CT School Shooting

Waymon3x6:

You can't really put a stop to it... Even if we were to limit gun use (yea right) suspects would still get a hold of them and commit crimes.

Right. But I'd rather have it so that some socially awkward loser has to illegally buy a gun off some sketchy dude in the black market rather than simply be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, or better yet, order one online.

Waymon3x6:

You can't really put a stop to it... Even if we were to limit gun use (yea right) suspects would still get a hold of them and commit crimes. The only thing I can really think of is if we armed the teachers or principal or had a gun safe installed in the school. But that's just crazy. Thoughts and prayers out to the folks in newtown.

Gun safety classes? Give me a break. My father spent 10+ years in the military & related outfits, first as a special forces operative and then in intelligence... He's seen how people react under life-threatening circumstances. Typically, unless someone is both highly trained and experienced, they respond very poorly to high pressure situations. People shit themselves. Literally. There's friendly fire. Their accuracy is awful. Some people completely freeze and can't even shoot. See: the NY empire state building shooting, where cops shot 10+ innocent civilians before getting their guy. To think that gun safety courses will prepare you for life-threatening situations is a complete fucking joke.

I've done martial arts my entire life (mostly muay thai). I had done very well in competitions throughout, before stopping at 22 when I was finishing up college. When it came to a bar fight around that time, I quickly got outnumbered, got a beer bottle smashed on my face, and basically got my ass kicked. Sure, I got some good hits in, but I wasn't prepared for the unpredictability of a real fight.

So just give up because it's going to happen regardless? Making it harder to access guns will make them less accessible and will reduce death rates. See: NYC , the rest of the developed world, etc. What's the best way to reduce gun violence in the U.S.? I don't know the exact answer, but I do know that "more guns" is not the right answer. "Fun" fact: The U.S. has a higher rate of gun-related deaths than Mexico, even though the latter has a brutal drug war going on.

HedgeHog:

RIP beautiful children. As a dad this makes me cry. Just like gay marriage and thousands of other issues, the idiotic gun control laws in this country need to change and certainly will in the next 10 years. Thank G d the republicans are irrelevant and the NRA and scared old folks in the country are fading into oblivion. How many more tragedies do we need? There is NO counter to this. Ban guns and this sh t is 99% less likely to happen. The British ain't comin, time to f*ckin move on....

if you're fucked enough in the head to do something like this, I don't think the fact that you don't have a gun is going to stop you from going FUCKING INSANE... pipe bombs aren't hard to make. you're not going to be able to stop stuff like this from happening, and if you wanted to try, you'd be better off worrying about the mental health of everybody and not what weapons they have access to.

PTS:

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

we should outlaw sharp eating utensils too....

This is the biggest BS article against gun control.

Pretty sure a knife can't kill people at range, kill people through walls, kill people through people, kill multiple people in a very short time frame regardless of whether the people are in close quarters or not, knives can't randomly spray up a room and maim and kill indiscriminately.

That, and the main purpose of knives is to prepare and eat food. The main purpose of guns is to shoot things, generally animals while hunting or people in self-defense.

I'm not some anti-gun nut, but arguing that someone once killed people with a knife, so we can't have stricter gun rules is a weak argument.

If anything, just have universal background checks to ensure that people who get guns are non-felons and don't have major mental issues. End of the day, we have WAY more gun violence than any other major modern country on Earth. Obviously, gun violence will never fully end, but why not make it more rare while still allowing law abiding citizens to get guns? Seems reasonable to me.

TNA:

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"

Are people in Japan not free?

Note - I'm not arguing for that level of gun laws, not even close. But, let's not argue that people won't be free if they need to have a background check / waiting period to get guns.

TNA:

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"

So does owning the gun make you more 'free' or 'secure' ?

TNA:

Go visit Arlington National Cemetery and take a look at all the brave men and women who dies protecting these rights we so frivolously want to throw away the second a news headline pops up. Those are all someones husband or son. Freedom isn't free boys and girls.

Like the brave soldiers at rest, the victims today were someone's son (or daughter). They are not some headline.

