Another mass shooting in America

[texshred777]

Well, are stores selling WWII bullets or freshly manufactured ones (serious question, again I have no clue)? Someone mentioned earlier that if we banned guns and ammo that there are still plenty usable bullets out there. That is how it got brought up.

Well, if you go to Walmart or Academy it's going to be new ammunition. The previously mentioned surplus ammo can be found in stores as well, but either gun stores or surplus stores.

I was just confused when black market ammo got put into the mix. My first thought was that the two rounds mentioned were in no way black market ammo.

 

[EOT]

When are we going to have the talk about gun control if not when it just resulted in the death of multiple CHILDREN at an ELEMENTARY school? Stewart had a bit about this, go watch it...gist being that there isn't a day that goes by where people don't die as a result of gun violence. If we can't talk about it following a horrific example of such, we would never be able to.

And if people didn't have the "security" of knowing they could kill lots of people in the space of a single minute (i.e. ONLY a gun), they'd be less likely to try and hurt someone. You wouldn't walk into a mall with a bag of rocks and try to nail people dead in the head, because you'd maybe get one before people took you down. With a gun, they have NO chance. If everyone was legally allowed to own a 9 round pistol, maybe the story would be different...but as it stands, you can own a fucking assault rifle if you wanted. When in God's name do you need an assault rifle if not war?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to just see what walking around something like a mall with the following sign does:

"This is not a gun"
"You're not dead"

....

"Both could easily be the case"

2 cents

You missed the point... The gun did not kill anyone. The deranged madman with no respect for human life did. If he didn't have a gun he would've used something else. A bomb maybe? A chemical weapon of some sort? In the end it doesn't matter. Crazy, deranged people will always find a way. Liberals in particular always point to the gun as being the problem when it's in fact the person. The only way to completely stop this sort of thing would be if the movie "Timecop" were a reality.

I just think it's incredibly sad that people always use these tragic events to try and implement some sort of gun ban. You should be mourning. You want to make a difference? How about trying to teach children right and wrong, and respect for human life. As well as trying to recognize and treat mentally unstable people.

 

[flint757]

Speaking of, what was his motivation for attacking the children??? Seriously. I know he killed his mom and brother, I believe, and the principal as well which hints to me that there was some turmoil at home, but that doesn't really explain him unloading on a bunch of elementary school students. I'm only curious because how ever psychotic the individual there is usually a reason of some sort even if absurd. That reason, if known, can hopefully prevent this from happening again or at least diminish the number of occurrences.

It's scary that people are out there like that. I can think of countless thugs who would NEVER hurt a child and then you have people like this.

[EDIT]

People don't 'use' these events in their favor in the sense you are meaning. People who begin attacking gun rights during tragedies are no more for gun rights any other time and some just feel empowered to attempt to prevent it from happening again by asking for change after such tragedies (when something is actually likely to happen versus the other 99% of the time). I know that is a small distinction, but the way you describe it makes it sound shady and it isn't (for the public, can't speak for politician's). It is ultimately a noble cause even if misguided in others' eyes.

 

[synrgy]

More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.

As has already been discussed, that is an invalid argument. Vehicles aren't designed with the intent to kill. Guns are. A mode of transportation is not comparable to a tool designed with the sole purpose of killing.

Also, I'm sorry I'm not participating in the "my e-penis is bigger because I'm expressing e-sympathy" thing.

 

[EOT]

Also, I'm sorry I'm not participating in the "my e-penis is bigger because I'm expressing e-sympathy" thing.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[EDIT]

People don't 'use' these events in their favor in the sense you are meaning. People who begin attacking gun rights during tragedies are no more for gun rights any other time and some just feel empowered to attempt to prevent it from happening again by asking for change after such tragedies (when something is actually likely to happen versus the other 99% of the time). I know that is a small distinction, but the way you describe it makes it sound shady and it isn't (for the public, can't speak for politician's). It is ultimately a noble cause even if misguided in others' eyes.

