School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Tubbsalot]

And what the fuck do you find funy about this whole situation 20 kids are dead and not because of guns in genaral its because of guns in the hand of a fucking lunatic who has no place having one to begin with, that and schools dont have proper securaty so dont use a tragic acurence like this to further your bleeding leftist agenda

Apparently you haven't read many of the posts here, but his lols were mocking Ullan, who's decided it might be appropriate to throw a few dozen lols into every post.

[Cannot think of a name]

This gets said every time and I don't buy it for a second. If not now, when? When are we supposed to have that discussion if not when its relevant, if not when the effects can be seen so clearly? Why is it so forbidden to discuss the ramifications of a thing when they are current? The things you're trying to compare are not equal.

So it's okay for gun-control advocates to say their piece when there's a tragedy like this, but when someone takes the other side it's clearly a disservice to the dead?

That's relying on an emotional response to a tragedy to score political points. Which is a tactic used by the pro-gun side just as often.

The two actions are very equal. Gun-control only comes up after tragedies like this because it's the only time the arguments get any air-time because people feel sorry for the victims enough to consider bold action. After some time, their popularity decreases. It's a tactic just as much as the NRAs 'From my cold dead hands!' is a tactic.

They aren't. They just aren't. One is an emotional response, one is callous. They are not equal. It's not that you cannot defend your guns, its the how that grates. Because right now, you're so caught up in defending guns that you don't even realize I'm not saying 'take them away.' Don't you see that as a problem?

And it's something I explicitly said in the first post you quoted, so clearly that's not at all what I'm saying.

Then I misread what you were saying when you claimed people stopping other people with guns was somehow them stopping the problem they created.

Yes, guns are tools that can be handled by good people and bad people just as any other tool can be. Nobody is arguing that. I'm not sure what you're bringing up by pointing out that fact.

It's your question.

And it's worthwhile to have a discussion about that, and what our responsibilities are, including how we regard them.

What exactly is to discuss? That the nuts who use guns irresponsibly are BAD MEN and are just so BAD that we should mention how BAD they are VERY LOUDLY?

I don't see people (at least not in the gun-control crowd) pointing to these cases as examples of irresponsible ownership, I see them pointing to these cases as representations of what people with these bad guns do.

Then you are too caught up trying to defend your guns to realize what's being said. I don't know that I can put that any kinder, I'm sorry.

How we regard guns certainly could use discussion. Unfortunately, like the responsibilities argument, this only seems to be used in the context of 'too many regard guns as good when they are clearly BAD. Look at the recent ____ massacre!' instead of a calmer discussion about how stupid uses are emphasized by our media and people have very inaccurate ideas about what makes guns dangerous or unsafe (the hysteria that comes from plastic-stocked "assault rifles" for instance)

The conversation is more complicated than 'bad people/good people.' This is your hobby, not ours. It is not our responsibility to reach out to you about the unintended consequences of your hobby, it is yours to reach out to us. If the best you can do is complain that we don't understand your hobby you'll make no headway.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

You're point is that England has a better handle on their crime. I have posted the link more than 2 times. It states that 2.97 is the homicide rate for the United States.

England has a 0.07 percent homicide rate with guns btw. which means that you subtract england's number from our number giving you 2.9 percent for the rate difference. That is the "significant number.

The UK has not significantly done anything. Unless you would like to explain to the world how 2 percent is a huge or significant difference.

That alone is the refutation. The facts of homicide rates are there for you to use with your own calculator if you actually need one. lol.

The statistics based are on per 100,000 people. So 2% is a huge difference. You are comparing between a country with 310 million versus 60 million. That adds up to thousands of deaths against a hundred or so. The UK is doing much better then the US in keeping their citizens alive. Don't tell me that you just looked at the stats and went, "it's just 2%?" lol...

Based on 100,000 people, the countries can be compared because of the vast population change. That way the countries no matter how big or small can be compared. 2.97 nationwide for our gun related homicides, and 0.07 for englands. And if we had the same population as a survey like this does. its just rounded up to 3% change. That's what this survey does. That is what the Guardian is saying....which is from the UK. lol.

