Connecticut 'gunman dead' after US school shooting

[Lost in the Echo]

Why take away the guns from the 99% of law abiding citizens because the 1% kills people with other people for no reason. Why should the 1% make the other 99% to suffer and not be able to protect themselves. Also, don't give me that "police will come" crap, because the po-po wouldn't be notified in time to stop the gunman. Guns are a right, and a privilege. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/top-15-causes-of-death

Here's a link to back it up.

Actually, it's way more than 1%.
All you hear about on the news is people being shot and killed.
Stricter gun laws would reduce the amount of manslaughter and homicides, as most of the time murders are commited by guns.

[ProudConservative]

Actually, it's way more than 1%.
All you hear about on the news is people being shot and killed.
Stricter gun laws would reduce the amount of manslaughter and homicides, as most of the time murders are commited by guns.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

This is a good link, how about you give it a read. More armed countries have lower gun homicides. That's a fact, and don't give me that England has a lower gun homicide debacle. We don't need threats, but promises to the criminals that they will be severely punished to the highest extent of the law, according to the crime committed. I know you guys don't like this, but Israel is a highly armed country, and the only crime is committed by the extremists.

[Taryn98]

Actually, it's way more than 1%.
All you hear about on the news is people being shot and killed.
Stricter gun laws would reduce the amount of manslaughter and homicides, as most of the time murders are commited by guns.

I just read a statistic that said roughly 0.004% of guns have been used in a crime. That works out to ~12000 of the ~300million guns in the US. The article also stated that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be the victim of a gun crime in your life.

[TigerBoy]

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

This is a good link, how about you give it a read. More armed countries have lower gun homicides. That's a fact, and don't give me that England has a lower gun homicide debacle. We don't need threats, but promises to the criminals that they will be severely punished to the highest extent of the law, according to the crime committed. I know you guys don't like this, but Israel is a highly armed country, and the only crime is committed by the extremists.

I suggest you read it yourself. In the section on foreign gun control it cites some very questionable conclusions by one gun nut (his bio states he is a member of the NRA), so he is hardly impartial so I dispute it as any sort of authorititive 'fact' in the first place.
It also doesn't say 'more armed countries have lower gun homicides' as you claim. The entire piece conflates gun crime with general crime, it is not comparing gun crime with gun crime.

And why can't we talk about England, is that too inconvenient to your argument? We have 6% gun ownership compared to the US 89%. In England we have 0.07 gun homicides per 100k people, in the US it is 2.97, or forty two times as much. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list). If you can't see the link between 'more guns=more deaths' there, you aren't looking.

Oh and 'israel is a highly armed country' - by those figures, Israel has only 7.3% civilian ownership (so less than a tenth of the USA) and 0.09 deaths per 100k population, putting the US 33 times worse.

I just read a statistic that said roughly 0.004% of guns have been used in a crime. That works out to ~12000 of the ~300million guns in the US. The article also stated that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be the victim of a gun crime in your life.
So you are comparing a natural phenomenon no one can prevent, to a man made problem. That is meaningless conflation.

Secondly, 'its ok, it could have been lightning' isn't going to help the parents of those kids, or of the 8,583 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state) people who were killed by firearms in 2011, for eg.

[ProudConservative]

I suggest you read it yourself. In the section on foreign gun control it cites some very questionable conclusions by one gun nut (his bio states he is a member of the NRA), so he is hardly impartial so I dispute it as any sort of authorititive 'fact' in the first place.
It also doesn't say 'more armed countries have lower gun homicides' as you claim. The entire piece conflates gun crime with general crime, it is not comparing gun crime with gun crime.

And why can't we talk about England, is that too inconvenient to your argument? We have 6% gun ownership compared to the US 89%. In England we have 0.07 gun homicides per 100k people, in the US it is 2.97, or forty two times as much. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list). If you can't see the link between 'more guns=more deaths' there, you aren't looking.

Oh and 'israel is a highly armed country' - by those figures, Israel has only 7.3% civilian ownership (so less than a tenth of the USA) and 0.09 deaths per 100k population, putting the US 33 times worse.


So you are comparing a natural phenomenon no one can prevent, to a man made problem. That is meaningless conflation.

Secondly, 'its ok, it could have been lightning' isn't going to help the parents of those kids, or of the 8,583 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state) people who were killed by firearms in 2011, for eg.

What about the amount of people who died in car accidents, medical mistakes, and heart attacks? Again, gun homicide is the 15th leading cause of death in the US.

