School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Illestia]

Back to the topic i originally signed up for: I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

(In my opinion we are drifting way too far into a general "more gun control - yes or no" discussion while leaving the topic that was once actually discussed in the thread i started to write in (the topic being basically "is gunavailability really the leading cause of masskillings and should it get the attention that it gets in the wake of events like the shooting on friday") and that is, in a way, the main topic here.)

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Back to the topic i originally signed up for: I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

(In my opinion we are drifting way too far into a general "more gun control - yes or no" discussion while leaving the topic that was once actually discussed in the thread i started to write in (the topic being basically "is gunavailability really the leading cause of masskillings and should it get the attention that it gets in the wake of events like the shooting on friday") and that is, in a way, the main topic here.)

Both discussions are important. One helps address the prevention of mass killings, and the other addresses the mitigation of casualties should it occur.

[Norjagen]

No, it's not a problem, but the ability to reload that fast in comparison to older firearms is one of the hallmarks of the automatic firearm, including both semi-automatic pistols with magaizine wells in the grip and fully automatic assault rifles with detachable box magazines. They're of the same big family, just different branches.

So again, double-action revolvers do not count as automatic firearms, while magazine-fed semiautomatic pistols do. The BAFTE might have fallen into the same NRA fallacy, but in the end it's still an automatic firearm because of the mechanisms involved.

Ok, hold on. You're saying that the term as defined by the ATF, published by the ATF, as enforced by the ATF, and codified in the National Firearms Act under their jurisdiction, is somehow an NRA fallacy, and that they've been deceived, manipulated by the evil gun lobby in such a way as to think it's their own idea, through some Inception-like series of events?
I just want to make sure I understand.

Also, would you be willing to go into a courtroom and start bending legal definitions to suit your will? Calling a pig a zebra does not make a pig into a zebra.

[Gun Manufacturers]

lol. So we recognize the flawed law, but instead of coming to a common sense solution we go to a further extreme. You do realize we do not own the world and cannot ban guns?

Further, the 2nd Amendment of the constitution very firmly states that we do have the right to bear and keep arms.

The law is not flawed in principal, or in practice. It is made practically useless by the fact that it's implementation equates to nothing more than lip service.

And fuck the Constitution. The constitution is wrong.

Then work to change the Constitution (good luck with that). Until then, I'm keeping my firearms.

[North America and Great Britain]

I don't know who is more soulless: the man who shot those children, or those politicizing it to further their own agenda...

[Esternial]

The law is not flawed in principal, or in practice. It is made practically useless by the fact that it's implementation equates to nothing more than lip service.

And fuck the Constitution. The constitution is wrong.

Then work to change the Constitution (good luck with that). Until then, I'm keeping my firearms.

Guns aren't even the biggest problem here.

[Chernoslavia]

I don't know who is more soulless: the man who shot those children, or those politicizing it to further their own agenda...

Dude, this is fucking NSG and if your not gonna debate then get lost. These posts are getting annoying.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I don't know who is more soulless: the man who shot those children, or those politicizing it to further their own agenda...

The man who shot those children. No brainer, really.

[Illestia]

I don't know who is more soulless: the man who shot those children, or those politicizing it to further their own agenda...

The man who shot those children. No brainer, really.

I would have to disagree with that.
Mental illness (which is very likely the cause of this shooting as it has been in pretty much any masskilling of the last decade) does not necessarily make him soulless.
The people misusing the tradgedy for their own agenda though are conciously deciding to do so.

So while the one was sick and i would never defend his actions the others are just evil, making them the worse of two evils.

[North America and Great Britain]

I don't know who is more soulless: the man who shot those children, or those politicizing it to further their own agenda...

Dude, this is fucking NSG and if your not gonna debate then get lost. These posts are getting annoying.

Well, my personal opinion on the matter is that no amount of controls or restrictions will stop some crazed lunatic from killing the innocent (such as the knife attacker in China who wounded some 27 students). Also, I think politicization of a tragedy is as annoying as you think posts such as mine are.

[Tmutarakhan]

I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

And many of us believe the opposite. We are unlikely to have a society with zero crazy people, or which always detects crazy people before they snap into a destructive state, but we can easily create a society in which crazy people who snap do not have such an easy time killing dozens. The proof that societies can avoid such mass-killings is that all the other societies in the world, put together, do not have as many of these as the US does.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Dude, this is fucking NSG and if your not gonna debate then get lost. These posts are getting annoying.

