Another mass shooting in USA

Frank the tank

When will the penny drop with the Americans with regard their "right" to carry guns.

Ben6899

Never.

ilm_zero7

Ben6899 wrote:

Never.

yes, for every one who stands up to say 'no more guns' there are another 3-4 waiting to shoot him

Peddle Up!

I just don’t get it. The American people seem quite content with a steady erosion of civil liberties to protect them against “terrorism”, but fail to act when children are brutally murdered in yet another of these sad, sad cases. Without access to guns what would the perpetrator have done? Kicked a dog? Driven his car into a tree? Ranted at passers-by?

Lycra-Byka

Very sad to hear of this. Could you imagine being a parent who has lost a child for no reason, in such a violent, random act?


Rather than lose the right to bear arms, the American government will just now enforce a law that all teachers and children should carry guns to protect from these massacres. Bigger and better guns too....

That's the mentallity!

Hoopdriver

Peddle Up! wrote:

I just don’t get it. The American people seem quite content with a steady erosion of civil liberties to protect them against “terrorism”, but fail to act when children are brutally murdered in yet another of these sad, sad cases. Without access to guns what would the perpetrator have done? Kicked a dog? Driven his car into a tree? Ranted at passers-by?

Well, if you look over on CNN, a little further down in the foreign news section, you'll see where a man with a knife stabbed 22 children in China. Crazy people just find a way.

finchy

^^^

Crazy man stabs 22 children in China. Fatalities = 0

Crazy man shoots 100 bullets in a school in USA. Fatalities = 28 (of which 20 children)

Crazy man bombs and shoots loads of people in Norway. Fatalities = 77

The fact is that the more efficient the weapon, the more people you can quickly kill.

Hoopdriver

johnfinch wrote:

^^^

Crazy man stabs 22 children in China. Fatalities = 0

Crazy man shoots 100 bullets in a school in USA. Fatalities = 28 (of which 20 children)

Crazy man bombs and shoots loads of people in Norway. Fatalities = 77

The fact is that the more efficient the weapon, the more people you can quickly kill.

And to your list we can add the genocidal nut cases in Rwanda - several hundred thousand victims cut down with knives and machetes. Where there is a warped will, sadly, there will always be a way

simona75

Everytime this has happened in the US (the fact that its a "trend" is worrying enough) there has been a debate on gun control and each time this debate has lead to nothing. I imagine we will be having the same debate after the next massacre. The amount of money the gun lobby pumps into DC means that even if there was a gun control bill it would never get through congress

finchy

One or two lunatics going on the rampage with a knife is highly unlikely to cause mass deaths - there are probably a handful of examples from history. It's not the same thing as tens of thousands of people committing genocide, and it's not really possible to draw meaningful comparisons between and impoverished African nation and some of the world's most developed countries.

Hoopdriver

johnfinch wrote:

One or two lunatics going on the rampage with a knife is highly unlikely to cause mass deaths - there are probably a handful of examples from history. It's not the same thing as tens of thousands of people committing genocide, and it's not really possible to draw meaningful comparisons between and impoverished African nation and some of the world's most developed countries.

Not to want to belabour and extend what is already a tedious discussion, but the work amok comes from a recognised disorder involving hundreds of cases in the Far east (and elsewhere, but this s where the term originated) typically they 'run amok' in crowded market places and, according to reports first brought back by James Cook in 1770 they killed an average of 10 people before being killed themselves.

As I said before, where there is an urge to commit these atrocities, people find a way. Guns, knives, poisons, bombs, you name it

rick_chasey

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

^^^

Crazy man stabs 22 children in China. Fatalities = 0

Crazy man shoots 100 bullets in a school in USA. Fatalities = 28 (of which 20 children)

Crazy man bombs and shoots loads of people in Norway. Fatalities = 77

The fact is that the more efficient the weapon, the more people you can quickly kill.

And to your list we can add the genocidal nut cases in Rwanda - several hundred thousand victims cut down with knives and machetes. Where there is a warped will, sadly, there will always be a way

Someone walking into a school and shooting people isn't comparable with the genocide in Rwanada in any way.

Might as well make an argument that guns are no more dangerous than showers then, which is obviously wrong.

finchy

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

One or two lunatics going on the rampage with a knife is highly unlikely to cause mass deaths - there are probably a handful of examples from history. It's not the same thing as tens of thousands of people committing genocide, and it's not really possible to draw meaningful comparisons between and impoverished African nation and some of the world's most developed countries.

Not to want to belabour and extend what is already a tedious discussion, but the work amok comes from a recognised disorder involving hundreds of cases in the Far east (and elsewhere, but this s where the term originated) typically they 'run amok' in crowded market places and, according to reports first brought back by James Cook in 1770 they killed an average of 10 people before being killed themselves.

