Shooting in Connecticut
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
- Status
SFer
Well-known member
I'd just like you to confirm that you are telling us that if the US changes its gun laws to something more like Canada or GB or Japan etc. that it will make absolutely no difference in the amount of deaths we see by firearms. ?!?
You are saying that 75 children under the age of 5 will still accidentally shoot themselves?
Or that approx 90 people A DAY, 90 PEOPLE A DAY IN THE US will still die from a firearm.
Or that 1/2 a million guns will still be stolen? Not from cars and bedside drawers anymore but from lockers and safes?
You are saying that 75 children under the age of 5 will still accidentally shoot themselves?
Or that approx 90 people A DAY, 90 PEOPLE A DAY IN THE US will still die from a firearm.
Or that 1/2 a million guns will still be stolen? Not from cars and bedside drawers anymore but from lockers and safes?
you are in effect shifting the argument away from what was originally stated.
What I stated, and have always stated, was that MORE regulation will not likely impact the homicide rate in any significant way, nor will it likely stop the incidence of such rampage attacks. The reason for this is painfully obvious to all except anti-gun nuts: such homicide rates have more to do with socio-economic or mental illness factors than the number or types of guns available. Gang killings and rampage killings involve people who have already decided to break the law. No amount of regulation is going to stop someone who has already decided to ignore the law. The only effect of regulation is increased encumbrance on law-abiding citizens.
The only logical conclusion of your position is to outright ban all firearms, and that will simply not work. 1) because there will always be guns available to those who want one badly enough (look at the supply and demand of elicit drugs and criminal possession of "illegal" guns, not to mention legitimate sources such as hunters, law enforcement, target shooters), 2) even without access to firearms, those who are bent on harming others will resort to other means (blunt weapon or knife/sword attacks, improvised explosive devices, vehicular homicide, poisoning, etc, etc, etc).
This knee jerk reaction against the gun instead of the perpetrator is as understandable as it is useless. But to effectively deal with these situations, solutions must address why the perpetrator committed this crime. Simply adding more regulation or arbitrarily banning certain firearms (as we do in Canada) will ultimately have no effect on mitigating such outcomes.
Why? For the simple reason that those who choose to ignore the law will simply ignore the law.
You're post introduces a slew of other situations (suicide, accidental deaths, firearms deaths apart from overall homicide rates, etc., etc) that have nothing to do with random or deliberate homicides. For the sake of argument, let's try to keep the topic of conversation consistent to the one at hand.
Also keep in mind that relative to other US states, Connecticut is reported to have some of the more stringent regulations, and that the perpetrator of this crime had been denied a firearms permit.
What I stated, and have always stated, was that MORE regulation will not likely impact the homicide rate in any significant way, nor will it likely stop the incidence of such rampage attacks. The reason for this is painfully obvious to all except anti-gun nuts: such homicide rates have more to do with socio-economic or mental illness factors than the number or types of guns available. Gang killings and rampage killings involve people who have already decided to break the law. No amount of regulation is going to stop someone who has already decided to ignore the law. The only effect of regulation is increased encumbrance on law-abiding citizens.
The only logical conclusion of your position is to outright ban all firearms, and that will simply not work. 1) because there will always be guns available to those who want one badly enough (look at the supply and demand of elicit drugs and criminal possession of "illegal" guns, not to mention legitimate sources such as hunters, law enforcement, target shooters), 2) even without access to firearms, those who are bent on harming others will resort to other means (blunt weapon or knife/sword attacks, improvised explosive devices, vehicular homicide, poisoning, etc, etc, etc).
This knee jerk reaction against the gun instead of the perpetrator is as understandable as it is useless. But to effectively deal with these situations, solutions must address why the perpetrator committed this crime. Simply adding more regulation or arbitrarily banning certain firearms (as we do in Canada) will ultimately have no effect on mitigating such outcomes.
Why? For the simple reason that those who choose to ignore the law will simply ignore the law.
You're post introduces a slew of other situations (suicide, accidental deaths, firearms deaths apart from overall homicide rates, etc., etc) that have nothing to do with random or deliberate homicides. For the sake of argument, let's try to keep the topic of conversation consistent to the one at hand.
Also keep in mind that relative to other US states, Connecticut is reported to have some of the more stringent regulations, and that the perpetrator of this crime had been denied a firearms permit.