TNA:

The majority of gun violence is located in inner city sections. You exclude these outliers and the US is very safe. Yes, we have higher gun violence than other countries, but we also have more gun rights and freedoms. It is a trade off.

Go visit Arlington National Cemetery and take a look at all the brave men and women who dies protecting these rights we so frivolously want to throw away the second a news headline pops up. Those are all someones husband or son. Freedom isn't free boys and girls.

They all died protecting our right to bear arms? That was what WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq #1, Afghanistan, and Iraq #2 were about? That's why we were fighting? Because these countries were threatening our second amendment rights? Please. The second amendment was put in place to protect us against sovereign invaders , not our neighbors. And I'm not even calling for the outright ban of guns. I have no idea what the right solution is. I do know that we need stricter controls. Again, NYC has been a great example of what can happen under tighter enforcement.

TNA:

The majority of gun violence is located in inner city sections. You exclude these outliers and the US is very safe. Yes, we have higher gun violence than other countries, but we also have more gun rights and freedoms. It is a trade off.

Go visit Arlington National Cemetery and take a look at all the brave men and women who dies protecting these rights we so frivolously want to throw away the second a news headline pops up. Those are all someones husband or son. Freedom isn't free boys and girls.

I'm not sure whether your claim that the "majority of gun violence is located in inner city sections" is true or not, but assuming it is, if you were to implement stricter gun control laws / bans, then presumably it would become prohibitively costly to acquire a firearm (legally or otherwise). Therefore, residents of those "inner city sections" and frankly, anywhere, would be less likely to purchase them.

TNA:

Depends how you define free. And it took a couple nukes to free them now didn't it. Gun rights hold a special place in American history and freedom. It is the 2nd amendment, trumped only by freedom of speech. While this is horrible, this is the price we pay for having the right to bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. 4 A small majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, 5 with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. 7

So about 17,000 deaths in 2007 were due to people killing someone else, intentionally, with a gun.

0.006% of the US population

Price we pay for freedom.

By your logic, we shouldn't care about this school shooting. It's only 30 people or 0.00001% of the population. Hell, school shootings in general don't really matter then... A typical year has even less than that @ 10-20 people. Kids? Fuck 'em. Small price to pay for freedom.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 150-250k people total. That's just ~9-15 years of intentional American gun violence (I'm excluding the accidents, even though I don't think I should). Seems like a much more reasonable price to pay for freedom.

You need to look at comps . Our comps are other developed nations. We are far, far worse than the rest of the developed world when it comes to gun violence. Plain and simple.

Waymon3x6:

We need more guns, not less.

Why? Could someone from the US enlighten me please.

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health:

Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

Harvard researchers:

strong correlation between state-wide homicide rates and the fraction of households in a state that own firearms. While similar studies have been carried out in the past, this one is the first to include the entire nation and to use results available on a state-by-state level. When the data was adjusted for all the control variables, an extremely strong correlation was found between states with the highest levels of homes with firearms and the number of firearm-related homicides. Indeed, states in the top 25 percent of household firearm ownership had firearm-related homicide rates that were 114 percent greater than states that had household firearm ownership in the bottom 25 percent. Overall homicide rates were a full 60 percent higher in the same states.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2007/01/6601/

If you want to pull "correlation doesn't equate causation" - fine... But I just don't understand where someone gets the idea that even more guns would somehow lead to less killings.

TNA:

While this is horrible, this is the price we pay for having the right to bear arms.

This is the only statement from the pro-gun side that I can take serious in this thread. If the US as a society decides carrying around a gun is so fucking great that it's worth it to have a batch of elementary/ high school/ college students shot to death by the dozens every few weeks... um, I guess? It's fucked up, but at least it's honest.

Anybody who thinks more guns will result in increased safety/ security... please make your case, I honestly do not understand it!

chicandtoughness:

Not sure today is the right day to be having a damn gun-rights debate. Frankly, the moment I heard the news I got too pissed to continue work. Usually I'm desensitized to these things (had a few incidents at my high school, nowhere near as severe, that kind of made me shrug public violence off). But elementary schools? That's just fucked up. Shootings are bad enough, but why anyone would open fire on a classroom of 5-year-olds is beyond my comprehension.

