these things that are completely ridiculous but couldnt tell what your stance was on the matter.
Guns are weapons, the serve no utility other than killing as Ive said multiple times, that is the difference between them and a tool. While I agree that people should be able to have fire arms for hunting and protection, it crosses a line when we now have easily concealable handguns, weapons with high fire rates and high capacity.

Was just trying to get a clarification as it seemed off topic, which apparently it was.

_In response to the question, How are we supposed to do that? there is no way of legislating what people think._


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> Neither. Guns are tools, nothing more. Their amount won't change the amount of people who want to kill. It only changes the method.
> 
> Also, if gun control was the first thing that popped to your mind from that question, than you read the thing wrong, or just too caught up in the gun control debate to actually see I'm not talking about guns at all.


The cultural perception of them does (or can). If they are the "cool" and so on, weak minded are more likely to try to solve their problems using them. (like it is "cool" to Drink yourself into a coma). And if someone advocates taking all the guns away he/she/it is naive, although i'd assume a gun license (just like a driver license just for guns) with extensive education/training (when to/not to use it, how to use it)  could be a PART of the solution imho. 

But yeah, only gun control doesn't help, gotta find out why people get f*ed up like this and fix the problem.


----------



## Recel (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Was just trying to get a clarification as it seemed off topic, which apparently it was.
> 
> _In response to the question, How are we supposed to do that? *there is no way of legislating what people think.*_



Words, writing, art.. actions? A better question would be, how to get them to use those so we can know what they are thinking.

And it would be off topic if we would only talk about guns, excluding the people pulling the trigger.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> gotta find out why people get f*ed up like this and fix the problem.


My assumption is the culture. Just look at the rating for film and tv. In the US violence, gore, etc. is considered to be given a pg-13 rating where as nudity is an instant R unlike the rest of the world. the US has a violent culture.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> Words, writing, art.. actions? A better question would be, how to get them to use those so we can know what they are thinking.


Do you honestly expect to be able to monitor everyone that way and that thorough? Or what about the writing of someone who is being sarcastic or just overly emotional? We see people say they are going to kill people all the time and dont do it, we have people that act like they are violent and arent. There is no effective way (besides body language and even then its not a guarantee) to see who is truly violent. Not to mention the moral aspects of legislating a thought crime.

edit: if a mod can combine my last two posts or something that would be great, sort of forgot about that first reply.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> Are you even reading? Or just looking at letters? From where on earth did you get I suggested anything on that line, for once?



You said we should "find the people."

What the fuck else were you implying, if not that? We "find them," and then what?


----------



## Recel (Dec 14, 2012)

Apparently, I'm really bad at communicating my thoughts, as everyone and their mother thinks I want monitoring, and thought crime laws... 
I guess I'll just stay quiet for the rest of my life, or at least until I snap and kill someone.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> Apparently, I'm really bad at communicating my thoughts, as everyone and their mother thinks I want monitoring, and thought crime laws...
> I guess I'll just stay quiet for the rest of my life, or at least until I snap and kill someone.



Why don't you just explain yourself a bit better?

Asking a sarcastic question like "Are you even reading? Or just looking at letters?" doesn't help me to understand what you meant.

Once we "find these people" as you put it (I have no idea how that would even be done), what do you suggest we do with/to them?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

Recel said:


> Words, writing, art.. actions? A better question would be, how to get them to use those so we can know what they are thinking.
> 
> And it would be off topic if we would only talk about guns, excluding the people pulling the trigger.



I understand what you're saying but as others have said, the way people act, behave, the things they say is no guarantee of anything. 

Look at the art artists draw on FA, what you're suggesting could have a ton of artists thrown in jail just because of what they drew or even written in their stories. Too many innocent people would end up being prosecuted.


----------



## Recel (Dec 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Why don't you just explain yourself a bit better?



Because I just can't. I actually talked more in this past month here, than in the past three years of my life. I'm THAT good at talking.



Ricky said:


> Asking a sarcastic question like "Are you even reading? Or just looking at letters?" doesn't help me to understand what you meant.
> 
> Once we "find these people" as you put it (I have no idea how that would even be done), what do you suggest we do with/to them?