Well, my personal opinion on the matter is that no amount of controls or restrictions will stop some crazed lunatic from killing the innocent (such as the knife attacker in China who wounded some 27 students). Also, I think politicization of a tragedy is as annoying as you think posts such as mine are.

Spot the difference?

[The UK in Exile]

Dude, this is fucking NSG and if your not gonna debate then get lost. These posts are getting annoying.

Well, my personal opinion on the matter is that no amount of controls or restrictions will stop some crazed lunatic from killing the innocent (such as the knife attacker in China who wounded some 27 students). Also, I think politicization of a tragedy is as annoying as you think posts such as mine are.

its a point of view.

but politics is about how we solve problems as a group. your distaste for politicization suggests that either you don't see this as a problem or you see it as a problem that doesn't affect any group your part of.

[Norjagen]

Back to the topic i originally signed up for: I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

(In my opinion we are drifting way too far into a general "more gun control - yes or no" discussion while leaving the topic that was once actually discussed in the thread i started to write in (the topic being basically "is gunavailability really the leading cause of masskillings and should it get the attention that it gets in the wake of events like the shooting on friday") and that is, in a way, the main topic here.)

In a word, no. Gun availability is not the leading cause of mass killings. The leading causes of mass killings are the mentally-disturbed individuals that see fit to perpetrate them.

There are two main reasons that guns and gun control come into a case like this. First, you have the human tendency to see something "done" about the problem. When the shooter offs himself, there's nothing for the people to do. They can't put his corpse on trial and imprison or execute it again. So, what's the next-likely thing for them to direct their ire upon? The guns he used, of course.

Secondly, there are those who could give a damn about public safety, and wish to see citizens disarmed purely for their own sense of control. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns) is one such group, routinely labeling gun-rights activists and gun owners in general as "insurrectionists" and "traitors." Because, you know, exercising a right recognized in the supreme law of the land constitutes waging war on the country.
These are the sorts of people who want a government monopoly on force, so that the people have no means of defending themselves, should the government go too far. They are authoritarians, who have proven time and again that they are always eager to dance in the blood and politicize every tragedy that comes along. They're the ones wringing their hands as things unfold, saying "This is going to make for a wonderful opportunity."

[Chernoslavia]

Dude, this is fucking NSG and if your not gonna debate then get lost. These posts are getting annoying.

Well, my personal opinion on the matter is that no amount of controls or restrictions will stop some crazed lunatic from killing the innocent (such as the knife attacker in China who wounded some 27 students). Also, I think politicization of a tragedy is as annoying as you think posts such as mine are.

Then stop demonizing us and go somewhere else, this forum is mostly political. What do you expect?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

The man who shot those children. No brainer, really.

I would have to disagree with that.
Mental illness (which is very likely the cause of this shooting as it has been in pretty much any masskilling of the last decade) does not necessarily make him soulless.
The people misusing the tradgedy for their own agenda though are conciously deciding to do so.

So while the one was sick and i would never defend his actions the others are just evil, making them the worse of two evils.

Depends what you mean by "politicising". If you define it as "discussing potential causes and solutions", as many seem to, then I think you're very misdirected.

[Norjagen]

I would have to disagree with that.
Mental illness (which is very likely the cause of this shooting as it has been in pretty much any masskilling of the last decade) does not necessarily make him soulless.
The people misusing the tradgedy for their own agenda though are conciously deciding to do so.

So while the one was sick and i would never defend his actions the others are just evil, making them the worse of two evils.

Depends what you mean by "politicising". If you define it as "discussing potential causes and solutions", as many seem to, then I think you're very misdirected.

I think he means "capitalizing on the emotional effect of a tragedy to further a pre-existing and possibly unrelated agenda." The first is constructive, the second is manipulative.

[Camicon]

Then work to change the Constitution (good luck with that). Until then, I'm keeping my firearms.

Guns aren't even the biggest problem here.

No, they aren't. The problem lies, deeply rooted, in American culture, and in the way mental health issues are addressed.
But changing society, in such a fundamental way (half the country doesn't even want a public option for health care insurance), takes time. Increasing restrictions on guns, to limit the number and the severity of any future incidences, can be done sooner. It's a stop gap, before moving on to change the public perception and use of firearms.

Switzerland is a proof-positive model, that a responsible society can have loosely regulated firearms. But, to my knowledge, Switzerland does not vilify and ignore mental health issues the way the USA does. They have universal healthcare. They ensure that everyone who ever owns a firearm is extensively trained in proper operation, including the consequences of using it. Switzerland can allow lax firearm regulations because the people can be trusted to use them in a responsible manner, and seek help when they need it (with regards to mental health).

