Jump to content
1892-LFCWasBorn

Another fucking school shooting (this time a primary school) in the U.S.

Recommended Posts

I think what i actually said was more determined (they'll still get guns) or creative (you don't need guns to reek havoc as evidenced by my example earlier and countless others) if you think thats wrong in the face of evidence then it's up to you.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you think will happen if/when they ban guns (and i'll repeat it sonce you've ignored a previous post, i think they should). Will these very deranged and evil people give up their plans and work for the church or go on to be upstanding members of the community or will they still commit atrocious acts but just have to work that little bit harder to obtain the guns?

 

Out of interest how many of the perpertrators of the recent ( say the past twenty to thirty years, since this isn't a new phenomenon and can be traced back to the 1700's if not further) cases have a license in the first place?

 

Given the massive percentage difference between the US and other countries with gun control laws when it comes to gun deaths it seems you are claiming that people in the US are just more homicidal. Given that it isn't gun control that reduces gun deaths how would you deal with the fact that a person born into US culture is just so massively more homicidal than one elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given the massive percentage difference between the US and other countries with gun control laws when it comes to gun deaths it seems you are claiming that people in the US are just more homicidal. Given that it isn't gun control that reduces gun deaths how would you deal with the fact that a person born into US culture is just so massively more homicidal than one elsewhere?

 

Am I?

 

Because i thought i was saying if somebody has those tendencies then it will take more than banning guns to stop them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I?

 

Because i thought i was saying if somebody has those tendencies then it will take more than banning guns to stop them.

 

Yes. You are.

 

By definition you are saying there are more of that type in the US (massively more) because banning guns wouldn't stop all the similar people in countries with gun control.

 

The US has massively more gun deaths. Gun laws don't homicidal stop people. Therefore the figure show massively more people of a homicidal nature in the US.

 

So...why do you think people in the US are so massively more homicidal than those in countries with gun control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. You are.

 

By definition you are saying there are more of that type in the US (massively more) because banning guns wouldn't stop all the similar people in countries with gun control.

 

The US has massively more gun deaths. Gun laws don't homicidal stop people. Therefore the figure show massively more people of a homicidal nature in the US.

 

So...why do you think people in the US are so massively more homicidal than those in countries with gun control?

 

I also said people would/could turn to other methods in the absence of guns so comparing purely gun stats has little meaning, we're not talking armed robbery here we're talking indiscriminate acts of mass murder.

 

People with homicidal tendencies will have the homicidal tendencies whether they use bombs, guns, knives or cars to wreak havoc.

 

If you want to talk the guns death stats themselves then gang culture and drugs will play a massive part and of the top listed countries i'd be shocked if the us wasn't up their with the likes of brazil, mexico etc.

Edited by Cardie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I?

 

Because i thought i was saying if somebody has those tendencies then it will take more than banning guns to stop them.

 

Has those tendencies? True, if we're dealing with an individual hell bent on causing death and destruction then gun laws probably wouldn't stop them. However that's not what we're dealing with here.

 

These are troubled individuals with serious mental health issues who experience a trigger moment that causes them to erupt. This trigger can be from a few days to a matter of moments. In those periods where their disordered thoughts takeover we can at least limit their access to high powered military spec weaponry capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute with 30 bullet clips.

 

Often over a relatively short period of time the disordered individual can pass through the event and pull back from the precipice. The whole point is to put obstacles in the way of the individual wishing to carry out such an act. As an example if they were forced to go to a local gun club to access registered weapons that were not allowed to be taken off site, this alone would provide enough time to alert the authorities and potentially avert such an event.

 

Even if they choose to see through these horrific acts it stands to reason that by limiting the choice of weapons to them would limit the destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also said people would/could turn to other methods in the absence of guns so comparing purely gun stats has little meaning, we're not talking armed robbery here we're talking indiscriminate acts of mass murder.

 

People with homicidal tendencies will have the homicidal tendencies whether they use bombs, guns, knives or cars to wreak havoc.

 

If you want to talk the guns death stats themselves then gang culture and drugs will play a massive part and of the top listed countries i'd be shocked if the us wasn't up their with the likes of brazil, mexico etc.

 

I love the idea that you specifically don't think that controlling the sale of devices designed for making killing lots of people easier would reduce deaths from indescriminate acts of mass murder.

 

It would.

 

Killing 25 people with a gun is easier than doing it with a hammer or a knife. You might as well just let everyone have RPGs if having better weaponry doesn't aid mass murder. Presumably you don't think the damage or number of these cases would increase if RPGs were in every house?

 

If there are dangerous people limiting the speed with which they can kill lots of people is a good thing. Hammers and knives are slow. That matters. They also don't inspire the acts in the way guns do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has those tendencies? True, if we're dealing with an individual hell bent on causing death and destruction then gun laws probably wouldn't stop them. However that's not what we're dealing with here.

 

These are troubled individuals with serious mental health issues who experience a trigger moment that causes them to erupt. This trigger can be from a few days to a matter of moments. In those periods where their disordered thoughts takeover we can at least limit their access to high powered military spec weaponry capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute with 30 bullet clips.

 

Often over a relatively short period of time the disordered individual can pass through the event and pull back from the precipice. The whole point is to put obstacles in the way of the individual wishing to carry out such an act. As an example if they were forced to go to a local gun club to access registered weapons that were not allowed to be taken off site, this alone would provide enough time to alert the authorities and potentially avert such an event.

 

Even if they choose to see through these horrific acts it stands to reason that by limiting the choice of weapons to them would limit the destruction.

 

Is it often just a moments lapse?