Last edited:
...as for your question, let me pose this to you:
If the USA adopted Canadian style regulations tomorrow (as you suggest), do you think for a moment that the guns will magically disappear from the hands of criminals and gangbangers? Do you think for a moment that there won't be kids involved in an accidental discharge, or that kids won't get killed in an accident?? Do you think for a moment that the mentally ill won't kill either themselves or someone else with either a gun or some other weapon???
Do you really think that???
If that is what you believe, then give your head a shake, 'cause you're living in la-la land.
If the USA adopted Canadian style regulations tomorrow (as you suggest), do you think for a moment that the guns will magically disappear from the hands of criminals and gangbangers? Do you think for a moment that there won't be kids involved in an accidental discharge, or that kids won't get killed in an accident?? Do you think for a moment that the mentally ill won't kill either themselves or someone else with either a gun or some other weapon???
Do you really think that???
If that is what you believe, then give your head a shake, 'cause you're living in la-la land.
SFer
Well-known member
I can stick to homicides.
So you are saying that changing the gun laws to more reflect other nations tighter laws that
There will still be 10,000-12,000 homicides a year in the states?
That 7 year olds will still be able to grab thier fathers gun from the drawer and go rob a corner store and accidentally kill the teller and the poor old lady who jut happened to be there buying milk?
That the wife who just found out her husband was cheating on her will still somehow, in her moment o rage still manage to kill her husband.
That a 20 yr old that couldn't wait the new laws 2-3 months waiting period would still be able to go to his moms house where her firearms and ammo are properly stored, will still kill 20 people at an elementary school?
That changing the laws won't make one bit of difference. Won't save one life?
So you are saying that changing the gun laws to more reflect other nations tighter laws that
There will still be 10,000-12,000 homicides a year in the states?
That 7 year olds will still be able to grab thier fathers gun from the drawer and go rob a corner store and accidentally kill the teller and the poor old lady who jut happened to be there buying milk?
That the wife who just found out her husband was cheating on her will still somehow, in her moment o rage still manage to kill her husband.
That a 20 yr old that couldn't wait the new laws 2-3 months waiting period would still be able to go to his moms house where her firearms and ammo are properly stored, will still kill 20 people at an elementary school?
That changing the laws won't make one bit of difference. Won't save one life?
Last edited:
wonderings
Well-known member
Guns will always find a way in. The problem is the people. Whats causing them to do these things? What is so bad in their lives, what has twisted them so much, that this becomes something they want to do and do.
Great article
SFer
Well-known member
US needs a cultural change as well as a gun law changes. Any gun law change without the cultural change will have limited results. Too many want an easy solution like ban XXX type of gun, limit clip size or worse yet arm more people, there is no one item answer to their problem. The issue is the need people have to carry guns and to have them at easy reach because the boogieman is going to get them, this is making them just too available for either theft or being misappropriated by these shooters.
Gun control laws are the easy part, look at what works in the first world and adopt some or all of it--politically tough yes, but it is still the easy part. The statistics do not lie, when you filter out countries that have other serious issues and stick the the developed first world the US has a serious issue when it comes to guns, denial is not going to help it. The issue is not the guns per capita it is the culture of how and why.
The cultural change will need to be multifaceted and will take a long time to implement. First issue is get the churches on side. Religion is not the cause, don't get me wrong BUT they should have major pull because the gun lobby in the US is predominately the conservative religious right (NRA etc.). If their churches started to get on them about this and took a strong stand and started to preach the actual bible well this will go a long way at alienating and weakening the gun lobbyists. They probably won't because these guys give them lots of money.
Next, get the celebutards on side, not just leftist Hollywood but the US institutions like Nascar and the NFL. They can get the gun control message out, over time people will start to bend--it will not happen fast. Every event make sure it is understood that not only are guns NOT welcome at the event but put out the message about how they should be stored etc. that real men do not need a gun to feel like a big man.... Some of these institutions will cry that they are not political and do not want to be involved, too bad for them--call them out then.
Music industry is the next one, and so on and so on.
The idea is to get the cultural shift away from the gun culture, it will take decades to do but eventually it will work. Law changes it just the easy part.
Gun control laws are the easy part, look at what works in the first world and adopt some or all of it--politically tough yes, but it is still the easy part. The statistics do not lie, when you filter out countries that have other serious issues and stick the the developed first world the US has a serious issue when it comes to guns, denial is not going to help it. The issue is not the guns per capita it is the culture of how and why.