No, I was surprised that you read 3% and thought that's a huge difference. lol.

[AiliailiA]

No, I'm saying 88 guns per hundred people DOES NOT MEAN that 88 of each 100 people has a gun. NOR that 88 out of 100 households has a gun.

By households it's under 40% ... perhaps well under that ... and in practice that just means that ONE OR MORE people in that household owns a gun. The rate for individual ownership is necessarily lower than for households to have a gun in them.

The high figure for total weapons is because gun owners often own more than one gun. You should know this if you're a gun rights advocate.

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

It states an average of 88 people per 100 people. Its not weapons. It says an average of 88 per 100 people. so 88% of people own a gun

No. Think about the meaning of each word and think about the meaning of the sentence.

....I'm just reading what it says. lol.

No you are not. lol.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

Actually only an ignorant person would say that. lol. 1990 was just 2 decades ago. it gave us gun free zones.

Have you seen anyone in this thread argue for "gun-free zones"? The way it's implemented in America is ludicrously stupid, and that's irrelevant to gun control in general.

lol. its meant to keep the kids safe. I actually know someone who argues for the entire state to be gun free on this thread. I did try to point out that there are other nations around us.....so it doesn't work either.. lol.

[Tubbsalot]

No, I was surprised that you read 3% and thought that's a huge difference. lol.

Yeah, considering 3% is forty-three times the British rate, that's a pretty massive difference.

[Emile Zola]

Based on 100,000 people, the countries can be compared because of the vast population change. That way the countries no matter how big or small can be compared. 2.97 nationwide for our gun related homicides, and 0.07 for englands. And if we had the same population as a survey like this does. its just rounded up to 3% change. That's what this survey does. That is what the Guardian is saying....which is from the UK. lol.

No, I was surprised that you read 3% and thought that's a huge difference. lol.

Reread you post it makes no sense. You still don't get it. lol.lol.lol.

[Tubbsalot]

lol. its meant to keep the kids safe. I actually know someone who argues for the entire state to be gun free on this thread. I did try to point out that there are other nations around us.....so it doesn't work either.. lol.

"Yes; gun-free zones are stupid. Everyone agrees. You're not making any points against The Other Side when you say this."
"LOL THEY DON'T WORK, STUPID GUN CONTROL NUTS"

[Ullan (Ancient)]

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people"

It states an average of 88 people per 100 people. Its not weapons. It says an average of 88 per 100 people. so 88% of people own a gun

No. Think about the meaning of each word and think about the meaning of the sentence.

....I'm just reading what it says. lol.

No you are not. lol.

lol. oh I did.

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people

https//docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdExSbktqRWpLMjNUMkFGVk5VODRyTnc

http//www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

You can go back and forth on this. But that is what the stats are. Slice and dice them anyhow you want to. It says an average of 88 per 100 people..... and if you read the rates on the document. 88.8.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

Based on 100,000 people, the countries can be compared because of the vast population change. That way the countries no matter how big or small can be compared. 2.97 nationwide for our gun related homicides, and 0.07 for englands. And if we had the same population as a survey like this does. its just rounded up to 3% change. That's what this survey does. That is what the Guardian is saying....which is from the UK. lol.

No, I was surprised that you read 3% and thought that's a huge difference. lol.

Reread you post it makes no sense. You still don't get it. lol.lol.lol.

no I don't think you get how they do a survey like this. 100,000 people the survey is done. England got 0.07 percent. 2.97 percent of 310 million is still more than 0.07. However, you'd like to argue that England has it handled. Apply England's percentage to the USA. Its not going to change. Do some math.

[Ullan (Ancient)]

lol. its meant to keep the kids safe. I actually know someone who argues for the entire state to be gun free on this thread. I did try to point out that there are other nations around us.....so it doesn't work either.. lol.