That's what I was saying...

Anyway, I don't really want to continue with this nonsense. There's no way for either side to "win" the argument. People think what they think and aren't likely to change there opinion. They usually see there side and only there side.

 

[ss22]

A few years ago I might have gotten impassioned about this issue but now, sadly, I'm resigned. No number of deaths, either in a single instance or cumulatively, will change a thing. Not 100, not 1,000, not 1,000,000. The US has an entrenched culture of firearms worship as enshrined in the holy gospel of their constitution. They will continue, now and forever more, to live and die by the sword (or gun, as it were).

 

[Watty]

More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.

Really!? Do you ride your gun to work?

Someone needs to make a meme for this now.

 

[that short guy]

As has already been discussed, that is an invalid argument. Vehicles aren't designed with the intent to kill. Guns are. A mode of transportation is not comparable to a tool designed with the sole purpose of killing.

Also, I'm sorry I'm not participating in the "my e-penis is bigger because I'm expressing e-sympathy" thing.

I very well could be wrong about this due to the very little time i spent looking it up, but the gun's original purpose was to make it easier to hunt for food. but like i said I didn't spend too much time researching so if I am wrong please let me know.

And you'll have to forgive me bro, I'm extremely tired and my brains moving pretty slow right now but I don't get your "e-penis" comment. please either PM me and explain it or just do it on here lol.

 

[synrgy]

I very well could be wrong about this due to the very little time i spent looking it up, but the gun's original purpose was to make it easier to hunt for food. but like i said I didn't spend too much time researching so if I am wrong please let me know.

And you'll have to forgive me bro, I'm extremely tired and my brains moving pretty slow right now but I don't get your "e-penis" comment. please either PM me and explain it or just do it on here lol.

Wasn't directed at anyone specific. Just like I was saying earlier, I'm not getting the admonishment being tossed around the net to people who aren't participating in the false sympathy.

I mean, any reasonable person will obviously find this a terrible tragedy beyond comprehension. Trying to pretend there's some imaginary period of time during which we can't discuss the ramifications if the action or the cause behind it seems misguided, to me, let alone proposing the idea that others who want to discuss these matters instead of e-mourning are somehow "wrong" for feeling however they feel. Everybody processes tragedy in their own way, and I don't appreciate the implication that I don't care about what happened just because I'm not pretending to cry about it. Like I said the first time, we can't very well have an honest discussion about what happened if the cause is off limits. That's all.

 

[potatohead]

More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.

Listen. You are the nine billionth person on planet earth to make this RIDICULOUS argument. Only children believe this.

CARS SERVE A PURPOSE OTHER THAN KILLING SOMETHING. Every single gun ever made was built with the sole intention of killing something, be it a human, a deer, etc.

A person can kill someone with anything they want. A gun is the easiest and most efficient way, and serves no other purpose.


Edit - Should have read this page looks like a bunch of guys jumped on this already

 

[potatohead]

A few years ago I might have gotten impassioned about this issue but now, sadly, I'm resigned. No number of deaths, either in a single instance or cumulatively, will change a thing. Not 100, not 1,000, not 1,000,000. The US has an entrenched culture of firearms worship as enshrined in the holy gospel of their constitution. They will continue, now and forever more, to live and die by the sword (or gun, as it were).

The only way it will change, is to grandfather it in. You can't simply ban guns and take them from people. You CAN enact new laws for applicable new generations and slowly change the mindset that way. It will take 100 years, but it's something.

Switzerland and Israel both have high gun ownership because of the military service their citizens perform, but they are kept at home and locked up. Same thing here, it's easy enough to get a handgun but if you are ever found with it out of your home and not on the way to or from the range with it locked in the trunk, say goodbye to your gun.