Why does find instantly mean "locate and arrest, and spy on" and shit like that? Did I learn English wrong? When you find your friend at a bar, does that mean you deliberately were trying to find him, carefully treading, following where he went? Or can it mean you walked in a bar, and happen to realise, that that person sitting in the corner is your friend? 
Finding as in, finding out they have problems. Locating that this person in fact can be a danger to others, or requires help. You don't need thought crime laws or monitors and cops at every corner to do that. You just need your mouth and some will to actually talk to more than the three exactly same people you talk to every day...

People are quiet. Everyone is always fucking quiet. Up to the point where they won't even look at you when you say hello. So of course you don't know if these people have problems. They don't want to talk most of the time, if at all. If they even CAN talk about anything. And why should they? No one seems to talk to ANYONE, besides friends they met by actually HAVING to talk to. School mates, co-workers, or some dude they met by talking to them out of boredom, or need.
Really. Starting a conversation with anyone is really fucking hard. And this is Mr. best speaker talking here! They either just shrug you off, walk away, or just say two words than stop. Which makes you want to talk even less.

And people wonder, why there are people flipping without anyone noticing? Well this here is exactly why. Because everyone is numero uno. Everyone cares about them self. If humans wouldn't need social interactions, the world would be fucking silent by now as everyone just cares about their own things. And the times they don't they think about how to make it worse for others, how THEY are better than others, how THEY are more important than others. And if you know someone has a problem, YOU don't want to help, because it's a burden for YOU, and YOU can't be bothered to help others, because YOU have more important things than that. You only give some time from your precious day to people who entertain YOU, have something to say that interest YOU, think like YOU, look like YOU and talk like YOU.
This is what I learned in my life. If you can't act, lie and merge with the mindset of others, you are alone. No one in this world looks at someone, sees they are sad, troubled or something and actually spare time to ask, unless it interests THEM.
Everyone does everything for them self. This includes helping people too. You don't help others unless you have stakes in it. Be it financial, emotional or otherwise. This is the bane of humanity. No money, no actions, no guns or laws will make someone care for one another. Yes I said it, the word you all hate so much. Care. Everyone needs it, but guess what? No one really wants to give it.

So I won't even answer that question, as humans are genetically incapable to "find" people in need. No point in figuring out what to do with something you can not locate. And I was pointing at how we can't find these people in the first place, we just want to. Because no one talks to them and they have no one to talk to, so what they think never even has the slightest chance to be revealed. And by talk I don't mean the usual "Let's pretend I'm like this so people will accept me" bullshit that is rampart everywhere. I'm talking about talking. Your own thoughts, own ideas, without the fear that the other will just beat you over the head.

Because that's what we do to anyone we disagree with, or don't like. We want to make THEM disappear. Shut THEM up. So WE don't have to care about THEM. No one cares why you think a certain way, what lead you to believe something, they just care about what you say and if it is of any interest or use to THEM. And this goes back and forth, and no one understands the other, and no one wants to.

This is what *I* see, this is what *I* think, and this is what YOU all will say is stupid and *I'm* just a loser and jada jada jada, because YOU don't like it. *I *know that. Why *I* think this? YOU don't care. And don't even ask, because obviously MY reality is the only one, and the true reality, and the only one that can exist. So *I* will refuse to acknowledge anything YOU say to me.

Their, done, I'm fine now. Now I'm off to go an kill kids at the local school.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I understand what you're saying but as  others have said, the way people act, behave, the things they say is no  guarantee of anything.
> 
> Look at the art artists draw on FA, what you're suggesting could have a  ton of artists thrown in jail just because of what they drew or even  written in their stories. Too many innocent people would end up being  prosecuted.



No, you don't as what I wanted to imply doesn't involves laws, or cops. Just simple conversation skills. If people find the ones in need and GOD FORBID, actually help them, than we don't need cops and laws,_ since the crime won't happen in the first place!_


God... why can't I just project my thoughts out like a TV...

EDIT: And this is not aimed at Ricky or anyone particular. It' aimed at EVERYONE.


