Arftermath Of The Connecticut Shooting

[adriantc 0]

As you have no doubt have heard last week there has been yet another shooting in a school in Connecticut, another one in a long line of massacres that keep happening in school all over the US. This was one of the worst shootings with 20 kids and 6 of their teachers dead.The full article can be found here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
What I wanted to discuss here are the measures that should be taken to prevent future tragedies like this. I remember that after the Virginia Tech shooting (which was the worst in history) there has been a pale debate whether firearms should be banned or not. And I think such a discussion should be taken more seriously. I am not an American - probably that is why I cannot understand, no matter how much I try, why it is so hard to pass a bill banning firearms. I know that a gun for every person is a part of the American way of life, but it seems there are bigger issues... It seems all kinds of insane people can easily get a gun in there hand. I know my country is no where near as large as the US, but we have never heard of a school shooting. And I have never heard of a mobster doing the shooting. There are always normal individuals with deeply disturbed minds.It seems this time too there is going to be a discussion concerning firearms ban, (an article here: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/17/nation/la-na-shooting-obama-gun-control-20121218) but as always the gun lobbyists seem to have the upper edge. What do you thinK? Should firearms be better regulated?

[sheepdog 10]

I'm one of those die hard Americans that say "you'll get my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from it's barrel." It has been proven time and time again that the more you try to ban guns the worse crime becomes. Americans have the constitutional right to be secure in their homes, and it requires a gun to be secure from those who would rather make their livings from stealing what others have worked for rather than to work themselves. I have worked hard for what I have. I am proud and very fond of my possesions. I think everyone should work for the things they want. They would certainly have more requard for the things they own if they had worked for them. Should fire arms be better regulated? No. They are already severly regulated. The boy who did the school shootings could never have purchased the gun he used. He stole the gun from his mother. And as I'm sure you all know, theft is already illegal. The problem lies in the mental instability of a certain percentage of the population. How you can control someone who is unbalanced and still protect their rights to freedom and liberty is quite a debate however. You can't exactly lock some people up just because you think they are crazy. The ACLU would have a field day with that one. Regulating firearms is not the solution. It never will be. Also, disarming the population is the first step in the government taking complete control of the population. For those of you with a good knowledge of history, you will remember Hilter disarmed the citizens of Germany before he started taking over the country.

[adriantc 0]

You are, of course, right that there is always a certain percentage of population with some deeply disturbed minds, but my question for you is... Do you think he could have done the awful thing without the help of a gun, a gun so conveniently placed for him. (complete with all that ammo as if his mother was getting ready for World War III) Of course everything is illegal, that is out of the question. He might have killed his mother and one or two more people, but I am sure killing so many innocent is out of the question. You have to admit things like this don't happen everywhere and I am sure there is another reason for this other then just saying there are more disturbed individuals in the US.

I can't agree with you on the fact that guns lower crime rate... Europe for example, where gun possession, is strictly controlled has very low crime rate (at least for the south, north and west part) - it is half of that of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

I admire the way your police force treats gun use... here he must be nuts to use the gun - all the paperwork and inquiries and all... not to mention to shoot somebody. They take they gun and shoot in the air, but almost never do they actually shoot somebody. And threating with the gun is just as rare. I also realize it's not really a thing of choice the way your police use their gun, but the result of the fact that everyone can have a gun of their own. Don't get me wrong I completely agree with the fact that you can shoot anybody that trespasses your property, but the fact that anyone can all big guns capable of doing so much damage, with so many rounds and all... that sounds wrong. I think there is a difference between what you need for self-defense and what you need for offense. And I'm sure you agree with me when I say that what that boy had was not self-defense weaponry.

[adriantc 0]

Seems they started thinking about a "better" solution to the problem... It seems someone had the "smart" idea to arm... guess who... the teachers . That's one way to deal with the problem. And if you don't trust me here is the source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/connecticut-shooting-armed-teachers-gun-advocate_n_2304654.html and https://thinkprogress.org/gop-rep-suggests-teachers-should-be-armed-with-assault-rifles-96c1aab7b2e1?mobile=nc&gi=bd219fb00df9

 

If that is not plain stupid, I don't know what is. It's like trying to kill an ant with a bazooka. You can't fight fire with fire in this issue.

[HoodProphet 0]

I think a discussion on guns is long overdue. I personally support the purchasing of basic firearms, such as pistols, shotguns, and weaponry designed for hunting. However, I am unsure about rifles, such as AR-15s. The logic is that such weapons are for defense, but it seems a bit much for home defense. As someone stated, "If you need an AR-15 to protect your home, you need to move to a better neighborhood. I live in one of the worse neighborhoods in America, and I don't see many scenerios where an AR-15 would be required to protect myself and family. In fact, the only scenerio that I can think where I would need such a weapon is for fighting off the police or U.S. Army, which I don't believe is a likely scenerio. But, even if so, it would be suicidal.I also find it strange that most gun fanatics live in safe neighborhoods. Most are afraid of staying in certain neighborhoods after night fall. I think there is only one explaination: They have an interest (almost like a hobby) in guns that have absolutely nothing to do with self defense. I am not a person who believes that outlawing guns will prevent crime, but I do believe that certain guns have no place in a civilized society. Certain weapons are designed for military combat, and not to be used amongst common members of a civilized society. If someone has a right to own an assault rifle, then why not a fighter jet or tank? The same logic follows that if you need a fighter jet or tank to protect your home, then perhaps you should move. I would understand the self defense argument when discussing high powered rifles if we lived in a society based on the state of nature. If there was no government or police to rely on for protection. Of course, some justify their possession of such high powered weapons with a "just in case" mentality. However, why not a tank, jet, or nuclear bomb...just in case?Now the reason I support the ownership of basic firearms is that they are needed for self defense. It is something that I view as self evident and has been proven time and time again. An old woman with a gun is most likely alive in the case of a home invasion, while she is more likely dead armless. And of course, the classical argument is that laws banning guns do not prevent criminals from obtaining them and using them on everyday citizens. Assault rifles are less accessible to criminals due to cost and others factors, but handguns are not. Therefore, I there is definately a need for law abiding citizens to have the means to equalize the balance of power. But, the primary problem with some gun owners is that they are irresponsible. For example, in the Connecticut shooting, the mother of the mass murder gain her son access to her guns and even took her son to the gun range to practice. That is not proper conduct for a responsible gun owner, especially when there is an individual who is mentally unstable in the home. Where were the gun locks? Why were these guns so easily obtained?If there should be new laws, the most important should deal with the storage of weapons and their accessibility to individuals who do not have legal ownership of the weapon in question.