 

[Watty]

You missed the point... The gun did not kill anyone. The deranged madman with no respect for human life did. If he didn't have a gun he would've used something else. A bomb maybe? A chemical weapon of some sort? In the end it doesn't matter. Crazy, deranged people will always find a way. Liberals in particular always point to the gun as being the problem when it's in fact the person. The only way to completely stop this sort of thing would be if the movie "Timecop" were a reality.

The human pressed a "button," the gun fired, and a child died. Would we not be less cavalier with our intentions if it were the case that pressing that button did nothing? I've said that people suck, which you reiterated; this does not excuse the fact that the ease of use of the gun prompted some of instigation for the behavior in the end..

So, if we remove the ease by which these individuals CAN act on their violent proclivities, then why not do so? And again, you have to KNOW HOW to make a bomb (that will actually do anything). You have to KNOW how to mix chemicals in such a way that will kill people in a given situation. A gun requires neither of these. All you need if what you already have: money, a US DL (I assume?), and time for the permit to go through. If you hadn't noticed, most of America has these requirements met, whereas perhaps 0.00001% of the world, let alone the country, can make an effective bomb or chemical weapon.

I just think it's incredibly sad that people always use these tragic events to try and implement some sort of gun ban. You should be mourning. You want to make a difference? How about trying to teach children right and wrong, and respect for human life. As well as trying to recognize and treat mentally unstable people.

I think it's sad that we even have to debate whether or not it's sad. People are dead right now because people are blindly following what should be a living document, one that evolves in parallel with society. And please don't try and refute this by saying its nature is static, we amended it to abolish slavery when we "realized" that it was wrong. Times have changed, and so should we. And yes, teaching children right from wrong should be our highest priority, but "forcing" parents to teach certain things would be stepping on their toes in a fashion INFINITELY more controversial. I'll be the conservatives would have a fucking field day with that one.

"This just in....Breaking news from Bullshit Mountain..."

Anyway, I don't really want to continue with this nonsense. There's no way for either side to "win" the argument. People think what they think and aren't likely to change there opinion. They usually see there side and only there side.

*their

Religious people do this all the time in arguments (I pay a lot of attention to it which is why I mention it). They'll say that Atheists are close minded, despite the fact that their faith only allows for ONE interpretation of, well, everything. In the context of this argument, you're digging in your heels on the fact that it is a right guaranteed in the 2nd amendment, and everything else is secondary to this fact. Well, I don't deal in absolutes, especially when it comes to innocent people (let alone children) being killed.

I am, however, open to ANY compromise that would make the most sense in the context of our present day society. If that happens to be something like the Swiss model where everyone has mandatory gun training of some sort (at least those in a demographic most likely to commit a crime insofar as the US is concerned) and gun control is strictly enforced, then fine. I think it should be said though, that this isn't likely to eliminate all of these sorts of events, which is the ultimate goal. Thus, there is no argument that you can give me as to why ANYONE can legally own their own arsenal that would be good enough to outweigh the horrors that result from their presence in the general populace. Perhaps it's a bit Utilitarian of me to suggest this, but hey, sometimes we need to consider people other than ourselves when it comes to their possible death. Maybe we could "give up" just this ONE "right" in an effort to alleviate even just ONE life lost.

 

[that short guy]

Wasn't directed at anyone specific. Just like I was saying earlier, I'm not getting the admonishment being tossed around the net to people who aren't participating in the false sympathy.

I mean, any reasonable person will obviously find this a terrible tragedy beyond comprehension. Trying to pretend there's some imaginary period of time during which we can't discuss the ramifications if the action or the cause behind it seems misguided, to me, let alone proposing the idea that others who want to discuss these matters instead of e-mourning are somehow "wrong" for feeling however they feel. Everybody processes tragedy in their own way, and I don't appreciate the implication that I don't care about what happened just because I'm not pretending to cry about it. Like I said the first time, we can't very well have an honest discussion about what happened if the cause is off limits. That's all.