----------



## Riyeko (Dec 14, 2012)

I only heard the guy that went and shot up the school in CT was mentally disturbed.
The guns he obviously got were from his fathers home in New Jersey, so they didnt even have to be registered in his name. Fail on his dads part for not locking them up like a responsible owner would have done, regardless (yeah yeah throw it at me that he could have gotten the key off his dad for the gun cabinet, im just giving my two cents)...
Also, he went in and obviously was mentally disturbed. 
Who knows why he went in there and did that.. I heard he also shot some unidentified woman in a nearby home. 

Who knows what some people are thinking when they take a weapon to school.
Honestly I had to stop myself from going to my kid's schools today and finding out if they were okay. Ive never been that paranoid over how "safe" my kids are in school.
But then again, my kids know guns and how to behave around them. 
They are taught how to run from danger, how to contact the police in the correct manner when theres a legitimate problem, and how to behave around criminals and idiots who take the law in their own hands.
Sure, theyre young, but dammit, they are smart and they know what to do.

Anyway, its a bad thing that happened. There are a lot of families not tucking in their kids tonight, and my heart goes out to them.
Id never want to be in that situation. Ever.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

@Recel, You alright? you seem a bit... disturbed.


----------



## Harbinger (Dec 14, 2012)

Seeing as how often this keeps happen you would have thought they would beef up security everywhere by now, make it mandatory. Is a despicable act though, think the killers have a bit of torturing before execution.


----------



## Recel (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> @Recel, You alright? you seem a bit*... disturbed*.



Those three dots indicate to me that you want to say something else, just want to appear nice for what ever reason.
Or maybe I'm imagining things. Who knows? No one.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> @Recel, You alright? you seem a bit... disturbed.



Hide the guns and sharp objects ;3

Seriously though, I agree with you Recel that people ought to talk to each other more. I think that would help, but people have it in their nature to form exclusive groups and tend to actively ostracize people that seem "off" or don't fit in. For some reason I've always been the opposite. I think it's because I'm interested in the unusual; people who are just like every one of their friends bore me and seem fake.

Your answer isn't really a solution but it points out a larger problem than the gun issue. I also can't buy it's a coincidence all these mass murders were committed by folks around the same age. I don't think it's a good thing we put so much pressure on people in high school. The message is usually "you need to figure out NOW what you want to do for the rest of your life, or you will be flipping burgers for the next 40 years." Not only is that too much pressure to put on someone but it's just not true.


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 14, 2012)

Michigan's passing a law that would allow concealed weapons in schools.

That's an idea. ARM ALL THE TEACHERS! Even in Elementary schools.


'Of course, if a teacher had been armed this entire tragedy would have been averted.' /right wing news pundit.


----------



## Toshabi (Dec 14, 2012)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll9l3bgryY1qjcgs4o1_500.jpg



/stupid debate


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 14, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> No, Im saying the source you provided is not credible in the least. Provide a reliable source and then you can begin to talk numbers.



Then how about this. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 14, 2012)

The media reaction to these things never ceases to disturb me. How many  times does this need to be reported? How much do we really need to know?  Every news channel and radio station is buzzing with pictures and audio  clips, interviews with the surviving kids asking them what it was like  to get shot at. Do we need hear that? Why do we want to? Why do these  attacks demand our attention and, more importantly, what happens when  they get it? 

The people who do these attacks know they'll become  famous. Whatever their grievance was, whatever they couldn't put into  words, now the entire world will know about it. The more shocking the  target, the more people get killed, the bigger the statement. Someone  commits a single murder or suicide, and nobody cares. It warrants a slow  shake of the head and a police report. Someone shoots up a school and  they get hundreds of hours of news coverage with people constantly  asking "Why? Why? Why?" without the slightest hint of irony. We keep  reinforcing the idea of the mass shooting, turning what should be an  anomaly into a reoccurring phenomenon. 

Basically my view of it.


----------



## Machine (Dec 14, 2012)

After hearing about this, I'm looking forward to the end of the world now.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

In related news, Mike Huckabee patiently explains  on Faux News that gun massacres happen in schools because the US  doesn't have mandated Christian pray-time happening in them instead and mere hours after the shooting the Michigan House Rethuglicans demand that Governor Rick Snyder sign a bill that would make it easier for people to receive a gun  permit and open up â€œgun free zones,â€ including schools.