Do you see any of that in the USA?

[The UK in Exile]

Back to the topic i originally signed up for: I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

(In my opinion we are drifting way too far into a general "more gun control - yes or no" discussion while leaving the topic that was once actually discussed in the thread i started to write in (the topic being basically "is gunavailability really the leading cause of masskillings and should it get the attention that it gets in the wake of events like the shooting on friday") and that is, in a way, the main topic here.)

In a word, no. Gun availability is not the leading cause of mass killings. The leading causes of mass killings are the mentally-disturbed individuals that see fit to perpetrate them.

There are two main reasons that guns and gun control come into a case like this. First, you have the human tendency to see something "done" about the problem. When the shooter offs himself, there's nothing for the people to do. They can't put his corpse on trial and imprison or execute it again. So, what's the next-likely thing for them to direct their ire upon? The guns he used, of course.

Secondly, there are those who could give a damn about public safety, and wish to see citizens disarmed purely for their own sense of control. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns) is one such group, routinely labeling gun-rights activists and gun owners in general as "insurrectionists" and "traitors." Because, you know, exercising a right recognized in the supreme law of the land constitutes waging war on the country.
These are the sorts of people who want a government monopoly on force, so that the people have no means of defending themselves, should the government go too far. They are authoritarians, who have proven time and again that they are always eager to dance in the blood and politicize every tragedy that comes along. They're the ones wringing their hands as things unfold, saying "This is going to make for a wonderful opportunity."

it takes a special kind of paranoia to think James Brady is anti-gun because he's pro-state.

[Chernoslavia]

In a word, no. Gun availability is not the leading cause of mass killings. The leading causes of mass killings are the mentally-disturbed individuals that see fit to perpetrate them.

There are two main reasons that guns and gun control come into a case like this. First, you have the human tendency to see something "done" about the problem. When the shooter offs himself, there's nothing for the people to do. They can't put his corpse on trial and imprison or execute it again. So, what's the next-likely thing for them to direct their ire upon? The guns he used, of course.

Secondly, there are those who could give a damn about public safety, and wish to see citizens disarmed purely for their own sense of control. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns) is one such group, routinely labeling gun-rights activists and gun owners in general as "insurrectionists" and "traitors." Because, you know, exercising a right recognized in the supreme law of the land constitutes waging war on the country.
These are the sorts of people who want a government monopoly on force, so that the people have no means of defending themselves, should the government go too far. They are authoritarians, who have proven time and again that they are always eager to dance in the blood and politicize every tragedy that comes along. They're the ones wringing their hands as things unfold, saying "This is going to make for a wonderful opportunity."

it takes a special kind of paranoia to think James Brady is anti-gun because he's pro-state.

He is anti-gun ownership but not because he's pro-state.

[Northern Dominus]

I don't know who is more soulless: the man who shot those children, or those politicizing it to further their own agenda...

Dude, this is fucking NSG and if your not gonna debate then get lost. These posts are getting annoying.

The gun fetishists coming out of the woodwork screaming "Legalize all guns and make them cheap for everyone! This proves it, people need more guns to proactively shoot people like this guy!" and other such nonsense is equally annoying too.

Back to the topic i originally signed up for: I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

(In my opinion we are drifting way too far into a general "more gun control - yes or no" discussion while leaving the topic that was once actually discussed in the thread i started to write in (the topic being basically "is gunavailability really the leading cause of masskillings and should it get the attention that it gets in the wake of events like the shooting on friday") and that is, in a way, the main topic here.)

In a word, no. Gun availability is not the leading cause of mass killings. The leading causes of mass killings are the mentally-disturbed individuals that see fit to perpetrate them.

There are two main reasons that guns and gun control come into a case like this. First, you have the human tendency to see something "done" about the problem. When the shooter offs himself, there's nothing for the people to do. They can't put his corpse on trial and imprison or execute it again. So, what's the next-likely thing for them to direct their ire upon? The guns he used, of course.

Secondly, there are those who could give a damn about public safety, and wish to see citizens disarmed purely for their own sense of control. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns) is one such group, routinely labeling gun-rights activists and gun owners in general as "insurrectionists" and "traitors." Because, you know, exercising a right recognized in the supreme law of the land constitutes waging war on the country.
These are the sorts of people who want a government monopoly on force, so that the people have no means of defending themselves, should the government go too far. They are authoritarians, who have proven time and again that they are always eager to dance in the blood and politicize every tragedy that comes along. They're the ones wringing their hands as things unfold, saying "This is going to make for a wonderful opportunity."