"Yes; gun-free zones are stupid. Everyone agrees. You're not making any points against The Other Side when you say this."
"LOL THEY DON'T WORK, STUPID GUN CONTROL NUTS"

My point is gun control doesn't work. And technically, a nation that bans guns is a gun free zone on a larger scale. That's the argument that is made.

[Gauntleted Fist]

You can go back and forth on this. But that is what the stats are. Slice and dice them anyhow you want to. It says an average of 88 per 100 people..... and if you read the rates on the document. 88.8.

Do you just not understand how to read the numbers?

88 guns per 100 people does not, in any way, shape, or form equal out to 88.8% of people own guns. It means that there are 88 guns in circulation for every 100 persons in the United States.

It is, in fact, impossible for the United States to have a gun ownership rate of 88.8%. Because then no single person would be capable of owning more than one gun to spread out the number of guns required for 88.8% of people in the US to own guns.

[Tubbsalot]

Apply England's percentage to the USA. Its not going to change. Do some math.

Yeah, if you applied 2.97% to Britain instead, it would still be 2.97%. Not sure what you think you're proving.

"Yes; gun-free zones are stupid. Everyone agrees. You're not making any points against The Other Side when you say this."
"LOL THEY DON'T WORK, STUPID GUN CONTROL NUTS"

My point is gun control doesn't work. And technically, a nation that bans guns is a gun free zone on a larger scale. That's the argument that is made.

Yes. Large-scale gun bans work, and we know they work because we've seen it happening. Small-scale bans don't work because there's absolutely no way to prevent the movement of guns into the gun-free zone. Gun-free schools are ridiculous because you can't search everyone who enters and ensure they're unarmed, and even if you could they'd leave the gun-free zone later that day and be surrounded by guns again. Not going to do much for gun crime. When the entire country is a gun-free zone, on the other hand, it's pretty fucking effective.

[Emile Zola]

Reread you post it makes no sense. You still don't get it. lol.lol.lol.

no I don't think you get how they do a survey like this. 100,000 people the survey is done. England got 0.07 percent. 2.97 percent of 310 million is still more than 0.07. However, you'd like to argue that England has it handled. Apply England's percentage to the USA. Its not going to change. Do some math.

Please clarify. You do not believe that they surveyed 100,000 people and went, "ok that done thanks for the sample!" You have got to be kidding me if you do.

[Gauntleted Fist]

no I don't think you get how they do a survey like this. 100,000 people the survey is done.

No, this is not even remotely true. It is per 100,000 people. The sample size is ~311,000,000 for the US, and ~62,000,000 for the UK.

England got 0.07 percent.

No. England got 0.0000007%. If 0.07% of people per 100,000 were murdered by guns in the UK, then 7,000 people per 100,000 would be murdered by firearms in the UK. That is obviously impossible as only 700 people were murdered in the UK according to UNDOC for the most recent year.

Do some math.

lol.

[Occupied Deutschland]

They aren't. They just aren't. One is an emotional response, one is callous. They are not equal (1). It's not that you cannot defend your guns, its the how that grates (2). Because right now, you're so caught up in defending guns that you don't even realize I'm not saying 'take them away.' Don't you see that as a problem? (3)

1) Yes, they very much are as that callous response of “more guns could’a stopped it!’ by gun-owners is driven by an emotional rather than rational response to the problem. Just as the “ban guns!” response some gun-control advocates have is an emotional response to the problem. The two are exactly alike.
2) How exactly is one supposed to argue with the minority of people who cry “ban guns!” and the significant portion who call for stricter controls?
3) No, because I have noticed from the beginning you haven’t been saying anything resembling “take them away”, which is why I have stuck to arguing about the image and perception of firearms by broad groups (‘gun-control advocates, pro-gun side, etc.) rather than by you or I personally (well, not so much the 'I' but I've been trying not to call you any names).

It's your question.

I don’t understand. I haven’t asked a question about firearms as tools. Or was there a question I was supposed to answer?

What exactly is to discuss? That the nuts who use guns irresponsibly are BAD MEN and are just so BAD that we should mention how BAD they are VERY LOUDLY?