----------



## Machine (Dec 14, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> In related news, Mike Huckabee patiently explains  on Faux News that gun massacres happen in schools because the US  doesn't have mandated Christian pray-time happening in them instead and mere hours after the shooting the Michigan House Rethuglicans demand that Governor Rick Snyder sign a bill that would make it easier for people to receive a gun  permit and open up â€œgun free zones,â€ including schools.


The astounding lack of logic in this makes me feel... weird.


----------



## Ikrit (Dec 15, 2012)

why I do believe this is becoming some sort of "fad"


----------



## Kalmor (Dec 15, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> In related news, Mike Huckabee patiently explains  on Faux News that gun massacres happen in schools because the US  doesn't have mandated Christian pray-time happening in them


Oh yes, because that is definitely going to stop a rampaging maniac with a gun from killing kids. :V

Some people just don't think about what they are saying.


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2012)

Mike Huckabee makes me want to shoot up a christian prayer meeting.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 15, 2012)

guns don't kill people people kill people if we got rid of guns there would still be murder if that man didn't have a gun he would have just ran up to each of those kids individually and shanked them with a screwdriver

the only solution is to arm all our children with concealed firearms from kindergarten forward


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2012)

Maybe toughening up laws wont work, maybe it's too late to toughen laws, maybe a more suitable option is to have armed security posts at every entrance on the school grounds. Or even armed security patrols. 

I think the government needs to rally up all the options and ideas they can, place them on the table and discuss what would be the best approach.


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 15, 2012)

I have a new drinking game. Every time a gun-rights guy says the phrase "Law-abiding citizen" DRINK THE ENTIRE FUCKING BOTTLE!!!

And of course, video games are already blamed.




Ikrit said:


> why I do believe this is becoming some sort of "fad"


Odd, a guy attacks a school in the US with a gun, kills dozens.
A guy attacks a school in China that doesn't have a nutty gun culture, with a KNIFE, and no one dies.
Apparently China is better at this thing than the US.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2012)

Shit I feel sorry for the guy CNN and such blamed and got the wrong guy.  Congratulations 24/7 news not only is your credibility going down the toilet, but you've destroyed a innocent person's life just cause he has the same name as the gunman.

I'm wanting to change my name to something else nobody else has cause if this is what "credible news sources" constitutes for nowadays pretty soon we're going to have people's lives forever getting ruined just cause they share the same name as someone. . . oops wait, it's already happened.


----------



## benignBiotic (Dec 15, 2012)

Yeah I heard about that. My mom texted me telling me "Love you, please stay safe."


----------



## Icen (Dec 15, 2012)

Ugh.

My brain can't even.

This is beyond terrible...


----------



## Dreaming (Dec 16, 2012)

Gettin' the feeling that Westboro aim to be hated


----------



## Hinalle K. (Dec 16, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> Gettin' the feeling that Westboro aim to be hated


"Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment"

They're going to protest that the school shooting was god's judgment?

ffs, religion!


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> Gettin' the feeling that Westboro aim to be hated


Holy shit that was fast even for them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2012)

Double post I know, but does contain content.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc-news/50216205/#50216205
Apparently the local and federal government will be looking to prosecute people that are disseminating false or untrue information.  While the probability of the federal government actually succeeding in doing so is slim it will at least help the person who was falsely accused of being the shooter just cause he shared the same name.


----------



## KookiesNKreamCollie (Dec 16, 2012)

How can someone look into the eyes of a child and cold heartingly shoot them and live with the guilt or even press the trigger. HOW?!


----------



## Conker (Dec 16, 2012)

KookiesNKreamCollie said:


> How can someone look into the eyes of a child and cold heartingly shoot them and live with the guilt or even press the trigger. HOW?!


Evidently it's not that difficult since the shooter repeated the process like 20 times.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2012)

Conker said:


> Evidently it's not that difficult since the shooter repeated the process like 20 times.


And shot most of them multiple times.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 17, 2012)

I was getting new tires installed when I saw this on the TV in the lobby. I just stared.

EDIT: Westboro Bullet Catchers already? With every breath, they suck a little bit of goodness out of the world.