Agreed, I don't think this topic should be off limits by any means. My only complaint is that people are focusing too much on the gun and not enough on the man, and what caused him to do it. And if someone gets neg rep'd in this whoever did it needs to get over the fact that someone else has a different opinion. As far as I can tell we're all being polite and curtious of each others opinions and no one is being disrespectful to the victims today.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Oh yeah, you'll need the guns for when the damn 'govment turns on you... Please, tell me how handguns are supposed to stop a full military operation. The US military (or any other military) will roll all over you.

I dont know, man. If the last few armed conflicts we've been involved with have proven anything, it's that armed civilians can cause some serious grief against a force armed with significantly better weapons, technology and strategies. Mujahadin aren't coming at us in Apache attack helicopters in Iraq, after all.

By pointing that out I'm not saying we should be able to have whatever weapons we want so we can deal with the extremely unlikely case that the government turns its military might on its own citizens, I just felt like pointing it out . In fact, a better argument to use would be "The government is never going to turn its military on the civilian populace, your overparanoid dickbag," not "civilian firearms won't be able to stop the military."



On a lighter note, if the US is just going to keep sticking its head in the sand every time the issue of what to do about gun violence comes up, then perhaps we should consider there's another thing we can ban in order to prevent school shootings...




...SCHOOLS.

BAN ALL SCHOOLS!!!

 

[sawtoothscream]

Also, so your proposed alternative is...?

In this situation the only real thing I can see that would have helped would be to have armed guards in the schools or at least a metal detector. If someone wants to kill bad enough they will find a way, if he didnt have a gun im sure he would still have went on a killing spree. What would unarming innocent people do? Look at Australia for example they banned guns and there crime rate increased.

What do you think should be done?

 

[Watty]

^ Oh, how I do love it when people comment on a serious issue utilizing facts that could be pertinent, but then fall flat because their ability to write coherently is lacking.

 

[EOT]

Some text about "Bullshit mountain"...

Bombs aren't that hard to make. Look at all of them over in Iraq being made by uneducated, 3rd world people. How many people have been killed or disfigured by these? People will always find weapons...

I never said anything about forcing anybody to do anything. Only that human moral and values have been declining for quite some time. It's only getting worse. That's what needs fixed.

And what is limiting the kind of gun you can own going to do? Have you looked at California's gun laws? They're pretty damn strict. Last I checked there's no shortage of crime out there. Saying people shouldn't be able to own certain types of weapons is like saying you can only have kitchen knives that are under 3". Or cars with no more than 100 hp. Or houses no more than 1000 sq ft per 2 people... This could go on for days.

You still don't get my point. I'm out. Like I said, people usually only see "their" own opinion as true.

 

[ss22]

In this situation the only real thing I can see that would have helped would be to have armed guards in the schools or at least a metal detector. If someone wants to kill bad enough they will find a way, if he didnt have a gun im sure he would still have went on a killing spree. What would unarming innocent people do? Look at Australia for example they banned guns and there crime rate increased.

What do you think should be done?

I respectfully call "bullshit" on that claim about Australia.

The Coalition's gun ban was enacted in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre.

Here are the homicide stats:

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

 

[Jzbass25]

I really really don't want to get into this debate mostly from having a terrible migraine but I have to say a few things: (excuse any rambling I may do, this headache is a real head spinner)

1) I don't think society is losing its morals or human values, there has been much worse done in the past, some of which in the name of values and morals. Some blame lack of faith currently as the issue too, I really don't want to get into that argument but I disagree there too. Though I do think mental illness may be increased depending on many variables, 1 being population density, I won't get into the others because they're tedious and debated

2) I do not think the public should have access to just any sort of guns unless possibly they pass some form of rigorous testing but I see no point unless there is some reason a need for militia(but if the government turns on us we won't be fighting long once they decide to jam the missiles up our asses). The prime directive of a fully automatic weapon is killing each other, sometimes in large numbers or to make your odds of hitting your foe higher. A hunting rifle can be used for killing humans sure, but it isn't as quick at killing and no one actually hunting for sport or for food is going to use an automatic weapon to kill their prey. "Well I killed our meal but the meat is ruined and full of holes."