[TigerBoy]

What about the amount of people who died in car accidents, medical mistakes, and heart attacks? Again, gun homicide is the 15th leading cause of death in the US.

Again, this is called conflation. Are you proposing you don't work to reduce car accidents, medical mistakes and heart attacks?

Just because a bunch of other things are bad, are you saying that is a reason to just give up on trying to improve everything lower down the list?

Here's another example of conflation. Looking at the two sets of statistics below, you could use conflation to argue that "since there is a lot of religion in the places where there is a lot of gun crime, we should ban religion".

[Stronk Serb]

Now reporting that at least 27 are dead, some of which are children. "Monster" isn't strong enough to describe a person who would do this.

Whatever bullshit reason you THINK you might have in your mind for going into an elementary school and shooting...your "problem" pales in comparison to the lives and families you have destroyed. You deserve to be in hell forever, asshole. In fact, you got lucky for dying yourself.

Only a devil would to that, no one deserves to die, especially children.

[ProudConservative]

Again, this is called conflation. Are you proposing you don't work to reduce car accidents, medical mistakes and heart attacks?

Just because a bunch of other things are bad, are you saying that is a reason to just give up on trying to improve everything lower down the list?

Here's another example of conflation. Looking at the two sets of statistics below, you could use conflation to argue that "since there is a lot of religion in the places where there is a lot of gun crime, we should ban religion".

Compared to the size is the population, about 8,600 dying a year from homicide, sad, but that is barely a dent in the population. 3 in 1 people believe in gun control. The Constitution's 2 nod Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. A militia, by definition, is a military created by the people, not by the government. The Founding Fathers even said that if the government gets too powerful, the people have the right to take them down. Granted, that's not going to happen for a while, but in the foreseeable future. The Fathers knew guns would get more and more powerful, and knew we would get them. Guns are a right. Cars are a privilege.

[TigerBoy]

Compared to the size is the population, about 5,600 dying a year from homicide, sad, but that is barely a dent in the population.
So you believe its ok that 27 kids just died, because there are plenty more kids out there?

I've heard a lot of strange arguments from the pro-gun lobby recently, but I wasn't aware that being a callous sociopath was a considered a legitimate position.


3 in 1 people believe in gun control.

Other than the possible case of the Holy Trinity I think you'll find that is impossible.


The Constitution's 2 nod Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. A militia, by definition, is a military created by the people, not by the government. The Founding Fathers even said that if the government gets too powerful, the people have the right to take them down. Granted, that's not going to happen for a while, but in the foreseeable future. The Fathers knew guns would get more and more powerful, and knew we would get them. Guns are a right. Cars are a privilege.
Was there a point in any of that? Are you proposing or predicting that people start a militia to take down the government in order to ban cars?

[Neptune]

I simply do not understand why some people believe that they need weapons that were created for battlefields - they shouldn't be on the streets of the United States. I'm not suggesting a complete ban of all weapons, but, do you really need automatic weapons to hunt or to protect yourself?

And for people who mention protecting yourself from the government (not sure if people here have brought that up yet but I know people on other forums,) do you really believe if you have an automatic weapon, you will make a difference? If we had a crackdown by the government on citizens, they could use weapons that guns couldn't fight. Particularly bombs.

[Cicero]

Here's the thing, if guns were made illegal. That would do nothing to help crime. Most people can find a way to get illegal guns. Just how weed is illegal, most everyone knows how to get weed. If the government made weed legal, that wouldn't really change the lives of people, cause most people already smoke it, they just don't have to be (that) secretive about it.

There would always be a way for criminals to get guns, and if they were made illegal, that would leave the law abiding citizens defenseless. The whole argument about how the Uk doesn't need them is a stupid argument. Because the UK is smaller than the US, when its smaller, it's easier to control different things. Like drugs or guns. I really don't see why the teachers couldn't have a pistol strapped on themselves. If they were to do that, then there would be almost no risk of these sick monsters (referring to the shooter of the school). The US is even bigger than Europe itself (excluding Russia).

[Danny_boi 16]

I was just listing to C-Span and a congressman said something that I really liked. I might get the words backwards of misplaced, but I'll still think you'll get it.

"Last week we held a moment of silence for the two killed in a Portland mall shooting, yesterday we held a moment of silence for the 26 killed in Connecticut. People are tired of seeing congress taking moment of silence, and not doing action to make sure something like this will never happen again."

