CONNECTICUT SHOOTING

KingArthur, you can't argue that the easy availability of guns made this mass murder happen. I mean, they probably walked in and out of the 'gun store'. Practically anyone who meets to extremely easy requirements to purchase one can do this.

If it wasn't guns, the guy could have just as easily chosen some other form of weapon implement and went on a killing spree with that instead. The end result is ultimately the same because the psycho remains a psycho and nothing is done to address that, people will die at his hands one way or the other eventually.

Also, if we 'take these naughty boys to the shrink', what is the purpose of guns afterward? For your average human being to protect themselves against a zombie-alien monster invasion? (probably)

The same reason that countries keep standing military forces in times of peace: To act as a deterrent to anyone who might possibly bear ill will. Crime will occur at some point, we can't possibly prevent 100% of crimes from ever occuring, thus I believe a person has a right to obtain some kind of weapon if they feel they require it to safeguard their livelihood. An outsider can't speak lightly of the matter either, for all you know the guy feeling endangered might really be living in a legitimately dangerous environment that would warrant some kind of weapon.

Plus in the case of the USA, the Constitution specifically grants citizens the right to bear arms and to allow use of said arms within the bounds of law such as for self-defense. The Second Amendment stems from a general distrust in central governments resulting largely from the days of the Colonial period when civilians were ordered to house British soldiers in their homes at their expense, among other overbearing actions taken by the British government. The Second Amendment has deep roots with America's history and it's most definitely not something that someone can point to lightly and say "you're wrong, make guns illegal".

Besides that, deeming civilian ownership of guns illegal and prohibited is an obvious breach of the US Constitution and cannot stand as law under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court unless the Constitution itself is amended. Such a move however implies a stronger central government and a weaker public, which is something most Americans do not view with much pleasure in general.

also you should ready liberty's post one more time and consider some things before you post once more

Not sure what you're suggesting here. The fact she mentioned no one was shot to death? That really doesn't matter as long as the fact remains that murders occur, a person dead is a person dead.

and sure there is no reason to ban smaller, less powerful weapons that aren't as capable of as much murder as the weapons that man used
and will you ever get the message through to people who are that insane anyway?

A gun can kill a person just as easily as any physical object imaginable, crying for gun control as an answer to mass murders is the same as suggesting we ban every single object that can possibly be used to kill someone; to say otherwise is contradictory and a double standard.

Honestly, the whole point I'm trying to convey here is that simply shouting that guns are responsible for mass murders and that that gun control is the end-all-be-all answer to mass murders is ignorant and irresponsible. Anyone who does so is simply using guns as a scapegoat and trying to run from the responsibility of creating and maintaining a society that discourages mass murderers from appearing and disciplining those that do appear.

If you really want to prevent mass murders from happening, the proper way to address it is to ask why the murderer went on the killing spree and then look to properly face it head on. What was his motive? Why was he motivated so? Did he have a less-than-ideal educational background or childhood? Did he follow a problematic philosophy or belief? Did no one pick up on any dangerous signs the murderer might have been showing? Were there other problematic people around him (peer pressure)?

These questions and a whole lot more are what we should truly be asking instead of crying for stricter gun control if we want to properly address the issue of mass murders and murders in general; you can remove all the guns you want but the murderer will still kill people unless the murderer himself is addressed.

Now I ask you: Are you willing to face the problem head on and properly address any possible flaws in society that led to this crime (including but not limited to gun control)? Or are you going to take the easy way out and place all the blame on guns?

author=harmonic
Yeah so, do you know how many people I could kill tomorrow, just by driving my car into a busy downtown sidewalk? It would be a bloodbath. All it would require would be my willingness to do so. Outlaw cars.

...and that's why we have car control laws! Age restrictions, tests, licenses (that require renewals), history checks, insurance and umpteen laws, rules and regulations on their use and ownership!

Anywho, as for the question directed at me... the best I can say is I used to volunteer in "Canada's worst neighbourhood" (though I don't believe that claim) and also lived for three years in an apartment in Surrey, BC's core area (often walking home after my shift ended at 1230am). I have zero experience with USA innercity.

Anywho, I guess what I see is that a gun is more likely to escalate a situation than act as any sort of deterrent. But thats just a feel, man.

author=SqueakyReaper
How many died during the shooting compared to the slashing?

Answer: 28 dead to 0.