[adriantc 0]

In my country you can get a gun with a permit, but that is kind of hard to get. Most of the guns here are not lethal... guns with rubber bullets and so on. Even bad people don't usually have guns. While you might feel better (safer) owning a gun, most of the thieves also don't have access to guns. So there is kind of a balance.Also we must not forget there are already law enforcing institutions that are paid to do just that... make sure nobody comes into our homes. I don't think arming everybody is the answer... because if you can get a gun, I'm sure the one forcing his way into your home is also going to have a gun and I'm pretty sure he is going to be more prepared to use it. Maybe the police force should be increased, better laws passed, prison conditions shouldn't be so easy. If everybody starts arming like it's the doomsday and starts shooting it's just like anarchy. I don't think a society reacting to a school massacre by arming itself and the teachers is heading in the right direction. And while they are becoming more frequent and deadlier, lessons could be learned for that trend. It may mean the current policy (whether it's gun policy, society education, etc) is not effective.

[sheepdog 10]

Actually Adriantc,shortly after this horrific story broke the news, I heard a short blurb about another incidenet in this country many years ago, (I can't remember the date, seems like it was back in the 40's?) that killed the most people ever in a school. The purp actually used dynomite. So yes, horrible thngs can happen without guns. Granted dynomite is not that easy to come by, guns are probably much easier, but if someone wants do do something this awful, there is without a doubt, a way to do it. Common household chemicals can make some wicked bombs. I'm no chemist, but even I know of one that can start a wicked fire 30-45 seconds after you combine the 2 of them, giving you plenty of time to walk away.

 

As far as an AK 15 being over kill (pardon the pun) for home defence, I can understand your reasoning behind that. It would be plenty for your average criminal that is breaking into your home. But not everyone has faith in our government or police force. These government agencies are all well armed with the biggest and best weapons currently available. God forbid, what if a revolution was to take place? Citizens against armed forces with single shot rifles would be in about the same shape the indians were with their bows and arrows against the white man with his repeating rifles. And don't think it can't happen, if you don't believe me just ask and Indian! (native american of course)

[k_nitin_r 8]

The only way that they are going to reduce gun-related crimes is to have a total nation-wide ban on guns of all kinds, with retrospective effect. What I mean is that simply banning the possession and use of guns is not enough - the nation has to enforce the policy all over and should also buy-back guns that were sold to existing gun owners. That would be a whole lot of money for the government to use in getting back the guns and routing all of them to its military, and a lot of weapons manufacturers would be rather unhappy about the policy, but that's the only way gun-related crimes can be reduced. If there are no guns, there are no gun-related crimes. Maybe we would then start seeing swords becoming more common, but at least there would be no gun related crimes wherein one person can go on a shooting spree and kill a dozen other people before shooting himself/herself. With a sword, the killer would have to hunt down the victims one at a time and so the most he or she can do is take down two or at most three victims before getting taken down by law enforcement agents. Unless the government gets really short-handed, it does not need citizens with guns killing people when they go lunatic, and the only way that can do that is to say, "No Guns, end of discussion."

[sheepdog 10]

I guess you've never heard the saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." You will never get the entire population disarmed. And when people wo are otherwise law abiding citizens who turn in their weapons to remain law abiding citizens, they will put themselves at the mercy of the criminals who will able to rob rape and pillage to their hearts content with no fear of their chosen victums being able to fight back and defend themselves. Statistics have already proven this. Areas that have the tightest gun control also have the highest crime rates.

[k_nitin_r 8]

"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Statistics have already proven this. Areas that have the tightest gun control also have the highest crime rates.

I think we ought to define certain criteria for when owning guns are okay and when they are not. If guns are brought into every society, it may lead to anarchy. Right now, if someone is upset at a political figure, he throws a shoe and we all know about that not-so-gentleman expressing his disagreement and if he had a gun, we would have lost former President Bush. Sure, many people don't like him but he's a part of the nation's history.

Guns can be permitted in places where the government is unable to enforce law and order. This can be in the places with low population density or impoverished governments. There would likely be an increase in crime too, but at least the victims would have equal abilities as the perpetrators. I do not support guns though. Imagine what would have happened if they hadn't advocated nuclear disarmament. Getting everyone to buy guns is good for weapons manufacturers. No one else.

[sheepdog 10]

It is the defining of this criteria that is now the problem we are facing. Everyone has a different opinion of what that criteria should be. And the opinions run the full gamet from those who would allow no one to have a gun under any circumstance, and those that think perhaps some guns should be allowed but not other types. It's very unlikely that either side will give in to the other, and there are pashionate people on both ends of the spectrum. I don't completely understand your reasoning about introducing guns to any society and having it cause anarchy. We have all had the ability to own firearms in the USA and there is no anarchy here. Maybe you are refering to other societies that have not had the oppertunity to own firearms in the past?