----------



## Conker (Dec 17, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> In related news, Mike Huckabee patiently explains  on Faux News that gun massacres happen in schools because the US  doesn't have mandated Christian pray-time happening in them instead and mere hours after the shooting the Michigan House Rethuglicans demand that Governor Rick Snyder sign a bill that would make it easier for people to receive a gun  permit and open up â€œgun free zones,â€ including schools.


One of my 'tard online friends posted a video of that on Facebook. Apparently Huckabee forgot that God sent two shebears to kill 42 children in the Old Testament. Yup, prayer is totally the answer there!


----------



## benignBiotic (Dec 18, 2012)

Last night my mom tells me "They're holding a candlelight vigil in the park tomorrow night for the shooting." I'm not going to the vigil and I wouldn't tell anyone that I'm at all broken up about the shooting. It's a terrible thing, but these things happen and I won't get teary eyed over every single tragedy. Anyway she proceeds to say "I'm just so sad about it, it makes me cry. I can't believe someone could do something like that." What gets me is I know for a fact that she won't be attending the vigil despite the fact that it is conveniently located a short walk from our house and she won't be occupied by anything that couldn't be moved around. 

So she feels bad and she's all broken up about it, but can't be bothered to go to a vigil for it? Captures the hypocrisy of my mother (and I imagine many other people) quite well. If it were a gathering for something I'm passionate about I'd go, especially if it was right down the street. But these hypocrites can't bother.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 18, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> Last night my mom tells me "They're holding a candlelight vigil in the park tomorrow night for the shooting." I'm not going to the vigil and I wouldn't tell anyone that I'm at all broken up about the shooting. It's a terrible thing, but these things happen and I won't get teary eyed over every single tragedy. Anyway she proceeds to say "I'm just so sad about it, it makes me cry. I can't believe someone could do something like that." What gets me is I know for a fact that she won't be attending the vigil despite the fact that it is conveniently located a short walk from our house and she won't be occupied by anything that couldn't be moved around.
> 
> So she feels bad and she's all broken up about it, but can't be bothered to go to a vigil for it? Captures the hypocrisy of my mother (and I imagine many other people) quite well. If it were a gathering for something I'm passionate about I'd go, especially if it was right down the street. But these hypocrites can't bother.



I think some people exhibit false emotions because they think it is expected of them. 
'I better pretend I'm seriously upset about this otherwise people will think I am a monster'.


----------



## Machine (Dec 18, 2012)

Conker said:


> One of my 'tard online friends posted a video of that on Facebook. Apparently Huckabee forgot that God sent two shebears to kill 42 children in the Old Testament. Yup, prayer is totally the answer there!



Why can't we have divine intervention anymore, specifically where God intervenes on the behalf of innocent people?

I'd love to have seen "SHOOTER MAULED BY ROVING PAIR OF LIONS OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL" on the news.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 18, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Maybe toughening up laws wont work, maybe it's too late to toughen laws, maybe a more suitable option is to have armed security posts at every entrance on the school grounds. Or even armed security patrols.
> 
> I think the government needs to rally up all the options and ideas they can, place them on the table and discuss what would be the best approach.



This is something that happens but is illegal in some states, and it is not that the laws need to toughen up, they need to actually _lax_ in order to get security people on posts. 

In many states, it is illegal for a person to carry a gun on a campus.  This comes hand in hand with concealed carry licenses, and that to me is reasonable because the state's legislature is their prerogative....But what is very stupid and way too strict is that people *with combat training* (NOT a concealed handgun license), such as employees for private security companies (not mall-cop security officers), can not enter these places, either.  

This law (or series of laws in multiple states) doesn't need to toughen up, it needs to cease to be.  I don't really care if you are on one side or the other of the "citizens should or should not have guns" fence, hired people who are trained to know what the fuck they're doing is always fantastic and it's really asinine to paint a situation like the one we have in Texas: 

In Travis/Hays county, for instance, it's $57 an hour to hire a cop. A single cop.  Some campuses have them, others don't. They bill a pretty penny because it's so much an hour for the station to be minus a car and so much an hour to be minus a man on-call or whatever.  My high school was charged $57 an hour for each person so they hired two.  It was all they could afford.  