Fortunately, but that isn't always the case: School attacks in China (2010–2011)

I do agree that firearms will make you more successful though, yes.

author=kentona
Even if guns weren't as accessible, kerosene and matches are, or stuff to make explosives.

The worst mass killing of children in US history didn't involve firearms at all, but just that... Explosives and fire. It was a very long time ago in 1927.

Bath School Disaster

Anyway, this is cold analysis but the social effects of rampage killings are stronger than the body counts. I'm a lot more concerned with frequency than lethality. People being afraid has long-lasting effects.

author=KingArthur
Japan is a perfect example of this: Japan prohibits ordinary citizens from obtaining guns, it's straight out prohibited and illegal to own guns in Japan. Nonetheless, there have been mass murders in Japan where the murderers in question have used anything from knives to cars to poison gas. Now what, are we going to ban people from driving cars?

Touting stricter gun control simply isn't going to eradicate mass murders, history reinforces this fact. Yes, gun control is indeed an important topic that most definitely merits discussion and debate on a national level, but the topic of gun control is simply and completely unrelated to the issue of preventing mass murders simply because lack of guns don't prevent mass murders.

Personally, I feel the answer is better education and mental health counseling. Directly approach, interact with, and help the would-be-murderers from becoming real murderers instead of simply taking one of their toys away from them and calling it a day.

What if instead of picking Japan we pick samples at random? Let's say 20 random countries which prohibits citizens from owning guns and 20 random countries which does not are chosen and then we compare. I wonder what results we would get then.

Anyway, I definitely agree that taking away their guns and calling it a day isn't a good solution, but maybe it's best to take away their guns and do what you suggested. One solution doesn't exclude the other.

Reading them, the majority of the cases were injuries sustained.

The first were eight children killed with a knife. The second had only injuries sustained, no deaths reported. The same month another attack, but again, no deaths reported (which is surprising considering the children were around 4 years old). Again that month an attack, this time inflicting injury to one child with a hammer.

Then seven children and two adults were killed with a cleaver the next month, leaving another 11 wounded. That one was by the actual land owner of the school who wanted them to move out. The same month there was a college attack resulting in only injuries.

A few months later a man attacked 20 children and staff, killing three of the children and one of the teachers.

A year later some children and staff were injured by a staff member with a box cutter. The next month a young girl and three parents were killed by a man with an axe.

Most of these attacks were made by males over the age of 30 - which is quite different to most American school killings. I'm now wondering how many knife attacks occur in American schools, since comparing guns to knives is like comparing apples to oranges in this aspect.

But in that article, the most heinous attacks were against younger children who couldn't fight back and that's when the most deaths occurred. I can only imagine that if they'd had guns at their disposal the death toll would have been immeasurably worse.

The best solution is all weapons of every kind gone forever and psychos gone forever.

Sadly, not an option.

The next option is better gun "control." Screenings, history checks, etc. Sadly, I've been hearing that the recent psycho didn't even own the guns he used to kill those kids with. So, even if he didn't qualify to get guns, he still managed to get them.

Another option is to ban guns from being legally bought by anyone. Making something illegal does not prevent it from being smuggled into the country, as is the case with drugs. Drugs are controlled/illegal, yet in abundance. Therefore, the only people who are prevented from getting guns are law abiding citizens.

Research says there's approximately 90 guns owned per 100 people living in the United States. Apparently only 12% of civilian weaponry is registered with authorities. My problem is that it's too easy to obtain weapons, legally or illegally. There's too many guns, too easy to get.

Gun control should be reactionary to the thousands of gun related deaths per year. There's nothing control or even a gun ban could do to stop mass murderers/serial killers.

Well, I may as well put my two cents in.

I think that guns most certainly shouldn't be banned, it wouldn't really have that much of an affect I'd think. I like what other people have said before: No one is going to not shoot up a place because it's illegal to have a gun; be it they get it through smuggling, stealing it from an officer, or making it on their own, the people who are going to go killing people with guns are going to get guns anyway. Also, arresting people for having guns isn't going to help anybody, and would probably put even more of a damper on the economy. If anything, I do believe a mental screening would help a little, but only a little.

author=Sailerius
Countries with gun bans have significantly lower violent crime rate than the US.

This is a poor comparison.
The US is so large and diverse that, for all practical purposes, it is a bunch of separate countries. The differences between Texas and North Dakota are night and day. Comparing the entire USA against somewhere like Norway is like comparing Europe to Japan.