Seriously, what the hell.

Quoted for truth.

I personally heard about this through a text message earlier today, as I have two nephews who were among the students evacuated... thank God. The message was pretty cryptic, so I went online to get more information. When I saw the body count (at 12 then) I was so pissed I had to stop working for a little while. I told my CFO who is an older woman and she just became exasperated: "This is it... we've lost it. We're all done..." I have to agree. I was pissed about the CO shooting, but this is on a whole other level.

I don't know. I personally think we can try to prevent these types of tragedies by beefing up security a little in places with high traffic and big crowds and especially at schools. At least at schools. My mother is a teacher at an elementary school in one of the nicest little towns in CT... They have one way in and you pretty much need an appointment with someone to get buzzed in through the two sets of doors. I know this is not completely effective, and I know we can't have security everywhere, all the time, but I think that is the mentality we need at schools now. I had numerous bomb threats while I was in school, and the response was to hire one more old man-security guard and make kids sign in and out of the bathroom... We apparently need to take this shit more seriously.

I know I'm quackin' at this point, but one final thought - I am thoroughly disappointed with the way the news is covering this, and the fact that each time something like this happens the first thing that comes up is gun control. I personally don't even think of gun control when this shit happens. Let's start small please.

mikesswimn:

Gunman has been identified as Ryan Lanza and his mother was a teacher at the school, additionally, her students appear to have been some of the victims.

Part of me wishes he was still alive so we could figure out why he would do something like this, so we could prevent it in the future. Presumably he had a beef with his Mom and somehow he wants to take it out on a bunch of little kids who she taught. That blows my mind.

I also have a hard time believing that some people think guns don't make it easier to kill someone since that is what they were designed to do. Knives do not equal guns. How best to regulate it? Above my pay grade. People that want guns will generally find a way to get them, but having them around certainly makes it much more likely that you can kill people in the heat of the moment. I grew up in a very gun friendly environment that did not have many murders (almost certainly had more guns than people). I did know some kids that were killed accidentally by kids messing around with their parent's guns and suicide was much easier with a gun. Arming teachers is definitely not a solution, for whomever brought that one up. That's just crazy talk. I have little kids and would never own a gun with them in the house. It's much more likely that they do something stupid with our gun than us being able to protect them with our gun.

West Coast rainmaker:

No law will keep you safe from a truly derranged individual (which this individual clearly was). Even if guns did not exist, this guy would be making bombs out of fertilizer or setting buildings on fire. You cannot control all the items that can potentially be used to inflict mass fatalities.

Remember Anders Breivik in Norway. And the nerve gas attacks in Japan. Crazy people will find a way to kill.

Yes, you can't control all items, but you can limit what people readily have access to. Creating a barrier is a good thing.

TNA:

I wish we never revolted against the British. We could still be a happy colony. To think of all the brave men who died to free us and preserve our freedoms and to see people just bleat to have those taken away makes it all in vein.

This country has become so full of tree hugging pussies it is unbelievable.

HedgeHog:

Enough stupid straw man and slippery slope arguments. Give me one good reason any civilian should legally be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that mildly based in the reality of 2012. N

do you even know what semi-automatic means? will you please stop talking until you know anything about what you're talking about?

glocks bad, revolvers ok?

HedgeHog:

Enough stupid straw man and slippery slope arguments. Give me one good reason any civilian should legally be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that mildly based in the reality of 2012. N

Mr. Smith is a math teacher in a CT elementary school. Mr. Smith is a handgun enthusiast and possesses a concealed carry license. Mr. Smith takes his weapon to school every day even though the administration would fire him if they found out. Mr. Smith hears a gunshot in the hallway. He unholsters his handgun from its ankle holster and peeks out into the hallway. He sees a 20-twenty something in a military vest walking down the hallway with a rifle. Mr. Smith draws his weapon and scores a headshot on the gunman. Zero innocent lives are lost that day.