On the flipside, it's $15 an hour to hire a level-3 (combat training, certified to know what the fuck he is doing with a gun in an intense situation rather than 'lol i hav gun because of my CHL') security officer from a private company.  So you can have _4_ security officers to 1 cop, basically, and they have similar training and can hit a man in the heart/lungs with a shotgun at 75 yards.  I can't remember what they can do with a handgun but it is summarily appropriate and they don't give you your _time_ to prove that you can aim, they go "KILL HIM" and you have seconds to empty all your shit into the target, reload, and fire some more since they want you to be able to reload in a snap.  Point is, you can hire the same level of talent and training certified by the same exact administrations for a quarter of the price _but it's illegal because we said so._

A few schools in my area then, had taken to hiring private security officers REGARDLESS because that way their kids are watched by trained, licensed people and to them, safety is far more important than scruples.

But then they had to stop because it's illegal in the state of Texas to be on a school campus with a gun and not be a cop even if you can out-shoot and out-handle a patrol officer (not to say patrol officers can't handle their shit, just, it didn't matter how hard you could justify how good you were in a combat situation and how responsible you were with firearms -- if you didn't have the specific job, you didn't have the specific job), so you get fuckers who are pushing quota and don't care about people being safe, going to the school districts and arresting security officers on the job. 

This issue in particular is a State-level issue rather than a federal one.  It would be _very nice_ if level-3 security officers could for the love of God extend their billable time to places that want to pay for their protection without paying a premium for police officers.  So, there is a nice proposal and direction for you to indeed make a change where you live.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 18, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> Last night my mom tells me "They're holding a candlelight vigil in the park tomorrow night for the shooting." I'm not going to the vigil and I wouldn't tell anyone that I'm at all broken up about the shooting. It's a terrible thing, but these things happen and I won't get teary eyed over every single tragedy. Anyway she proceeds to say "I'm just so sad about it, it makes me cry. I can't believe someone could do something like that." What gets me is I know for a fact that she won't be attending the vigil despite the fact that it is conveniently located a short walk from our house and she won't be occupied by anything that couldn't be moved around.
> 
> So she feels bad and she's all broken up about it, but can't be bothered to go to a vigil for it? Captures the hypocrisy of my mother (and I imagine many other people) quite well. If it were a gathering for something I'm passionate about I'd go, especially if it was right down the street. But these hypocrites can't bother.





Fallowfox said:


> I think some people exhibit false emotions because they think it is expected of them.
> 'I better pretend I'm seriously upset about this otherwise people will think I am a monster'.



Hey guys, I'd just like to point out that just because someone says they are broken up about it but wont go to a vigil DOES NOT mean they have false feelings.



HipsterCoyote said:


> snip



So basically all laws  that govern guns need to be revised. Cause after reading your post it  strikes me that some need to be toughened up a little and others need to  be laxed.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 18, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Hey guys, I'd just like to point out that just because someone says they are broken up about it but wont go to a vigil DOES NOT mean they have false feelings.



Agreed, I should make it clear 'some' doesn't mean 'I can concretely say this woman is one such person'. 

In some scenarios I think people compete to be seen as ethical. For instance people who brag about how much money they have given to humanitarian causes after a natural disaster.


----------



## benignBiotic (Dec 18, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Agreed, I should make it clear 'some' doesn't mean 'I can concretely say this woman is one such person'.
> 
> In some scenarios I think people compete to be seen as ethical. *For instance people who brag about how much money they have given to humanitarian causes after a natural disaster.*


This is the camp my mom is in. I don't get how people can care about a tragedy/problem and not do _something _about it but I know it happens so I'll give y'all that. I know my mom will do anything to seem especially ethical or worldly and come to think of it I've met a few people like that.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 18, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> So basically all laws  that govern guns need to be revised. Cause after reading your post it  strikes me that some need to be toughened up a little and others need to  be laxed.