The cultural change will need to be multifaceted and will take a long time to implement. First issue is get the churches on side. Religion is not the cause, don't get me wrong BUT they should have major pull because the gun lobby in the US is predominately the conservative religious right (NRA etc.). If their churches started to get on them about this and took a strong stand and started to preach the actual bible well this will go a long way at alienating and weakening the gun lobbyists. They probably won't because these guys give them lots of money.
Next, get the celebutards on side, not just leftist Hollywood but the US institutions like Nascar and the NFL. They can get the gun control message out, over time people will start to bend--it will not happen fast. Every event make sure it is understood that not only are guns NOT welcome at the event but put out the message about how they should be stored etc. that real men do not need a gun to feel like a big man.... Some of these institutions will cry that they are not political and do not want to be involved, too bad for them--call them out then.
Music industry is the next one, and so on and so on.
The idea is to get the cultural shift away from the gun culture, it will take decades to do but eventually it will work. Law changes it just the easy part.
The shooter didn't have any history violence. He was an “A” student. This feels like something out of the movies where someone is triggered by an outside force to cause mass destruction without notice. How can there be so many mass shooting in a very short amount of time? What is causing things. Drugs? Are these shootings a CIA experiment?
It can’t be the TV since we watch what they watch.
It can’t be the TV since we watch what they watch.
It is the easy access to firearms due more to culture than control that is the difference (comparing US to the rest of the first world). In China for example (not even classic first world) they are having an issue with knife attacks, same concept of a switch flipping but no easy access to a gun. Take as another example that guy on the Greyhound Bus a while back, knife equals one victim, gun equals lots. The list goes on and on. Some will say anecdotal (pro-gun) some will say just look at the numbers and find an explanation (anti-gun).
wonderings
Well-known member
You don't have to have a history of violence, and you can still be disturbed mentally, but able to keep it inside, until that one thing pushes you over and this is what happens. I don't know all the details, and honestly have not really followed this terrible event at all, so cant speak to who this person is who committed this horrible act, but it is not new, and seems to be happening pretty regularly. So many variables, I don't think you could ever break it down to he did this, or watched this, or this happened to him when he was young.
Actually....that's not true...if the populace isn't capable of policing themselves then it's left to government to do it. In Switzerland they have shown a healthy respect for firearms...in the US they haven't.
That "save one life" argument is old, tired and dangerous.
but stay in la-la land with your doctored/skewed stat's and believe what you will.
I said it before and I'll say it again: MORE regulation and MORE bans will not impact the USA in the way you are dreaming of.
but stay in la-la land with your doctored/skewed stat's and believe what you will.
I said it before and I'll say it again: MORE regulation and MORE bans will not impact the USA in the way you are dreaming of.
again, you support my point again: it's not the guns per se, but the people (socio-economic factors).
gwelfmike
Well-known member
I cannot understand if one has this love of high powered, "arm your self to the maximum" life, why doesnt one move to the US so they can live their fantasy life of denial. Why do people equate "Gun Control" with banning guns altogether? I live in the near north, and know a lot of hunters and they are even asking "Why does someone need to own a gun like that? Are they that much of a lousy hunter?"
We don't need to. We can buy evil "assault rifles" here in good old canada, and many of us do own them, and will continue to own them regardless of whether people like you are too scared of them or not.
Its pretty easy to see if you've spent any time around sportsman, and a shooting range.
The hunter thinks the world doesnt need a 60 round clip , .223 caliber ( a round designed to kill only people) to go deer hunting.
The guys you see at an American range that argue about which round would take an intruder off his feet, handload hollowpoints at home in the basement and own a "lovely friendly" pit bull as a pet are apples, the hunters and skeet shooters are oranges.
You cant compare these dudes.
The hunter thinks the world doesnt need a 60 round clip , .223 caliber ( a round designed to kill only people) to go deer hunting.
The guys you see at an American range that argue about which round would take an intruder off his feet, handload hollowpoints at home in the basement and own a "lovely friendly" pit bull as a pet are apples, the hunters and skeet shooters are oranges.
You cant compare these dudes.
gwelfmike
Well-known member
Paul1000rr
Funny that you assumed I am "scared of them", it would be like me saying people like you who own big guns have "big gun, little man sydnrome"
and you really did not answer my questions, you just tried to attack me personally, which is even more funny.
Funny that you assumed I am "scared of them", it would be like me saying people like you who own big guns have "big gun, little man sydnrome"
and you really did not answer my questions, you just tried to attack me personally, which is even more funny.
- Status
