Yet another school shooting

[Doubting Thomas]

The thing is, even though you can go on a murderous rampage with a chain saw or a naginata, guns are a lot more effective.

Some time after Sandy Hook there was an incident where some nutjob went to a crowded public place with a sword and started attacking people. While there were several injuries, there were no fatalities. If they'd had a gun, it probably would have been a different outcome.

[CleanShavenJesus]

You do understand that there is a difference between "trying" to do it and "doing" it?

We had 4 shootings here which were "succesfull". At one a total of 16 people were killed.

There have been 271 school shootings and 14 rampage shootings total in the U.S.

I think I'd rather there be rampages with a sword. Something tells me a sword would do less damage.

[Something completely different]

The thing is, even though you can go on a murderous rampage with a chain saw or a naginata, guns are a lot more effective.

Some time after Sandy Hook there was an incident where some nutjob went to a crowded public place with a sword and started attacking people. While there were several injuries, there were no fatalities. If they'd had a gun, it probably would have been a different outcome.

The last highschool massacre here was the Winnended school shooting in 2009. The gun he used was his fathers and he stole it for the crime. It does not matter how strickt the regulations are, a person determined to commit a crime will still stay on his course and commit that crime. And it is cynical to focuse ones attention on outstandingly violent crimes that get more media attention. Most homicides are not planned and executed mass murders but crimes resulting out of a situation in which the offender is put under pressure.

- A man who beats someone to death in a barfight.

- The drunken husband who strangles his wife

- The beaten up wife who had enought and stabs her husband.

These account for the biggest amount of occuring homicides. And after that come those which take some planning. Like the husband who murders his wife and dumps the body off a bridge, thinking it will make it look like a suicide. We have discussed this topic in various different threads, and in every single one of those threads I have continously posted the same statistics over and over again. Statistices on homicide for the US on a state basis, a national basis, statistics on European homicides on a national basis and more. And all these statistics bring the same result which seem to be ignored here. Dispite the availability of firearms, the homicide rate in the US is not the highest. Eastern European countries have a higher average homicide rate than the US. And I dont know if remember this correctly but in my memory I found for the last thread that Poland has a higher homicide rate than Texas.

The availabillity of methods to commit a crime is without a doubt an important contributing factor in a regions crime statistic, but it is not the most important one. The statistics I read and posted clearly showed that the biggest contributing factor to a large homicide rate and large crime rate in total is poverty, ethnic conflict, political conflict and proximity to drug routes.

Best example is Italy:



Italy has some of the strictest gun regulations on this planet. But if you read through the statistics concerning Neaples, you could easily believe that city to be somewhat like Falludscha in 2004. Southern Italy is where the main drug smuggling routes for south american cocain and asian heroin go through (proximity to drug routes) and southern Italy is also one of the poorest regions on the European continent.
In conclusion I can only say that it is not the availability of guns which create the high homicide rate. And since I base my arguments on statistics and research on the reality I live in, it would be dishonest of me to argue for better gun control for the purpose of cutting the crime rate.

the only argument I can give against a wide availability of guns.... I`ll make a list:

- Political instability:

I have often seen posters and arguments by american gun nuts in the media in which it is argued that the strict gun regulations of nazi germany brought Hitler to power. That is utter nonsence and a lie which willfully turns historic facts on their head. It is forbidden by German law today to own weapons as a political organisation and one of the reasons for that is that Hitler came to power through armed brownshirts who fought the police and armed communists. Back then almoust every single political party had a heavily armed militia which fought other militias from other parties. This constant social instability was what defeated the publics trust in the political system and helped the Republic to collapse. So when talking gun control, I would insist in forbidding political militias to own any kind of firearm.

- Criminal Investigation

This does not completly ban the sale of arms, but I would insist that firearms should only be sold at licensed arms dealers, that owners are registered and that every gun being sold has to undergo a process of balistic testing so the gun can be identified in a crime case. And also, most important of all: psychological testing.

- Suicide rate

This is where every single country with liberalised gun regulations shows the same statistics. The US, Swizerland, Russia and the Phillipines have the most liberal arms regulations on the planet, in every single country the crime rate is differn. But what all have in common is an extraordenarily high gun used suicide rate. The availability of guns may not increase the crime rate, but it certainly does increase the rate of suicides in which guns are used. And I dont even think that a problem with a high suicide rate can be solved by simply banning the tool used for suicide. So the only thing I can propose here is psycological testing of buyers.

[Doubting Thomas]

The trouble is our totally easy access to firearms and the total unwillingness of anyone to do anything about it. Even after Sandy Hook the NRA was against toughening the background checks to make sure that people who shouldn't have guns don't get them.

Again, I don't want my children to die while trying to get an education just because a bunch of gun nuts feel insecure without their firearms.

[Mister Agenda]

In this particular case, it was already illegal for Brandon Hill to possess a firearm because he's a convicted felon.

[Foxaèr]

The sickening part about it all is that gun sales increase when someone reasonably suggests stricter gun control due to a recent tragedy.

[Doubting Thomas]

In this particular case, it was already illegal for Brandon Hill to possess a firearm because he's a convicted felon.

Yes, so where did he get this particular firearm? I'm hoping he didn't just buy it somewhere, and if he stole it from a friend or family member, why the hell didn't they keep the weapon in a gun safe?

It's not like you can just walk down the street and find an AK-47 laying beside the sidewalk. But it's pretty darned easy to get one at a gun show.

[Brakeman]

I was illuminating the fact that what someone uses as a weapon need not be designed as a weapon to be used as one.

The design of a weapon/tool such as a gun directly impacts on how efficient a killing weapon it is and how easy it is to use.

You could argue that you could kill as many people if not more with a jumbo jet, but you're forgetting just how difficult it is to high-jack a jumbo jet, learn how to fly it and have the ability to direct it where you want when compared with, let's say... a pistol. That's why your analogy fails.

And if you want to use the car analogy instead, the same applies, except also car related deaths are by and large accidents, not someone wanting to go around intentionally killing school children.

All in all, the whole argument that you can use other things to cause as much damage as a gun almost always misses the point.

So in essence you are saying guns are bad because they are the easiest to use, as psychopathic killers are inherently extremely lazy? Hmmm..

[Napoléon]

So in essence you are saying guns are bad because they are the easiest to use, as psychopathic killers are inherently extremely lazy? Hmmm..

If that's what you wish to draw from what I wrote then do carry on.

[Doubting Thomas]

I believe it's just the prevalence of guns in our society, in real life and in the movies, on TV, etc, that is likely what makes guns the #1 go-to weapon for nutjobs intent on committing mass murder.