I don't personally know about a gun law that needs to toughen up but I can't out-rule the possibility what with how I don't know what they all are.  We are all subject to the Federal gun laws and I don't think any of those need to be made more prohibitive, to be honest, but, I'm not in legislature so my opinion remains inert.  They are objects of deadly force but so are many things.  They may be monitored and policed (cars - insurance, registration, license; knives - State-by-State laws on what is and is not illegal in terms of blade length, etc; you can fucking outright buy poisons like N.B.D. though) ... but they don't have the same stigma and it doesn't really appear that people want laws regarding them to be revised.  I don't see why guns carry such god damn awe behind them.  I really don't.  It's more popular to kill and hurt people with other things.

In Texas, though, IMO, in the specific case of who can bring the gun they are certified to use where, they need to be _laxed._

CHL carriers are only taught to point downrange and shoot.  They might of their own volition to learn, but they do not know how to handle a jam, how to reload in a combat situation, and other practices.  CHLs are more or less intended such that you are responsible for _yourself_. I like CHLs and think that people should get them on the basic idea of self-defense but if someone doesn't want them then that's their prerogative. When you're trained to protect _other people_, however, such as having certification in combat training, and you're legally prohibited from doing so, it boggles my god damn mind how the State can say "Okay, we can license you to protect other people, but, we are not going to let you actually go to places that require protection from other people: in a federal building, a school, a building used for an interscholastic  or professional sporting event, a business which makes more than half of  their profits off of alcohol sales (so that means bars and nightclubs  and liquor stores), jail/prison, court/court offices, at election  polling places, and horse/dog/automobile racetracks.  Nope.  Can't use them every single place where there are lots of unmonitored people."


----------



## Conker (Dec 18, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> So she feels bad and she's all broken up about it, but can't be bothered to go to a vigil for it? Captures the hypocrisy of my mother (and I imagine many other people) quite well. If it were a gathering for something I'm passionate about I'd go, especially if it was right down the street. But these hypocrites can't bother.


Eh, she probably does feel bad about it, but people are generally lazy and "feeling bad" is enough activism for one shooting. It's the kind of thing you can say you do but still sit on the couch and watch TV.


----------



## slashlife (Jan 21, 2013)

i go to high school, and about 5 days after the newtown shooting, there was a threat to my school, and they didn't do anything about it. they didn't put the school on lockdown, or even let us know there was a threat. my school is run by a bunch of really terrible people!!!


----------



## AxM (Jan 22, 2013)

It's a sad thing to happen and what makes it even sadder is simply the fact that it was children. When that Batman shooting happened, I was worried cause my dad's side of the family live there and it took place about 20mins. from where they lived. I actually talked to my aunt and cousin on my birthday and was asking her about it and my cousin's friend's friend died in that shooting. A little too close for comfort in my opinion. Just happy they are all safe, my condolences to the victims families.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Jan 23, 2013)

This is what happens when you let a country like America have gun-liberal laws.


----------



## Rapifade (Jan 23, 2013)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> This is what happens when you let a country like America have gun-liberal laws.



That sort of implies criminals would obey no-gun laws if there were more.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Jan 24, 2013)

Rapifade said:


> That sort of implies criminals would obey no-gun laws if there were more.


That sort of implies laws can't be enforced in any way.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Jan 24, 2013)

Rapifade said:


> That sort of implies criminals would obey no-gun laws if there were more.



Obeying the laws is not the only problem, guns are so readily available in America anyway.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Jan 24, 2013)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Obeying the laws is not the only problem, guns are so readily available in America anyway.


Which would be tried to fix (the question: is it feasible possible to do so? Wouldn't work overnight; USA isn't exactly known for long-term thinking and even with normal people the period before it takes effect would be quite problematic)


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 24, 2013)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> This is what happens when you let a country like America have gun-liberal laws.



would you rather the killer just start a fire and stand by the exit with a sharp object? 

http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/sang-jin-jeong.htm

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

if one scrolls down to "school massacres" you will notice that china, germany, finland, brazil and canada are mentioned. you should also note that china has some of the most strict laws on guns in the entire world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#China

so no sir, banning guns does not end school massacres.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

If weaponized anthrax is outlawed, only outlaws will have weaponized anthrax.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Jan 24, 2013)

ceacar99 said:


> would you rather the killer just start a fire and stand by the exit with a sharp object?
> 
> http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/sang-jin-jeong.htm
> 
> ...