As I said before, where there is an urge to commit these atrocities, people find a way. Guns, knives, poisons, bombs, you name it

You're right, people will find a way, but as I say, the more powerful the weapon, the more deaths will occur. If that bloke had gone in with a knife instead of a gun, fewer children would have been killed.

Again, 18th century China can't really be compared to 21st century USA. If today's medical technology had existed back then, lives would have been saved because some of the stab victims wouldn't have bled to death, caught infections, etc.

Put it like this - would you prefer to be chased by someone wielding a gun or a knife?

Hoopdriver

johnfinch wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

One or two lunatics going on the rampage with a knife is highly unlikely to cause mass deaths - there are probably a handful of examples from history. It's not the same thing as tens of thousands of people committing genocide, and it's not really possible to draw meaningful comparisons between and impoverished African nation and some of the world's most developed countries.

Not to want to belabour and extend what is already a tedious discussion, but the work amok comes from a recognised disorder involving hundreds of cases in the Far east (and elsewhere, but this s where the term originated) typically they 'run amok' in crowded market places and, according to reports first brought back by James Cook in 1770 they killed an average of 10 people before being killed themselves.

As I said before, where there is an urge to commit these atrocities, people find a way. Guns, knives, poisons, bombs, you name it

You're right, people will find a way, but as I say, the more powerful the weapon, the more deaths will occur. If that bloke had gone in with a knife instead of a gun, fewer children would have been killed.

Again, 18th century China can't really be compared to 21st century USA. If today's medical technology had existed back then, lives would have been saved because some of the stab victims wouldn't have bled to death, caught infections, etc.

Put it like this - would you prefer to be chased by someone wielding a gun or a knife?

If someone with a gun feels he has to chase me he's probably not a very good shot.

Hoopdriver

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

^^^

Crazy man stabs 22 children in China. Fatalities = 0

Crazy man shoots 100 bullets in a school in USA. Fatalities = 28 (of which 20 children)

Crazy man bombs and shoots loads of people in Norway. Fatalities = 77

The fact is that the more efficient the weapon, the more people you can quickly kill.

And to your list we can add the genocidal nut cases in Rwanda - several hundred thousand victims cut down with knives and machetes. Where there is a warped will, sadly, there will always be a way

Someone walking into a school and shooting people isn't comparable with the genocide in Rwanada in any way.

Might as well make an argument that guns are no more dangerous than showers then, which is obviously wrong.

It was a discussion of weapons, not events, as should have been obvious. My point was that people with knives and machetes can, and have, committed mass murders

plowmar

Slightly off line, but I thought the speech given by Barak was extremely authentic in relation to his feelings, and in some ways I could not see 'Our Dave' being able to do the same.

Ofcourse I may just be a political innocent but Istand by the sentiment.

finchy

Hoopdriver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

^^^

Crazy man stabs 22 children in China. Fatalities = 0

Crazy man shoots 100 bullets in a school in USA. Fatalities = 28 (of which 20 children)

Crazy man bombs and shoots loads of people in Norway. Fatalities = 77

The fact is that the more efficient the weapon, the more people you can quickly kill.

And to your list we can add the genocidal nut cases in Rwanda - several hundred thousand victims cut down with knives and machetes. Where there is a warped will, sadly, there will always be a way

Someone walking into a school and shooting people isn't comparable with the genocide in Rwanada in any way.

Might as well make an argument that guns are no more dangerous than showers then, which is obviously wrong.

It was a discussion of weapons, not events, as should have been obvious. My point was that people with knives and machetes can, and have, committed mass murders

Nobody has contradicted that point. Most people would, however, recognise the simple fact that it is far easier to commit mass murder with a gun and that incidents like this lead to more deaths if guns are used rather than knives.

finchy

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

One or two lunatics going on the rampage with a knife is highly unlikely to cause mass deaths - there are probably a handful of examples from history. It's not the same thing as tens of thousands of people committing genocide, and it's not really possible to draw meaningful comparisons between and impoverished African nation and some of the world's most developed countries.

Not to want to belabour and extend what is already a tedious discussion, but the work amok comes from a recognised disorder involving hundreds of cases in the Far east (and elsewhere, but this s where the term originated) typically they 'run amok' in crowded market places and, according to reports first brought back by James Cook in 1770 they killed an average of 10 people before being killed themselves.

As I said before, where there is an urge to commit these atrocities, people find a way. Guns, knives, poisons, bombs, you name it

You're right, people will find a way, but as I say, the more powerful the weapon, the more deaths will occur. If that bloke had gone in with a knife instead of a gun, fewer children would have been killed.

Again, 18th century China can't really be compared to 21st century USA. If today's medical technology had existed back then, lives would have been saved because some of the stab victims wouldn't have bled to death, caught infections, etc.