[ProudConservative]

You, how dare you say that I don't empathize with those people shot and killed. With those kids permanently scarred for life because they saw their teacher and classmates senselessly killed. Strange that I think that psychopathic callousness is a legitimate position, yes, I do. Those people are truly sick, most of them don't even know what they're doing, emotion-wise. Do want to look it up, 3 in 1 people don't believe in gun control. Yes, I am predicting a governmental takedown of the US. It happens to every great empire ever made.

[TigerBoy]

You, how dare you say that I don't empathize with those people shot and killed.
I didn't.

You are apparently justifying gun ownership by downplaying the gun homicide rate on the basis that there are plenty of people left to shoot. If that wasn't your point, I suggest you restate it more clearly as I already asked.


Strange that I think that psychopathic callousness is a legitimate position, yes, I do. Those people are truly sick, most of them don't even know what they're doing, emotion-wise.

No, you have misconstrued my point. I commented that sociopathic callousness was a strange position to take in a debate, specifically such as where one might attempt to downplay the best part of ten thousand dead people (such as these poor children) simply because they were a small statistic.


Do want to look it up, 3 in 1 people don't believe in gun control.
I assume you are asking "do you want to look it up?" If you are then there's a couple of problems as I've tried to point out already. First off, you haven't cited a source. Second, your claim makes no mathematical sense: you can't have '3 in 1' people.


Yes, I am predicting a governmental takedown of the US. It happens to every great empire ever made.
So you believe the government are going to what, bomb the country or something? Is this still about cars?

[ProudConservative]

Did you all know that 99% of gun owners dint use their guns in violent crimes. Of the 1% , 4% got them illegally. Why should that 1% strip the ability to own and use a firearm from the other 99%. Since when is it ethical to punish the 99% just because the 1% did wrong?

[CharlieHorse]

One bad apple to ruin the bunch. It's unfair yeah. Just the way it is.

In the case if all gun control arguements I say either:
-shutup
Or
-send an email to your congressman, then shutup
We get nowhere by arguing, just angry people.


Also, some lols: (mild cursing)
http://youtu.be/aAoMNEQo4sQ

[ProudConservative]

Also, let me put it to you this way. There are two groups of 100 people. One person in Group A kills two people in Group B. Do you punish the whole entire Group A, or just the murderer. This is what the government is trying to do.

[TigerBoy]

Also, let me put it to you this way. There are two groups of 100 people. One person in Group A kills two people in Group B. Do you punish the whole entire Group A, or just the murderer. This is what the government is trying to do.

I (the state) punish the murderer per the pre-existing wishes of groups A and B. I then ask the leaders of groups A and B to decide what they want me (the state) to do about gun ownership, if anything. THAT is what the US government are trying to do.

[Thunderstorm]

This is a time to come together as a nation, as a whole. Congress, shut up and stop debating about gun rights, just make a law including semi-automatic guns and be done! Congress is the killer! Today, there was a national moment of silence for schools across the US. We needed that moment of silence to unite our country. If we don't do something now, nothing will ever get done.

[ProudConservative]

I (the state) punish the murderer per the pre-existing wishes of groups A and B. I then ask the leaders of groups A and B to decide what they want me (the state) to do about gun ownership, if anything. THAT is what the US government are trying to do.

They aren't asking the opinion of Group A, which is the NRA. They're asking the Moms of America what they want. They're being over-protective and want to coddle their children. Everyone is blowing this whole thing way out of proportion, and it's a really sad thing that this mass murder has to turn into politics. Yes, 20 children and 6 adults died, along with the gunman. We don't need gun control though, the US is more than 20 times bigger than England. It can't be as controlled, unless you want police in the street everywhere at any given time. It won't work.

Another thing, don't tell me what my country is trying to do if you don't live here. I hear about this constantly.

[TigerBoy]

They aren't asking the opinion of Group A, which is the NRA.
Right, because the NRA are so shy about sharing their opinions I've noticed.


We don't need gun control though, the US is more than 20 times bigger than England. It can't be as controlled, unless you want police in the street everywhere at any given time.
If size was a factor, larger countries like Australia or Canada would be proportionately comparable to the US. They are not.


Another thing, don't tell me what my country is trying to do if you don't live here. I hear about this constantly.
As someone who hasn't got strong feelings either way on this one, and who doesn't live in your country I think I'm really well placed to give you an unbiased view of this issue. And the more ridiculous your arguments in this thread have become, the more I believe you need to hear other views.

If you don't like hearing other people's opinions don't post questions in open forums inviting them.