Yet another school shooting

[CleanShavenJesus]

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..

Seriously?

[Brakeman]

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..

The design of a weapon/tool .. efficient .. how easy it is to use. ..
You could argue that you could kill as many people if not more with .. difficult ..
Thus the implied point seems to be that killers will take the easy method and not the difficult method.

I don't always agree with that idea, but it has some validity. I just saw the comment as simplistic and overstated, not that I think it is untrue.
The 911 Hijackers had access to guns but chose a plane, Tim McVeigh had access to guns, but he chose a home made bomb. Neither of these invalidates your good point, but they do show that it has exceptions.


So seriously..

[Bad Writer]

And my, aren't those exceptions rare...

[Minimalist]

That is utter nonsence and a lie which willfully turns historic facts on their head.

They love to do that. Some times it is comical as when Michelle Bachman insisted that the "Founding Fathers" did away with slavery.
Or Sarah Palin insisting that Paul Revere was warning the British.

Palin, June 2: [Revere] warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

Dumb twats.

[Napoléon]

Tim McVeigh had access to guns, but he chose a home made bomb. Neither of these invalidates your good point, but they do show that it has exceptions.


So seriously..

Did I say there weren't exceptions?

[Chas]

And my, aren't those exceptions rare...

That's irony, right?

[Brakeman]

Did I say there weren't exceptions?

Not in the part I quoted! I didn't really make the comment to make a point really, I just saw how restating the quoted section into simple terms would be funny ... well, funny to me anyway. Sorry I bothered you.

[Napoléon]

Not in the part I quoted! I didn't really make the comment to make a point really, I just saw how restating the quoted section into simple terms would be funny ... well, funny to me anyway. Sorry I bothered you.

You could of quoted the whole thing, still wouldn't of been anywhere where I said there was not an exception to my own point.

And I'm not bothered, I just failed to see the humour and thought you were making a point.

[Creed of Heresy]

A man carrying an AK-47 opened fire in a Georgia elementary school, luckily nobody was injured or killed:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/us/georgia...l-gunshots

I will say it again, these kinds of incidents will continue to happen until we get sensible gun control in this country.

I like how nobody notices that the man was charged with "possession of a firearm by a convicted felon."

He did not come by that firearm legally. You really think gun control laws would've done anything to stop this guy? No. The gun itself is illegal to own in the US under the assault rifle ban. AK-47s are illegal to purchase. I own one myself but I have it fully registered and track-logged, and purchased it before the AR ban. THIS guy, however? I somehow doubt he got this gun legitimately.

I keep having to repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself repeat myself: CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU BAN GUNS. Nora Brimstone was just talking about a girl who was shot to death on her street in England. You know, that nation that completely DOES NOT allow firearms? WOW, HOW STRANGE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE CRIMINALS DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THE LAW OR SOMETHING. Gasp, choke, stare-with-wide-eyes-and-gaping-mouth-in-shock!

I'm getting a little sick of these threads instantly being used as political statements by the members of this forum. Not ONE PERSON HERE says something like "thank goodness NO CHILDREN WERE HURT OR KILLED (which kind of negates the whole "guns will make it easy" everyone is saying when a guy with one of the most lethal ARs in existence fails to even injure someone despite shooting repeatedly), it's a good thing this wasn't a tragedy and was instead just a disturbance at a school!"

This is getting sickening, guys. When the entire thread is just everyone bitching about guns without actually talking about the tragedy itself, or the incident itself? You guys might wanna check your priorities; because if you're discussing the politics before you're discussing the incident itself? You've already fucked up as an empathetic individual.

[Creed of Heresy]

Correction: I did not intend to really call anyone's morality or empathy into question. It's just something that's driving me nuts, not on just this forum but all around where these instances, where indeed they DO become horrible tragedies in which lives are cut short far before their time and rather than devoting time and energy trying to extend some sympathy and understanding to the families of affected, the focus starts going immediately on gun control politics. Let the gun control topic come up afterwards. I'm tired of people immediately pointing the finger at the guns and bitching about them and NOT THE GUY WHO JUST MURDERED A BUNCH OF CHILDREN. It doesn't matter how the psychopath ended the lives; the fact of the matter is that the person just ended the lives of innocents. I don't care if it was by a machete or pipe bombs or assault rifles or home-made chemical-bombs; killing is killing. The means don't change a damn thing and focusing on the means and not the incident itself is just a whacked-out set of priorities. Let that discussion come later, you know? And save your anger and ire for the shithead who committed the atrocity, and on the cause of it. Gun use in these kinds of crimes is a symptom, not a cause.

Something in our society is fundamentally broken where this kind of thing can happen. Let's focus on that shit first, and then once we tackle that problem effectively, THEN we can worry about guns if they're really still a problem.