Oh give me a break, you know what some yahoo off the street packing pistol would have been if they ran in and tried to act as a "good citizen" in some form? Most likely just another casualty, unless on the off chance they were trained heavily in some fashion.

Illestia is correct. The issue that is getting buried under the inevitable firearms debate is the fact that this young man was severely mentally disturbed in some fashion and didn't have the proper treatment or therapy to curb it. That is a sad fact of reality in a nation where healthcare, including mental care, is so ludicrously expensive and seeking help for psychological issues is so stigmatizing that it is akin to having a criminal records in some states is speaks to a sad, inhuman and frankly dangerous state of affairs in this country today. It's been an issue in prisons for years on end and now we're seeing the effects of this lack of mental healthcare in the streets today with tragic consequences.

However, it would be equally remiss to ignore the fact that this young man, who would have by no means passed a decent background check to own a firearm, had access to them and used them to tragic ends. Is it really too much to ask that we look at our current firearms laws in the wake of this tragedy and wonder where this could have been prevented? Maybe a mandatory safety course that includes the ethical ramifications of pointing and shooting a weapon at a person, especially if they get it wrong. Or more proactive safety measures such as the use of trigger locks and storing the ammunition in a separate place when the owner isn't physically present. Is it really too much to bring that up, to perhaps prevent this sort of thing from happening again?

[Illestia]

I still believe that gun control should rather be a secondary topic because it is more of a "feel-good" move then an actual adressing of the causes and possible prevention of masskillings.

And many of us believe the opposite. We are unlikely to have a society with zero crazy people, or which always detects crazy people before they snap into a destructive state, but we can easily create a society in which crazy people who snap do not have such an easy time killing dozens. The proof that societies can avoid such mass-killings is that all the other societies in the world, put together, do not have as many of these as the US does.

Thats incorrect.
In relation masskillings-population germany for one is quite high up the list with since 2002 and 80 million people.

Why do people always forget that, compared to other countries, the us has a by far larger population and is therefor much more likely to see such acts of violence happen?
Thats simply a question of size. Even if the us banned private gunownership they would still see more masskillings then the uk, france or germany

[Norjagen]

In a word, no. Gun availability is not the leading cause of mass killings. The leading causes of mass killings are the mentally-disturbed individuals that see fit to perpetrate them.

There are two main reasons that guns and gun control come into a case like this. First, you have the human tendency to see something "done" about the problem. When the shooter offs himself, there's nothing for the people to do. They can't put his corpse on trial and imprison or execute it again. So, what's the next-likely thing for them to direct their ire upon? The guns he used, of course.

Secondly, there are those who could give a damn about public safety, and wish to see citizens disarmed purely for their own sense of control. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns) is one such group, routinely labeling gun-rights activists and gun owners in general as "insurrectionists" and "traitors." Because, you know, exercising a right recognized in the supreme law of the land constitutes waging war on the country.
These are the sorts of people who want a government monopoly on force, so that the people have no means of defending themselves, should the government go too far. They are authoritarians, who have proven time and again that they are always eager to dance in the blood and politicize every tragedy that comes along. They're the ones wringing their hands as things unfold, saying "This is going to make for a wonderful opportunity."

it takes a special kind of paranoia to think James Brady is anti-gun because he's pro-state.

I'm referring more specifically to those such as Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who routinely speaks out about armed citizens, while voting to extend the PATRIOT act and FISA, and sponsoring PIPA.

[Ardchoille]

Guys, demonising your opponents in general terms swiftly leads to demonising individual players who hold opposing views, which leads to unwanted *** red text ***. There are proponents and opponents of varying levels of gun control in this thread. They're people, not supervillains. Avoid the rhetoric and keep the discussion civil.

[Camicon]

And many of us believe the opposite. We are unlikely to have a society with zero crazy people, or which always detects crazy people before they snap into a destructive state, but we can easily create a society in which crazy people who snap do not have such an easy time killing dozens. The proof that societies can avoid such mass-killings is that all the other societies in the world, put together, do not have as many of these as the US does.

Thats incorrect.
In relation masskillings-population germany for one is quite high up the list with since 2002 and 80 million people.

Why do people always forget that, compared to other countries, the us has a by far larger population and is therefor much more likely to see such acts of violence happen?
Thats simply a question of size. Even if the us banned private gunownership they would still see more masskillings then the uk, france or germany

Yes, they will see higher casualties and more incidences, but the gross number is not what should be looked at. What should be looked at is the ratio, and the USA still fails, massively, when you compare it's ratio of firearm related deaths to that of other countries.