I also think just to own a gun you should need a permit and have to at least have a thorough mental evaluation. Some will debate that if they really wanted a gun then they'd get one, sure that may be the case but we sure can narrow down the scope if we make it a little more tedious to get a weapon, at the very least it can attach your face to the weapon. Not everyone has the ability to find black market guns even if they are mentally unstable, that may even be a hindrance on their ability to buy guns under the table.

Obviously nothing is 100% since horrible people always will exist until either a) tom cruise starts working for a precrime division, b) modern medicine cures it all or c) We all die out probably by our own stupid, selfish hands fighting over some pointless patch of land

We can't look at a tragedy like this and say well there's nothing we can do about gun crimes in general because that isn't true, there is something we can do about gun crimes but there may not be much we can do against tragedies short of having armed guards literally everywhere (cops don't have the ability to be everywhere at once)

 

[flint757]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?


That's what I was saying...

Anyway, I don't really want to continue with this nonsense. There's no way for either side to "win" the argument. People think what they think and aren't likely to change there opinion. They usually see there side and only there side.

I know. The way you originally said it though sounded more devious than what it really is. We are all working at a common goal from different angles.

Agreed, I don't think this topic should be off limits by any means. My only complaint is that people are focusing too much on the gun and not enough on the man, and what caused him to do it. And if someone gets neg rep'd in this whoever did it needs to get over the fact that someone else has a different opinion. As far as I can tell we're all being polite and curtious of each others opinions and no one is being disrespectful to the victims today.

I asked a couple posts back, but no one answered.

Did anyone ever get his motive?

I dont know, man. If the last few armed conflicts we've been involved with have proven anything, it's that armed civilians can cause some serious grief against a force armed with significantly better weapons, technology and strategies. Mujahadin aren't coming at us in Apache attack helicopters in Iraq, after all.

By pointing that out I'm not saying we should be able to have whatever weapons we want so we can deal with the extremely unlikely case that the government turns its military might on its own citizens, I just felt like pointing it out . In fact, a better argument to use would be "The government is never going to turn its military on the civilian populace, your overparanoid dickbag," not "civilian firearms won't be able to stop the military."



On a lighter note, if the US is just going to keep sticking its head in the sand every time the issue of what to do about gun violence comes up, then perhaps we should consider there's another thing we can ban in order to prevent school shootings...




...SCHOOLS.

BAN ALL SCHOOLS!!!

The Middle East isn't the best example because they have home field advantage and mountains. We have an uphill battle over there.

Bombs aren't that hard to make. Look at all of them over in Iraq being made by uneducated, 3rd world people. How many people have been killed or disfigured by these? People will always find weapons...

I never said anything about forcing anybody to do anything. Only that human moral and values have been declining for quite some time. It's only getting worse. That's what needs fixed.

And what is limiting the kind of gun you can own going to do? Have you looked at California's gun laws? They're pretty damn strict. Last I checked there's no shortage of crime out there. Saying people shouldn't be able to own certain types of weapons is like saying you can only have kitchen knives that are under 3". Or cars with no more than 100 hp. Or houses no more than 1000 sq ft per 2 people... This could go on for days.

You still don't get my point. I'm out. Like I said, people usually only see "their" own opinion as true.

The people in the middle east making bombs are not morons and are trained to make bombs. Your average joe in america won't be so lucky as far as practice and access to knowledge. The people who handle bombs typically lose a couple fingers as well so there are plenty of deterrents for people to even bother making bombs. Gun's are easy and contain no risk to the user. Even if it wasn't too hard to make one it is certainly harder than point and shoot.

As for Cali, it is surrounded by pro-gun states so it isn't surprising that they have crime/gun problems even with their laws. Also, bordered quite nicely to Mexico as well. It isn't the legislation that is the issue it is the open door. You start closing some of those doors and things begin to work themselves out.