I don't see people (at least not in the gun-control crowd) pointing to these cases as examples of irresponsible ownership, I see them pointing to these cases as representations of what people with these bad guns do.

Then you are too caught up trying to defend your guns to realize what's being said. I don't know that I can put that any kinder, I'm sorry.

What is being said then? What exactly is the pro-gun side supposed to do to address the issue of the image of firearms in the culture? (see below)

The conversation is more complicated than 'bad people/good people.' This is your hobby, not ours. It is not our responsibility to reach out to you about the unintended consequences of your hobby, it is yours to reach out to us. If the best you can do is complain that we don't understand your hobby you'll make no headway.

What exactly do you/people want from us then?

Do you want us to stress proper handling, care and use of firearms?
Do you want us to inform people that firearms are dangerous objects that have the capability of ending human life?
Do you want us to expound upon the uses for firearms that aren’t related to killing anything with them?
Do you want us to talk about gun control measures we would be in favor of?
Do you want us to talk about the social perception of guns as problem-solvers and the problems and benefits this attitude provides to society?
Do you want us to talk about how crimes with firearms are bad things because of (X, Y, Z) but you shouldn't blame the gun or us because (A. B, C)?

So how exactly are we supposed to "reach out" to a large segment of people who are already decided and inform them about our hobby when their subsequent reaction is automatically viewing us as some kind of heartless maniac because we have the gall to oppose gun-control proposals (whether for practical, ideological, or other reasons)?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes. Large-scale gun bans work, and we know they work because we've seen it happening. Small-scale bans don't work because there's absolutely no way to prevent the movement of guns into the gun-free zone. Gun-free schools are ridiculous because you can't search everyone who enters and ensure they're unarmed, and even if you could they'd leave the gun-free zone later that day and be surrounded by guns again. Not going to do much for gun crime. When the entire country is a gun-free zone, on the other hand, it's pretty fucking effective.

The whole country is supposed to be a marijuana and heroin free zone, and look how well that's working out.

A straight-across ban on guns is an even worse idea than flat legalization of everything gun-related. We have thousands of miles of border we cannot secure, and guns are by no means only able to be built by ultra-pros.

[Tubbsalot]

The whole country is supposed to be a marijuana and heroin free zone, and look how well that's working out.

Funnily enough, other first-world countries are struggling with drugs, yet they're not struggling with guns, even though it's the same strategy in principle. Why is that?

Because a poor supply of guns causes criminals to restrict the usage of the guns they have to make best use of them. That means they're usually deployed in criminal infighting - gang war and the like - rather than being busted out for every street mugging. This is both to reduce the risk of losing the firearm (just generally, or by law enforcement confiscating the weapon) and to avoid attracting the attention of the authorities, who naturally assign a very high priority to gun crime. Nor is it anywhere near as easy to smuggle guns into a country. That combination of poor supply and 'censorship' of weapons means that civilians are massively safer from guns in a country with effective gun control measures.

A straight-across ban on guns is an even worse idea than flat legalization of everything gun-related. We have thousands of miles of border we cannot secure, and guns are by no means only able to be built by ultra-pros.

I'm not claiming you'll be able to get rid of every gun ever. But you don't need to. You just need to reduce the supply sufficiently that it becomes prohibitively expensive to use guns unnecessarily. We have legally available guns in Australia, but the restrictions on their purchase are sufficient that guns remain highly scarce and rarely used on civilians. (Although it sounds like you're really overestimating the ease of illicit gun manufacture.) The real problem is, with the US' gun supply, it's a question of decades to get the gun supply down to the point other countries enjoy.

[AiliailiA]

This must be mortifying for serious gun rights advocates, like Occupied Deutschland or Gun Manufacturers. You have gun owners on your side who can't do primary school maths.

I'm not as strongly anti-gun as my broadly leftist democratic pacifism would suggest. In the case of the US I give a lot of weight to "the horse has bolted" and also to the constitutional argument for gun rights. If the constitution is wrong the only way around it is to change the constitution. Any legislative gun control must remain compatible with the constitution. The bar to change the constitution is very high (with far too much consideration given to states imo) but that's just the way it is. That's how it was designed: to protect certain enumerated rights against being taken away by a simple majority.