 

Columbine, for example, was a planned attack, an attack that never really came to fruition in the way they intended because it turns out they were shit at making bombs but marginally better at shooting things. They built over a 100 bombs, stockpiled weapons and trained for what they were going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love the idea that you specifically don't think that controlling the sale of devices designed for making killing lots of people easier would reduce deaths from indescriminate acts of mass murder.

 

It would.

 

Killing 25 people with a gun is easier than doing it with a hammer or a knife. You might as well just let everyone have RPGs if having better weaponry doesn't aid mass murder. Presumably you don't think the damage or number of these cases would increase if RPGs were in every house?

 

If there are dangerous people limiting the speed with which they can kill lots of people is a good thing. Hammers and knives are slow. That matters. They also don't inspire the acts in the way guns do.

 

 

But then I haven't said guns shouldn't be banned have I?

 

And doing it with bombs is easier again which also hasn't stopped people despite them not being in every household.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it often just a moments lapse?

 

Columbine, for example, was a planned attack, an attack that never really came to fruition in the way they intended because it turns out they were shit at making bombs but marginally better at shooting things. They built over a 100 bombs, stockpiled weapons and trained for what they were going to do.

 

You're quite right, this isn't black or white. Many of them are however momentary lapses though, not just in the US but in many other countries. However the sheer scale and frequency of these attacks are unique to the US because of not only the availability of guns but because of the types of guns available. How many have we seen in the US this year alone, half a dozen? Three in educational facilities, a cinemas, a place of worship. There was one in Portland only a couple of days ago.

 

It isn't happening on this scale anywhere else in the developed world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Per capita you are 10 times less likely to be killed by a gun in the UK than the US.

Guess who has gun controls and who doesn't

 

Guess who has far more organised crime and a far bigger gang culture.

 

Do you honestly think that drug barons and gangs would stop using guns because the us brought in controls.

 

It'll cut down on crimes of passion (or guns being the cause of it at least) your average joe sgooting trespassers in the face (though they may end up with a tire iron instead) or your average idiot shooting himself in the leg.

 

Your not going to stop gangs killing gangs or druggies killing druggies or psychos killing anybody.

Edited by Cardie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then I haven't said guns shouldn't be banned have I?

 

And doing it with bombs is easier again which also hasn't stopped people despite them not being in every household.

 

It's reduced the use. That's the central point you're not getting. If there was a bomb in every household they would be used like this a lot more. They aren't in every house so it reduces the access to them.

 

Nobody is arguing that gun control will stop people killing people. Just that it will help restricting it.

 

If this kid had an RPG or bombs in his kitchen cupboard it's likely more people would have died. Section put something on FB about a kid losing it at his school and running around chinning people. If he's got a gun at home he can do a quick round-trip and then do a lot more damage. Ease of access to things that kill people efficiently will lead to more people being killed. It ain't rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess who has far more organised crime and a far bigger gang culture.

 

Do you honestly think that drug barons and gangs would stop using guns because the us brought in controls.

 

No, of course the scum would continue to use guns as they do in the UK.

It is pretty bleedin obvious though that if fewer people have guns then fewer people would be able to commit the terrible event of the other day.

Stats are very clear on this. The fewer guns circulating in a country is pretty much directly related to the amount of gun crime.

If you have stats showing this is not the case i'd be very interested in seeing them. Ta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's reduced the use. That's the central point you're not getting. If there was a bomb in every household they would be used like this a lot more. They aren't in every house so it reduces the access to them.

 

Nobody is arguing that gun control will stop people killing people. Just that it will help restricting it.

 

If this kid had an RPG or bombs in his kitchen cupboard it's likely more people would have died. Section put something on FB about a kid losing it at his school and running around chinning people. If he's got a gun at home he can do a quick round-trip and then do a lot more damage. Ease of access to things that kill people efficiently will lead to more people being killed. It ain't rocket science.

 

For heat of the moment wiring going faulty great, but your big mainstream lots of people dead shootings tend to be pre-planned rage against the machine, stick your goodbye video on you tube and chain up all the exits planned events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, of course the scum would continue to use guns as they do in the UK.

It is pretty bleedin obvious though that if fewer people have guns then fewer people would be able to commit the terrible event of the other day.

Stats are very clear on this. The fewer guns circulating in a country is pretty much directly related to the amount of gun crime.

If you have stats showing this is not the case i'd be very interested in seeing them. Ta

 

Don't think you need stats to prove that the fewer guns in a country the better your chances of not being shot.

 

Gun control laws and guns in circulation are different things though.

 

If you have the stats to hand how does mexico, as an example, fare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico has a higher homicide rate via guns than the US but a lower % of homicides using guns.

Interestingly a large proportion of the guns used in Mexico are bought from gun shops in Texas.

Mexico is in the middle of a fucked up drug war as i'm sure you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Blaming lone lunatics is just fucking pathetic. As is this bullshit about how they'll just get more "creative"

 

"Lunatic breaks into school and punches/stabs/tickles 27 to death."

 

No. Not buying it.

What you' date=' and many others are completely failing to realise is that guns are not just the method of killings like this, they are the inspiration for them!.

People without easy access to weapons simply just don't dream up these ideas in the first place!

Someone blamed "the degredation of society" earlier on tv - well what causes that? I'll tell you: What cheapens the value of life over time more than cheap, freely available means of death, and an annual civilian death toll that exceeds most major international wars?

 

It's fucking insane.

 

No cunt needs a gun at home.[/quote']

 

Will rep when I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mexico has a higher homicide rate via guns than the US but a lower % of homicides using guns.

Interestingly a large proportion of the guns used in Mexico are bought from gun shops in Texas.

Mexico is in the middle of a fucked up drug war as i'm sure you know

 

Yep, which is why i asked.

 

To buy a gun legally in mexico you have to go through the army which, depending on the army, is either a very secure way or an easily corruptable way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×