Connecticut School Shooting

[puckluck2]

This sickens me.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

it may and it may not.

but it access to weapons that is the difference. How many people would be killed if it was a single or double shot rifle? How many killed with a revolver.

American's narrative of the second amendment (what 200 years old?!) is the problem here. Fragmentation bullets, assault rifles and semi automatics pistols did not even exist at the time of the amendment!

It's people who decide to kill people. "Teach your children well". I know that sounds corny, but i think it is at the heart of the matter.
(No i dont think machine guns should be sold at the local Quickee Mart)

[nik-]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Its people who decide to kill people..."teach your children well". I know that sounds corny, but i think it is at the heart of the matter.

The point is that it's a lot easier to kill people with easy access to killing machines. Today is a perfect counter to the human nature argument, 22 injured in China, 28 dead in America.

[Hemi-Cuda]

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by T@T

If you took a poll I would bet at least 70% of Americans would welcome a ban on handguns and assault rifles,problem is the other 30 odd percent are absolute idiots or hicks

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

I do not consider myself an idiot or a hick, and hold quite a few opinions left of Canada, but I would not support an outright ban.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Its people who decide to kill people..."teach your children well". I know that sounds corny, but i think it is at the heart of the matter.

People have always killed people. The heart of the matter would relate to why so many now? Broken families do not create more killers in other countries. It's not about societies fundamentals breaking down, they always have. The real desire should be to limit the damage.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

People have always killed people. The heart of the matter would relate to why so many now? Broken families do not create more killers in other countries. It's not about societies fundamentals breaking down, they always have. The real desire should be to limit the damage.

So to me that sounds like fix the symptoms, and forget the root cause.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by drhu22

So to me that sounds like fix the symptoms, and forget the root cause.

Address the root causes while also taking away the tools that turn them into massacres.

This isn't a one or the other thing, it's both.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by nik-

Address the root causes while also taking away the tools that turn them into massacres.

This isn't a one or the other thing, it's both.

I totally agree that there are multiple factors.
When it comes to firearms, what should we keep? If there was an inter/national uprising/war/revolution/emergency...would you wish to know you that could protect yourself or hunt for food?

[nik-]

In my opinion repeating rifles should be perfectly legal. I'm not even really opposed to shotguns as long as their round capacity is reasonable ie: two shells.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

I do not consider myself an idiot or a hick, and hold quite a few opinions left of Canada, but I would not support an outright ban.

Where was that poll taken..Texas? and how many people were polled?

If the true majority were polled...the USA is in a world of hurt.

[QuadCityImages]

You guys clearly do not understand the importance to Americans of the Bill of Rights. That poll combined with the earlier one showing that only 30% of Americans own guns means that a third of the country are non-gun-owners who support the right of others to own handguns. Its in the Constitution and people take that seriously.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

You guys clearly do not understand the importance to Americans of the Bill of Rights. That poll combined with the earlier one showing that only 30% of Americans own guns means that a third of the country are non-gun-owners who support the right of others to own handguns. Its in the Constitution and people take that seriously.

The same way that people "take the Bible seriously"?

How "serious" anyone is—even a huge sampling of a given population—does not directly indicate their level of understanding of the issues. I don't doubt that Americans all take the Constitution very seriously. But I seriously question how many of them understand it, can correctly contextualize it, and can interpret the spirit of the document in such a manner that accurately reflects its purpose and intent for a fundamentally changed and dramatically different society.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

That's where the state falls down. Case in point is the downtown east side of Vancouver. The government kicked the mentally ill out of local psychiatric institutions, closed them then let them fend for themselves. Most mental health problems can be treated effectively, however this costs money and you need healthcare professionals to make it work.

And nuts don't vote.

[Flashpoint]

If the vast majority of gun owners in the United States are responsible, rational, honest, law abiding citizens, then they'll have no problem obeying the law when it changes.

For a lot of them, it'll turn out they are neither responsible, nor rational, nor law abiding.

In which case they shouldn't have guns anyway.

You'll measure the results of the legislation in the reduction of human lives lost.

[stang]

Quote from David Draiman from Disturbed.

IM A GUN OWNER. HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS. I BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT. BUT I WOULD GIVE THEM ALL UP IF IT MEANT SAVING JUST ONE CHILD'S LIFE.

-DAVID

[valo403]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

I do not consider myself an idiot or a hick, and hold quite a few opinions left of Canada, but I would not support an outright ban.

Why?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

You guys clearly do not understand the importance to Americans of the Bill of Rights. That poll combined with the earlier one showing that only 30% of Americans own guns means that a third of the country are non-gun-owners who support the right of others to own handguns. Its in the Constitution and people take that seriously.

Sure they do, I do too, but the 2nd Amendment has become a complete perversion of what it was meant to be.

[FlamesAddiction]

Does anyone have any stats on the victims of gun violence over the past several years in how it relates to their roles in the incidents?

(ie. How many people killed by guns are perps and aggressors, and how many are innocents...)

It seems like the majority of people killed by guns are innocents, but maybe the perception isn't reality... I honestly don't know. I realize that this stats could be skewed by gang violence where innocence is relative on any given day (ie. a person may have been minding their own business the day they were killed, but had done something aggressive in the past to provoke the incident).

For every "bad" guy killed by police or in self-defense, how many innocent people have to be killed by guns to make it a fair trade off?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

...It seems like the majority of people killed by guns are innocents, but maybe the perception isn't reality... I honestly don't know. I realize that this stats could be skewed by gang violence where innocence is relative on any given day (ie. a person may have been minding their own business the day they were killed, but had done something aggressive in the past to provoke the incident).

I expect that the numbers are not as one-sided as you surmise, given that there are huge number of gun incidents involving the police that never generate the same kind of media attention, and which we subsequently never hear about.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

For every "bad" guy killed by police or in self-defense, how many innocent people have to be killed by guns to make it a fair trade off?

Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but a "fair trade off"?!