With some 42% of the world's civilian firearms being in the USA, my internationalist position is to prevent the spread of such "right to be armed" law to other countries. It's entrenched in the US, but newly democratic nations have choices to make. Do they want to go the European route of attempting gun control or the US route of letting people arm themselves?

Nations like Israel or Switzerland or Finland who base their national defense on "a well ordered militia" don't have the murder problem the US has. It's a subtle distinction, but I think over time it makes a huge difference to the gun culture: is the government permitting gun ownership for collective defence against foreign aggression, or for individual defence against other individuals? SCOTUS said that gun ownership is an individual right, and I think they followed the Constitution and the intent of legislation and the legal precedents quite well: in the US it IS an individual right.

Young democracies have a choice to make about that. My opinion is that some countries with military vulnerability (being either small, or on some kind of front-line between regional factions) do have a compelling need for an armed militia. The United States is very obviously not one of those countries ... hasn't been for a century at least ... and serves as a warning of how corrupted by criminal intentions a right can become, when formulated as a duty-and-right. When the duty part is made obsolete, by a professional military more than sufficient to provide national defence, far too much power falls into the hands of criminals.

And no, criminals will not always get guns. The point of gun control (where it is still practicable) is to reduce the total number of guns: available to criminals by theft or fraud from legal owners, available to criminals by criminal vendors who haven't been caught yet, and most of all available to criminals who haven't been caught for a crime yet.

This young man was hardly remarkable. He didn't stand out, and like the cinema killer had yet to commit a crime at the time he committed a horendous crime with guns that he stole. Stealing from his mother is pretty damn easy, once he'd killed her. If she hadn't owned those guns, or had been required to store them at a registered gun range or a police station, the deranged young man would have been shot trying to burgle some other gun-owner's house or range. Or he'd have turned up at the school with a knife instead of a gun. He would not have killed as many.

But that said, gun control legislation should not be predicated on the small minority of homicides like this: mass murders. These are far more evenly distributed among different nations than other violent crimes involving firearms. Gun control does little to prevent mass murders, but it does a lot to prevent serious assaults becoming murder. Gun control can save a lot of lives, prevent a lot of rapes, and also reduce armed holdups and home invasions. To reduce mass murders is one of the weaker reasons for gun control.

[AiliailiA]

Reread you post it makes no sense. You still don't get it. lol.lol.lol.

no I don't think you get how they do a survey like this. 100,000 people the survey is done. England got 0.07 percent. 2.97 percent of 310 million is still more than 0.07. However, you'd like to argue that England has it handled. Apply England's percentage to the USA. Its not going to change. Do some math.

Do some math yourself. Hint: sometimes you have to multiply and divide, adding and taking away won't get you the right answer. lol.

[Emile Zola]

no I don't think you get how they do a survey like this. 100,000 people the survey is done. England got 0.07 percent. 2.97 percent of 310 million is still more than 0.07. However, you'd like to argue that England has it handled. Apply England's percentage to the USA. Its not going to change. Do some math.

Do some math yourself. Hint: sometimes you have to multiply and divide, adding and taking away won't get you the right answer. lol.

He thinks that it was a survey of just 100 000 people in each country. They rang homes and said, "would you like to complete a survey of how many gun related deaths you've had in your home?"

[The Cutest Bunnies]

[Cannot think of a name]

1) Yes, they very much are as that callous response of “more guns could’a stopped it!’ by gun-owners is driven by an emotional rather than rational response to the problem. Just as the “ban guns!” response some gun-control advocates have is an emotional response to the problem. The two are exactly alike.

Honestly, until you can understand the difference in these two responses you'll never really understand why your message isn't getting across. You want to paint it as if there is some anti-gun crowd silently sitting in wait for their 'opportunity' like a mass shooting. The people who advocate for gun control are doing it all the time, and what their talking about are these things. This is not opportunism. As for the rest of the people's reactions, they are reactions to the idea that their kid might have gone to that school, that it might have been them at that mall, it might be them that gets that call saying a loved one isn't coming home. You can't compare a viceral and emotional response to something like this happening to a knee jerk one to protect your hobby when an unfortunate biproduct of your hobby has manifest itself.