HedgeHog:

Enough stupid straw man and slippery slope arguments. Give me one good reason any civilian should legally be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that mildly based in the reality of 2012. N

Totally agree with this. It's not a slippery slope at all. Other G8 countries have the same freedoms as America. Why do people even need to own a gun? It's 2012. Not like we're still in the hunter-gatherer stages of human civilization. It's borderline immature. Americans walking around like GI Joes? Why do other developed countries find the whole issue so stupid? Guiliani was on Piers Morgan last night and sounded like a complete moron on the subject. He said something like "norway or finland, or whatever the place was", in reference to the Norway shooting. Having a gun is not an important "freedom" to have.

The other comments about being able to take people out with knives are ridiculous. It's a totally different weapon.

What makes guns different is the ease of execution. Duh. I think people are way overstressed in America right now and they're reacting out of character. But the lapse can be treated. Building a bomb is totally different, there's a lot of planning involved and more time to think about the consequences. The person may decide it's not worth the effort.

Isn't it the same thing with suicide? Cities make fences on foot bridges two or three feet higher because it makes a huge difference psychologically. It gives people more time to think about the consequences and ultimately reconsider.

HedgeHog:

Enough stupid straw man and slippery slope arguments. Give me one good reason any civilian should legally be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that mildly based in the reality of 2012. Not that it matters..gun control is coming, long overdue.

You mean a hunting rifle? lol

Semi automatic means one trigger pull, one round fired. Fully automatic weapons are banned already.

Exactly. There are thousands upon thousands of responsible gun owners in the country who own big weapons as a hobby because they're fun. A sports car will get you from point A to point B just the same as a Toyota or Honda. Why do people own sports cars? Because they're fun.

The issue isn't with guns, it's with the person deranged enough to take out his anger on schoolkids. If somebody is that fucked up in the head, you don't think that they'd find another way to cause harm besides a gun?

Like I said before, drunk driving in this country is an epidemic. Why are there no calls to ban alcohol?

FlySoHigh:

...No one fights for your right to bear arms, despite the contrived logic of including it in the "defense of the constitution"...

Let's clarify here, YOU didn't fight for anyone's right to bear arms, but I did.

Regards

IvyGrad:

I find it highly disturbing that it's easier to buy a military-level assault gun (by just ordering it on-line) than it is to get a driver's license, here in the U.S.

In the meanwhile, it is almost impossible to even get a revolver in countries like Germany, Japan, UK, or pretty much any other developed nation besides U.S.

And don't tell me we need all these military-level assault guns to 'protect' our freedom.Yeah right. So that means people living in UK, Australia, Japan, or Germany aren't 'protecting' their freedom.

The only reason we still have this lax of gun laws is because anti-gun stance is a political suicide, for most law makers and politicians. NRA is a very powerful and rich organization and I suspect even the president of the U.S. doesn't have the power to over-ride pro-gun policies lobbied by NRA and gun manufacturers.

This. We're living a pretty decent life with less crime and no need to "protect our freedom" (lol..) over here. ivygrad hit the nail on its head in my opinion. Although I enjoyed shooting a gun at one of these weird gun ranges when I was in the US, I prefer living in a society where gun possession is restricted to cops and the army. There's just no need for an ordinary person to own a gun.

IvyGrad:

I find it highly disturbing that it's easier to buy a military-level assault gun (by just ordering it on-line) than it is to get a driver's license, here in the U.S.

In the meanwhile, it is almost impossible to even get a revolver in countries like Germany, Japan, UK, or pretty much any other developed nation besides U.S.

And don't tell me we need all these military-level assault guns to 'protect' our freedom.Yeah right. So that means people living in UK, Australia, Japan, or Germany aren't 'protecting' their freedom.

The only reason we still have this lax of gun laws is because anti-gun stance is a political suicide, for most law makers and politicians. NRA is a very powerful and rich organization and I suspect even the president of the U.S. doesn't have the power to over-ride pro-gun policies lobbied by NRA and gun manufacturers.

