Another school shooting in US.

[woodrot]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Surely the opposite woodrot. Time for America to

> change its constitution.

Dead ex Pres Chas heston of the NRA stated they would take his gun out of cold dead hands - many will see this appalling slaughter as another reason to get everyone tooled up.Conneticut is a liberalish state and I am a bit surprised it happened there of all places - the US is an amalgam of different attitudes and mindsets.

Those cunts at the NRA havent yet commented AFAIK, but im sure they will ejaculate some slime claiming that more guns = sense at some point

[Gingerbeer]

Damn Huguenot, take a deep breath.

1. I dont "justify" guns. I would happily see gun reform in the U.S. I deplore guns (including hunting), would not and do not use them.

2. No, I do not consider the attacks equivalent.

3. My point was that while yes, gun control is part of the issue, the fact is that removing access to guns does not stop people from engaging in senseless, vicious attacks on innocent people. To immediately blame the entire situation on guns is short-sighted.

4. "Normal", mentally stable, balanced people do not go on rampages. For true reform to take place, mental health needs to somehow be brought into the equation. For example: I am not a felon. Therefore, I can buy any kind of automatic weapon that I wish. However, I have been under psychiatric care for many years. This is not taken into consideration when issuing me my new weapon. Should I even be allowed to purchase one?

What is staggering are your assumptions about my opinions and meaning. In the future, might I suggest asking for clarification from someone you "like" before working yourself into an unhealthy state of... whatever it is youre in.

[Huguenot]

No Gingerbeer, there is no reason why you should be able to purchase a gun at all.

These peculiar tangential arguments Americans get into about gun control are conjuror's misdirections.

You brought up China because you wanted to redirect focus from this horrific mass murder in Connecticut, that much is obvious.

Why you would want to do that is anyone's guess, because the only real question is what is so mental in the head of Americans that they would want to discuss anying other than why a mentally ill man has 3 guns and 20 dead children in a kindergarten.

[Otta]

"3. My point was that while yes, gun control is part of the issue, the fact is that removing access to guns does not stop people from engaging in senseless, vicious attacks on innocent people. To immediately blame the entire situation on guns is short-sighted. "

This is undoubtedly true, but the simple fact remains that if these people have access to a gun when they snap, they're going to do a lot more damage.

[Gingerbeer]

Huguenot -- I can appreciate your opinions, and even respect them. I see your posts and often think them intelligent, some times I even laugh. From those I can get some "sense" of you. However, I do not know you. I dont pretend to know what you think, what you feel, what you know, or your motivations. I would appreciate you do the same for me.

[Gingerbeer]

Otta --- I agree with you. Unfortunately, the fact is this: the US will never, NEVER, disallow the owning of firearms. There are too many people who cling too tightly to the 2nd Ammendment for it to happen. Cases brought to the Supreme Court have consistently upheld the right to bear arms. Right or wrong, thats the state of things. Because of that, the only solution I see is to work within the parameters of people owning guns. Checks and balances, mental health screenings, more tightly controlled access.... I dont know what the answer is. But Im afraid it is one that has to work within/around the reality of people owning weapons.

[*Bob*]

Ultimately, the question is one of whether a majority of Americans (and political reps thereof) feel that the rights of anybody and everybody to have as many guns as they please - are more important than the 10,000 people a year who get killed by them. And I think you'd have to conclude (in the light of this being only the latest in a long line of incidents which - let's face it - have nowhere to go on the shock-factor front) that 'they do'. It's simply a cold, hard fact - with or without any sort of moral judgement on the matter.

When you're outside, looking in, it's hard to appreciate how ingrained something can be in a different country and culture. An American close relative who stayed with us recently - in every respect intelligent, liberal, educated, young, groovy.. 'just like us', posted on Facebook last week about his trip to a gun fair, shopped around, tried a few, bought a couple. Just like that. Is he suddenly an idiot? Or do you have to accept that there's something so deeply imbedded there that it's going to be one hell of a thing to undo?

[KidKruger]

Houston is not a sh1thole.

[StraferJack]

I would liken it to Northern Ireland (to pick just one example)

I know plenty of well adjusted, sound people on both sides. But once inculcated its much much harder to turn around. And the prejudices held can be extraordinary

However, a with Northern Ireland, you can't just shrug and say that's how it is. You have to push and push and continue to show people their beliefs have consequences

[indiepanda]

I know the mother of one of the children that was killed in this shooting. I can't begin to imagine what she and the others affected are going through right now.

I hope Obama has the will to push through some changes in the gun law in response to this, but I fear that this will happen over and over again, with more innocent lives being wrecked senselessly.

[*Bob*]

With 250,000,000 guns in circulation (or whatever it is now) you have to wonder if the genie will ever go back in the bottle.

[Otta]

That's just it, even if guns were made illegal, how many people wouyld just keep theirs in the drawer anyway.

It's not even so much guns, it's the type of guns. I personally don't believe people should have guns at all, but just say I did feel that one should have a gun with which to protect their homes, surely a small hand gun will do the job, you don't need a feckin assault rifle!