2) How exactly is one supposed to argue with the minority of people who cry “ban guns!” and the significant portion who call for stricter controls?

Start with trying to understand where they are coming from.

3) No, because I have noticed from the beginning you haven’t been saying anything resembling “take them away”, which is why I have stuck to arguing about the image and perception of firearms by broad groups (‘gun-control advocates, pro-gun side, etc.) rather than by you or I personally (well, not so much the 'I' but I've been trying not to call you any names).

We can always keep it civil.

It's your question.

I don’t understand. I haven’t asked a question about firearms as tools. Or was there a question I was supposed to answer?

I just don't know where you're going with all of this. I'm sorry.

What is being said then? What exactly is the pro-gun side supposed to do to address the issue of the image of firearms in the culture? (see below)

Figure it out.

What exactly do you/people want from us then?

Do you want us to stress proper handling, care and use of firearms?
Do you want us to inform people that firearms are dangerous objects that have the capability of ending human life?
Do you want us to expound upon the uses for firearms that aren’t related to killing anything with them?
Do you want us to talk about gun control measures we would be in favor of?
Do you want us to talk about the social perception of guns as problem-solvers and the problems and benefits this attitude provides to society?
Do you want us to talk about how crimes with firearms are bad things because of (X, Y, Z) but you shouldn't blame the gun or us because (A. B, C)?

So how exactly are we supposed to "reach out" to a large segment of people who are already decided and inform them about our hobby when their subsequent reaction is automatically viewing us as some kind of heartless maniac because we have the gall to oppose gun-control proposals (whether for practical, ideological, or other reasons)?

Figure it out. It's your hobby. This is your hobby's problem. And it's become all of our problem. You don't like the solutions people have come up with? Fine. Solve it. Figure it out or eventually we will. You can only shame people for reacting to a tragedy so often before they get fed up. And you know what? That solution might suck. It might be ineffective and end up restricting you more than reducing these things. You don't like that, I understand. Fix it. Don't ask me, I'm not the one who wants the gun. Keep your problem from becoming our problem. Be part of the solution instead of blaming us for noticing the problem.

[Communist Winnipeg]

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Not really because target shooting has one purpose...to increase your shooting proficiency. To become more adept at shooting firearms where the ultimate goal is to kill. Simulated or real.

Or maybe...just maybe...target shooting is fun.

Just because someone shoots a bull's eye or a watermelon in their backyard doesn't mean they are trying to train for killing people.

Would you say FPS Russia is shooting because it's fun, or because he wants to go kill a bunch of people?

Fun is a by product. You are out shooting with your mates...you come second or last...do you not strive to perform better? To become more proficient?

Not really because target shooting has one purpose...to increase your shooting proficiency. To become more adept at shooting firearms where the ultimate goal is to kill. Simulated or real.

How can someone be so very horribly wrong?

Except well...I'm not. Thanks for trying to make an entirely pointless post though.

Not really because target shooting has one purpose...to increase your shooting proficiency. To become more adept at shooting firearms where the ultimate goal is to kill. Simulated or real.

Again, no death, no maiming, and no threats of death or maiming. Wisconsin9's criteria, not mine. Therefore, I win.

My ultimate goal is to score the most points.

What animal does this simulate? http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Pin-Targe ... B007K4RBBK

How about this one? http://galatiinternational.com/product/GTBOTTLE.html

And this one? http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachme ... umbler.jpg

Can you notice the resemblance? http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/i ... u=00161WHI

Are you telling me you don't understand the word "simulated"?

Fencing only has one purpose...to increase your swordsmanship. To become more adept at using swords, where the ultimate goal is to kill. Simulated or real.

Actually, fencing can also be used to keep animals in one place.

I lol'd but then I like bad puns