Really military level assault guns? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Besides the fact that that is not a real term, anything "military level" is fully automatic. Do you know how hard it is to buy a fully automatic weapon in the U.S.? To purchase a machine gun, not only does that gun need to have been registered before 1986, you must be fingerprinted, receive a signature from the chief law enforcement officer in your area, submit paper work to the BATFE, pass an extensive background check that often lasts for months, and pay a $200 tax. Did I mention that the cheapest legal machine guns currently available cost upwards of $5,000? The guns you see are merely semi-automatic rifles designed to look like the military versions. You can not purchase them online. You can order them on the internet, but then they must be shipped to a licensed firearm dealer where you must present ID (like that drivers license that's so hard to get...) and pass an instant criminal background check. So no, I don't think they are that easy to get.

wolverine19x89:

^why is the crazy gunman a master combatant but every possible Mr. Smith is a bumbling idiot? both of your situations are extreme and HYPOTHETICAL. just stop.

Also, when 26 people are killed, hearing gunshots doesn't mean it's too late, because there's probably more coming.

The gunman has the advantage of preparation, often including a bullet-proof vest and other gear for protection, superior weaponry (typically an assault rifle or shotgun), and position (it's easier to defend a position than to take it over, particularly if there's only one entrance/exit). These aren't the movies. An ill-prepared "master combatant" is going to find it difficult to stop a bumbling idiot if the latter party has all the advantages I listed above. The guy I trained under for most of my life was at one point a world champion kickboxer. He was mugged when he was in his 20s and thought he'd be able to kick the guy's ass... so he tried. He ended up succeeding, sure, but he also ended up in a hospital with multiple stab wounds.

You can hypothesize all you want about what you would do in a hairy situation, but it's all moot unless you have proof to back up your machismo. Truth of the matter is that very few people have the training and experience necessary to respond effectively--particularly if they're on their own--and even for them it's very difficult due to the unpredictability of combat.

TNA:

More people die in auto accidents, yet we still drive.

That's laughable. The purpose of guns is to kill, it's not a side-effect.

This pretty much negates the argument that guns = knives. Notice that while 22 children were injured in this knife attack, ZERO were killed.

This pretty much negates the argument that guns = knives. Notice that while 22 children were injured in this knife attack, ZERO were killed.

.

TNA:

I think the issue is why are we infringing on otherwise lawfully used rights because one crazy guy does something. That is the real question.

This is horrible, absolutely. But statistically speaking, gun violence is rare and something nearly all of us never encounter. More people die in car crashes on a yearly basis. And when you isolate out high crime areas, the incidence of gun violence is even less.

Most people use guns for target shooting, hunting, self defense, collecting, whatever. People see this sensationalized in the news and become reactionary. People in the North East also have no concept of how things are in the rest of the country. Outside the city guns are woven into society. All of my friends hunt and have guns and have grown up around them, no issues.

Just like the TSA, mass, irrational fear opens the door for government control and removal of freedoms. It is disgusting and sad that people who seek to infringe on gun rights use this horrible incident as fodder for their totalitarian and anti-American campaign.

Exactly.

I find it ridiculous that a country like Switzerland pretty much makes it mandatory for a gun to be kept in every household as part of the country's militia policy, but they see gun violence at 1 for every 250,000 citizens. Gun crime is far less than knife crime in that country, and it is a decreasing number.

The government even has a national range day which is typically turned into a family outing where everyone in the country goes to the range to shoot ammo supplied, for free, by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime

TNA:

Most people use guns for target shooting, hunting, self defense, collecting, whatever. People see this sensationalized in the news and become reactionary. People in the North East also have no concept of how things are in the rest of the country. Outside the city guns are woven into society. All of my friends hunt and have guns and have grown up around them, no issues. Just like the TSA, mass, irrational fear opens the door for government control and removal of freedoms. It is disgusting and sad that people who seek to infringe on gun rights use this horrible incident as fodder for their totalitarian and anti-American campaign.