[Huguenot]

Exactly Otta, the point about the constitutional right to bear arms is another red herring.

The right to bear arms doesn't specify which arms are or are not acceptable. Clearly the US population doesn't feel that it gives them the right to have nuclear or biological weapons in private ownership.

This then becomes a matter of degree. The US population is quite capable of passing legislation that prevents the sale of automatic or assault weapons with extended cartridges. Many of these accessories have only become available in the last few years.

Mass murder is a lot more difficult with a bolt action rifle or revolver.

The US would do a lot better when it stops lying to itself that their 11,000 gun murders a year are not because of guns, or that they somehow have equivalence with other developed nations, or that somehow their constitution prevents them from resolving the matter.

Childish, hypocritical denial.

[Top Banana]

For a slightly different perspective - try this...

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

[maxxi]

Otta - "It's not even so much guns, it's the type of guns."

Huge - "Mass murder is a lot more difficult with a bolt action rifle or revolver. "

But unfortunately not impossible as we found out after Dunblane. That's the problem. One category of guns was outlawed after Hungerford but it took the massacre of 16 children by a man armed with four handguns to outlaw them too.

[Mick Mac]

SJ. I'm surprised you include Northern Ireland in this debate. Ironically we have not had a Dunblane type incident. There are no people who I know of who support legalisation of arms.

[woodrot]

Are any of these merican gun holders actually part of an organised militia ?

teh second amendment is clear on the reason for retention of weapons, clues like " well regulated militia" sorta give the game away - but teh gun lobby tends be a bit flexible about this succint point

Then again, pretty much half of mericans believe in creationism and take it literally - no deviation or flexibility allowed

This wouldnt have happened if the Glorious Empire had given these shouty idiots a proper shoeing back in the 18th century, rather than baling out to oversee the rest of the known world innit.

/not an anti merican post btw.

[StraferJack]

Mick

The NI reference isn't to do with guns or ownership of... It was to say that entrenched views which seem impossible to change can be changed. A couple of posters were suggesting no point hoping for a change in US attitudes to gun ownership.

[Huguenot]

For half the population of the US it seems that ownership of weapons is massive over compensation for deep seated inadequacies. They reach for their handguns like a 4 year old boy's hand strays for his groin when anxiety strikes.

These people are willing to let children die to hide their failure.

The other half seem stuck in some sort of hopeless Stockholm Syndrome where they genuinely believe these myths about the Constitution, about international equivalency, or that guns don't hurt people.

[Jeremy]

I agree with SJ, people's views can change, especially over the span of a couple of generations. If it's at all possible for any good to come out of this, hopefully a lot of people will start to question the wisdom of gun ownership.

[Alec John Moore]

The pro gun views seem to be so entrenched that it may take generations if it happens at all. particularly when they are supported by books like this:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355687849&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

So, more guns mean less crime. I suppose this is a small arms version of the mutually assured destruction idea behind the nuclear arms race which has apparently prevented WW3.

I did also hear on R4 someone on the NRA side of the debate saying that the response to the killings on Friday should be to arm security staff in schools! That would seem to be a dangerous escalation to us but the mentality - and the stats, apprently - claim otherwise.

[KidKruger]

No it's not a small-arms version of the mutually-assured destruction of nuclear weapons, because with handguns people are not necessarily only going to use them ONLY if the opponent suddenly whips out their gun.

No similarities at all.

Look forward to years of record-breaking attempts and beating the highest death toll.

Perhaps next it'll be shopping malls or restaurants - like George Hennard did.

[Alec John Moore]

A fair point, I was thinking of the arms race aspect of this so the pro gun people will say that we need more people with guns to protect ourselves from the other people with guns. We will use them sensibly, for protection, while others - perhaps those with mental health problems - will take it upon themselves to use extreme violence to promote their solution to the problem - whatever it is - and we need to protect ourselves from them. They and their distorted ideology represent the problem, not the gunds themselves. A gun is only a tool - OK a tool for killing animals and people if they threaten our personal safety - but it is prefectly safe in the right hands with proper training and storage etc.

But, if there was more gun control there would be fewer mass killings, surely? Maybe it's too complex a situation in the US with federal and state laws providing varying degrees of control and limitations to access to weapons that would seem to us to beyond any reasonable justification. I'm thinking of assault rifles. The alleged shooter on Friday had hundreds of rounds available to him. This was presumably because his mother was a survivalist who was preparing for the apocalyse!

If you expect there to be copy cat killings in the years to come then what's your suggestions for preventing that?

[*Bob*]

This was a copycat killing, was it not?

[KidKruger]

For good reason the responsibility for solving the issue does not rest with me.

I don't know all the facts / figures so am not best to decide.

I think people generally cannot be trusted with dangerous things.

Guns is a good example.

Unless there's a need (like farmers) then no guns.

None at all.

I believe that in another 3-5 years, with another, oh, 15-30 school massacres under it's belt, America will start thinking sensibly. They'll be forced to, because there'll be so many people affected who are determined to prevent repeats of such tragedies.

There will be a point (if mass killings of this nature continue) that most sensible people realise the guns have to go

Clearly we're not there yet.