Nobody says it would "end" them, but it would REDUCE them. (if you actually fix the whole gun hype) What also needs fixing is the whole social issues that break somebody so far as to commit suicide/mass murders (seems to me like they either implode (off themselves) or explode (off others in revenge and then themselves) when they are pushed to a certain point).

tl;dr:
"so no sir, banning guns does not end school massacres." is like "Not drenching every forest in gasoline does not end all wild fires"


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 24, 2013)

Toboe Moonclaw said:
			
		

> Nobody says it would "end" them, but it would REDUCE them. (if you actually fix the whole gun hype) What also needs fixing is the whole social issues that break somebody so far as to commit suicide/mass murders (seems to me like they either implode (off themselves) or explode (off others in revenge and then themselves) when they are pushed to a certain point).
> 
> tl;dr:
> "so no sir, banning guns does not end school massacres." is like "Not drenching every forest in gasoline does not end all wild fires"



again your assumption is that the number of firearms in society directly relates to the rate of violence. that assertion is wrong. firearms ownership has steadily declined since the 1950's, however violent crime WENT UP until the 1990s. 
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722 -chart showing gun ownership
http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/cjtrendsthreedecades.pdf -violent crime rates. see figures 1-5 in the first several pages. 

i do agree with the general tone about the societal problems that leave kids with little way out though.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 25, 2013)

I think you should start locking your room at night.

That is the price for increasing human ignorance and stupidity. You can only blame yourself, because this is product of your politics, that is made by people you have elected.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Jan 25, 2013)

ceacar99 said:


> again your assumption is that the number of firearms in society directly relates to the rate of violence. that assertion is wrong. firearms ownership has steadily declined since the 1950's, however violent crime WENT UP until the 1990s.
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722 -chart showing gun ownership
> http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/cjtrendsthreedecades.pdf -violent crime rates. see figures 1-5 in the first several pages.
> 
> i do agree with the general tone about the societal problems that leave kids with little way out though.


Did availability go down, too? Or more precisely, did it go down enough so it becomes a challenge for criminals to get them?
Did Social pressure go up?

How is gun distribution? / How is gun ownership in "problematic groups" (aka people that would use it to shoot up schools, rob places and so on)? 
Guns magnifying the possibility's for violence (aka "i can kill three people with a baseball bat before i'm stopped, with a gun i can do 13 people in the same time, YAY" (more planned than the crimes of the following point); Guns making the possible damage of knee-jerk much more severe (instead of punching someone resulting in a fight a gun may be used, resulting in possible death); And of course the social role of guns (mixing it with the other social problems) (the quite possible problem of a "a real man would defend himself with a gun!" mindset coming up and leading to careless use of guns / trying to solve problems with guns that shouldn't be solved with guns (-> for example getting rid of bullys (kinda being interwoven with other social problems))


It's not Gun ownership that i consider the problem, what i consider to be the problem, it's unregulated guns leading to irresponsible gun ownership. Sorry for not being clear about it.
And afaik the places with high gun-ownership but low crime usually have strict gun regulations.
Often cited example for high gun-ownership (implying low gun regulations) but low crime: Switzerland. There actually is strict gun regulations, the fact that there are many guns, is that there is mandatory basic military training, so you are drafted, do the training, then leave. (Which is like what i understand the Second Amendment to be aimed at, although i could be wrong about that, of course (especially not being from/in the USA)) So to get your gun you actually prove that you are stable enough to be a soldier.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 25, 2013)

its interesting that evidence indicates that the newtown shooter tried to actually buy a gun but wouldnt wait the ten days as that state requires. he then stole his mother's unsecured firearm for the murder instead. waiting period laws have a good stance that if someone needs a gun NOW then they are thinking of violence, and in this case if his mother had properly secured the firearm then things could have turned out a bit differently. 

mostly i dont object to background check legislation, legislation that requires training, and waiting period demands. what i do object is the continual push for "this one feature of firearms is universally bad". thats the argument of people who dont want guns at all and they will continually picking on feature after feature until the only firearms that are left are ones designed in the 1850s.


----------