Can agree with this (grew up in the heart of gun-happy Texas). Honestly, half the time you don't even think twice about it. Okay, so my friends have rifles and pistols in their houses. Sure. We pull them out for hunting or range-shooting. The end. No normal person picks up a gun and shoots people for the hell of it; there has to be something inherently fucked up in their minds, which is the true heart of the matter. It is THIS that has me so enraged, not the fact that a gun was involved. If someone had come into an elementary school and gassed everyone, or slit people's throats, or chucked throwing knives, it would be the same reason. It's not the thing, it's the act and the person carrying it out.

So why is everyone suddenly all up in arms (excuse the saying) about gun policies when we should be addressing the important matter at hand - that someone was fucked up enough to murder a classroom of children?!

And let's not get started with my opinions of the TSA. To this day I still cross through airport security with a scowl on my face.

SirTradesaLot:

TNA:

SirTradesaLot:

That's laughable. The purpose of guns is to kill, it's not a side-effect.

No, the purpose is to fire a projectile down a rifled chamber with a high degree of accuracy.

Every time I have shot a gun it was to kill or it was practicing to do so.

Every time I have shot a gun it was practice on a range. Do I ever plan on hunting, killing people, or killing other things? Nah. But range-shooting is fun in the same way that golf is fun.

IvyGrad:

I imagine most of pro-gun argument people are pro-gun because they grew up with the gun culture and got used to it. (or that they have personal affiliations with NRA/ gun manufacturers) That doesn't mean that having these mass weapons available for anyone to attain with minimal effort is an ethically sound proposition.

It's not black/white like that. Not everyone who is pro-gun supports them being sold at grocery stores like candy, which is what many of the anti-gun individuals seem to imply. I would be happy with the current state of gun purchase (age restriction, licensing for larger weapons, etc.) The right to bear arms (legalized holding of guns) is not the same thing as letting a middle school kid waltz in and purchase a .22 with birthday money.

The point the pro-gun faction is trying to make is that heavier gun regulation doesn't necessarily prevent horrible things from happening, not to mention it would require time and capital to implement... resources that could be going somewhere better and more useful for fixing the heart of the matter. I'm personally for regulation to mitigate risk, but at no point do I ever believe in removing the right at a whole. In this case, it's not so much a matter of making new legislation but tightening current measures.

By the way:

IvyGrad:

I believe if these same people were born and raised in Canada, Australia, or France, they would more likely to be anti-gun. Being able to look at the issue from objective, moral point of view.

This rhetoric is horrible; I fail to see why the PoV of an Australian is more "moral" than mine, simply because of the political landscape of the country they're born in.

SirTradesaLot:

The idea that regular citizens could stand up to our army, given the differential in destructive capability, is not really a pro-gun argument anymore. When the Constitution was written, the guns of regular citizens we're basically the same as the army. Nobody has a fully functioning f-15 or aircraft carrier in private possession.

If you take the 'it's just crazy people doing crazy things' or 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument to the extreme, then why don't we let citizens purchase nukes?

The likelihood of F-15s raining down bombs on America is a bit far fetched. At best it will be factions from a military organization, say something similar to The Rock, that have to be dealt with...but potentially on a larger scale.

At any rate, the best answer to the 'why' question is really just 'why not'. The constitution was put in place to limit the infringement on my various rights, one of which is gun ownership. So, yeah...I want to.

And nobody is advocating the private ownership of nukes because we understand there are reasonable limits to the freedoms protected by the constitution. This means not defaming someone and not shouting 'fire' in a theater, potentially causing irreparable harm or undue panic on the public, respectively.

My concealed weapon affords me the ability to defend myself while not causing public distress. Pulling around a black market nuclear weapon in a Radio Flyer would...so it's a reasonable limitation of that right.

And just to make clear, the 'why no nukes, then?' argument is the strawman of all strawman.

Regards

IvyGrad:

The bottom line is that the law concerning gun control needs some serious modifications.

Someone mentioned drunk driving. In countries like Singapore, there is literally no single person who is killed by drunk drivers. Guess why - because if you are caught with DUI, you can get executed in Singapore. Maybe this is a bit extreme, but in many Western European countries, DUI is taken a lot more seriously than here in U.S. and the offenders can be jailed for years if caught.

In U.S., usually people who get caught with DUI get their license suspended and have to pay fees.That's it. It's very rare that you will be jailed for first time offense DUI, in U.S. If the punishment for the crime is set at a higher barrier, I am sure deaths related to DUI will dramatically decrease over time.

Same shit with guns. There is not a single developed country in the world that has these staggering level of deaths related to gun crimes that U.S. does. Something like 30,000 people die each year in the U.S. due to gun activities. When the consequences of "protecting our rights with guns" are this severe, it's usually a sign that we should do something about it. I believe It's about time to make changes to gun law.

You are tap dancing all around the real issue. It's not the lack of laws, it's the enforcement. There are reasonable laws in place already but just like everything else that has to do with the criminal justice system, criminals find it laughable. Should me have more DUI laws, or enforce the ones we do have and then punish the people that break them?

I've said for many years that an orderly society or household or whatever exists for two reasons, either the participants in that system respect the rules or they fear the consequences. I've grow up to be a largely law abiding citizen because I was taught to respect the rules. I have never done drugs because for the first half of my life I was fearful of the outcome and the second half because I respect the law, despite seeing that the negative consequences can be mitigated.

We sit around after a tragedy like what unfolded today and scratch our heads wondering, "You can someone be so cruel, such a monster?" or "Why didn't he just kill himself, why did he half to kill the children too?". Well, for the last 30 years we've cultivated a society where no one is odd or peculiar or absurd...but unique and individualistic and expressive. A society where people find it funny to plaster their cars with bumper stickers that say 'Fuck' or wear t-shirts that are equally profane. A society were figures of authority receive little-to-no respect. That behavior used to be frowned upon and those people were pressure to step back in line. Now you are a bigot of some sort when you look at weird behavior and point it out.

Add to that this bogus idea that keeping score and having a winner and loser somehow hurts the development of a child. The fact is, your parents cannot protect you from the reality of the real world...sadly, the events today outline just how literal that statement can be...but everyone will eventually have to face some sort of failure or rejection or despair or depression. When you shelter kids from this growing up they never develop the necessary coping mechanisms and instead of having a well adjust adult, you have a really tall, really immature kid that gets pissed off because his gf dumped him or because he's losing custody of his child or whatever else and instead of saying, 'Damn, I'm an idiot and I need to fix this situation.' they pick up a weapon and seek revenge by inflicting pain on others.

If we lived in and/or promoted a society where we weren't so self centered and focused on what everyone else can do for us but, instead, spent a little more time giving back and considering the impact our behavior has on others incidents like these would be fewer.

Regards

IvyGrad:

The bottom line is that the law concerning gun control needs some serious modifications.

Someone mentioned drunk driving. In countries like Singapore, there is literally no single person who is killed by drunk drivers. Guess why - because if you are caught with DUI, you can get executed in Singapore. Maybe this is a bit extreme, but in many Western European countries, DUI is taken a lot more seriously than here in U.S. and the offenders can be jailed for years if caught.

In U.S., usually people who get caught with DUI get their license suspended and have to pay fees.That's it. It's very rare that you will be jailed for first time offense DUI, in U.S. If the punishment for the crime is set at a higher barrier, I am sure deaths related to DUI will dramatically decrease over time.

Same shit with guns. There is not a single developed country in the world that has these staggering level of deaths related to gun crimes that U.S. does. Something like 30,000 people die each year in the U.S. due to gun activities. When the consequences of "protecting our rights with guns" are this severe, it's usually a sign that we should do something about it. I believe It's about time to make changes to gun law.

Murder is punishable by death in my state.

freeloader:

The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms easily. Nothing unconstitutional about having go through a background check, waiting period, or anything other preventative measures to ensure crazies don't get to play with bullets.

freeloader:

The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms easily. Nothing unconstitutional about having go through a background check, waiting period, or anything other preventative measures to ensure crazies don't get to play with bullets.

How do you stop a previously sane guy, who obtains a gun legally, but subsequently goes bananas, from killing people?

Regards

SirTradesaLot:

Just so we're starting with the same base of information, this is the full text of the 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What do we define as "Arms"? Is owning a gun for any purpose other than for a militia constitutionally protected? Does this mean that I can buy nukes? You will notice that this says nothing about pistols, rifles, automatic, or semi-automatic weapons. If we have any lawyers here, I would love to hear their comments.

It's called the Ninth and Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, the constitution was never intended to be a document that grants us rights...which is a common misconception...it actually prohibits the government from infringing on our inalienable rights, among others.

However, if we were to accept your premise that we can't do anything that isn't wholly authorized by the constitution, then log out of WSO and disconnect the Wi-Fi because you don't have the right to express your opinion on the Internet...since, I don't recall this particular document mentioning anything about social media, online forums and the like.

...no law school required.

Regards

HedgeHog:

Gun control is not a debate. Like most republican policies, uncontrolled access to guns is dying a slow death as the elderly and sheltered ppl who support them die off and shrink in number.

You obviously don't make it south of the Mason Dixon much do you? We still got plenty of guns and our thought process isn't dying, I assure you.

IvyGrad:

NYC mayor Mr. Bloomberg said, today:

"President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action."

He's part of the reason I really enjoy living in NYC . Under his tenure, NYC has witnessed a significant drop in crimes and murders, having a lot to do with enforcement of very strict gun laws. Now NYC is the safest large U.S. city to live in. I feel very safe walking around Manhattan, even when it's 2-3 am. The same can't be said, in downtown L.A. or Detroit.

Completely. Fucking. Irrelevant. The gun Lanza obtained were from his mother, who had gone through the proper and legal channels to get her weapons. He fucking stole them from her.

FinancialNoviceII:

My opinion may not matter much as 1) I'm British and 2) I've only been living here for about 6 months but its clear as day to see. No matter whether we agree on it or not, guns have to be legislated upon. We, as a society, arent able to legislate or criminalize the mental capacity of some coward in a movie theater or school until after the fact. What we can do is prevent the fact from occurring, and the only way to do that is to have stricter gun control. Frankly, utilizing ancient laws or battles to prevent legislation on guns is stupid.

How is that different from drunk driving? Anyone can buy a car sober and then get liquored up and drive drunk, putting others at risk. Since we can't know for certain who will do that, do we ban liquor or start getting rid of vehicles?

Regards

FinancialNoviceII:

My opinion may not matter much as 1) I'm British and 2) I've only been living here for about 6 months but its clear as day to see. No matter whether we agree on it or not, guns have to be legislated upon. We, as a society, arent able to legislate or criminalize the mental capacity of some coward in a movie theater or school until after the fact. What we can do is prevent the fact from occurring, and the only way to do that is to have stricter gun control. Frankly, utilizing ancient laws or battles to prevent legislation on guns is stupid.

As Abby Huntsman told Piers Morgan, those gun laws were written to protect Americans from crazy Brits like you.

Just kidding. Me a foreigner myself though.

I'd call myself a conservative on most issues, this is a no brainer, there need to be stronger gun laws. I am not talking about banning guns--but just making sure that mentally unstable people don't have access to guns.

Nefarious-:

Figure I will toss this grenade in the mix to see how you anti-gun tree huggers will handle it:

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

Maybe you should evaluate your definition of the word 'grenade' a bit more. A total of zero people were killed there. Also, not entirely sure how guns are related to giving some weeping willow a wet and sloppy.

JamesHetfield:

Let me repeat this, I would consider myself a conservative on most issues, but some of these southern gentlemen filling up my newsfeed today think we need to start arming Kindergarten teachers.

Really? Do you want to live in a society where KG teachers carry guns?

So you trust some lady to watch your kid and 29 others for 6 hours a day and build the foundation for which their future will rest upon but they don't rise to the standard you've erected for gun ownership??

Regards