Put it like this - would you prefer to be chased by someone wielding a gun or a knife?

If someone with a gun feels he has to chase me he's probably not a very good shot.

He might be using a handgun from 100 yards.

So let me re-phrase that - would you feel that you have more chance of escaping somebody who is trying to kill you with a gun or a knife?

Hoopdriver

johnfinch wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

One or two lunatics going on the rampage with a knife is highly unlikely to cause mass deaths - there are probably a handful of examples from history. It's not the same thing as tens of thousands of people committing genocide, and it's not really possible to draw meaningful comparisons between and impoverished African nation and some of the world's most developed countries.

Not to want to belabour and extend what is already a tedious discussion, but the work amok comes from a recognised disorder involving hundreds of cases in the Far east (and elsewhere, but this s where the term originated) typically they 'run amok' in crowded market places and, according to reports first brought back by James Cook in 1770 they killed an average of 10 people before being killed themselves.

As I said before, where there is an urge to commit these atrocities, people find a way. Guns, knives, poisons, bombs, you name it

You're right, people will find a way, but as I say, the more powerful the weapon, the more deaths will occur. If that bloke had gone in with a knife instead of a gun, fewer children would have been killed.

Again, 18th century China can't really be compared to 21st century USA. If today's medical technology had existed back then, lives would have been saved because some of the stab victims wouldn't have bled to death, caught infections, etc.

Put it like this - would you prefer to be chased by someone wielding a gun or a knife?

If someone with a gun feels he has to chase me he's probably not a very good shot.

He might be using a handgun from 100 yards.

So let me re-phrase that - would you feel that you have more chance of escaping somebody who is trying to kill you with a gun or a knife?

You clearly aren't well acquainted with firearms of any sort if you think someone using a handgun from 100 yards is likely to hit you

finchy

Er.... that's sort of my point. You said that if he's chasing you he's unlikely to be a good shot. I'm saying that he might be a perfectly good shot but out of range.

So what's your answer? Gun or knife?

Hoopdriver

johnfinch wrote:

Er.... that's sort of my point. You said that if he's chasing you he's unlikely to be a good shot. I'm saying that he might be a perfectly good shot but out of range.

So what's your answer? Gun or knife?

Are you challenging me to a duel? If so, I choose sledgehammers in fifteen feet of water

rick_chasey

plowmar wrote:

Slightly off line, but I thought the speech given by Barak was extremely authentic in relation to his feelings, and in some ways I could not see 'Our Dave' being able to do the same.

Ofcourse I may just be a political innocent but Istand by the sentiment.

Different people and different cultures show grief and emotions in different ways.

crankycrank

I have to agree with most posters here that the gun and violence problem we have here is just pure insanity/stupidity. I remember shortly after Obama was elected to his first term he merely mentioned that something has to be done about the guns in the US. Soon after at one of his outdoor public speeches a bunch of gun nuts showed up with their weapons to intimidate him and gun sales also went way up in a mass paranoia buying spree. You can see what we're faced with here. Violence and guns are so ingrained in our society I think it will take a couple of generations to change peoples attitudes. Keep your fingers crossed for us here. I'm sick of all the pointless killings.

pinno

http://www.gunpolicy.org

Number of Homicides by any method (US) in 2009: 14,159 - 4.6 deaths per 100,000
Number of Homicides by hand gun (US) in 2009: 9,146 or 2.98 per 100,000

No. of Homicides by any method (Canada) in the same year as above: 610 (1.8 per 100k)
No. of Homicides by hand gun: 173 (0.5 per 100k)

These are telling stats because the Canadians carry as many guns as their neighbours but don't take to shooting each other so 'easily'. Its the diet of fear through the media, through film and the culture which is the 'me' hedonism that has pervaded Americans for so long.
Even Obama is complicit. The 'Greatest Nation in the World' rhetoric only recently conveyed to the people who were going to vote - was no accident. It was a speech desigend to stir nationalism in the face of recession. The 'Greatest' stems from the individual which combines nationally to re-inforce the arrogance and importance of self which Americans suffer from pandemically.

Contrast Cuba whos doctors performed 250,000 free eye operations accross South America, over the last few years:

27 people died in 2007 in Cuba by the hand gun.

It does not retract from the argument in that there are simply too many guns owned by too many hedonistic nutters in the US and they desperately need to cut down as it is such an easy and convenient method of killing somebody.
The importance of self is so strong that for the dissolusioned and or outcast, the ultimate way to vent ones frustration in the eyes of those either outcast or who's narcicistic importance has been infringed upon, is to kill .

Monty Dog

I was working in Texas at the time of the Columbine massacre. There was no reasoned argument to be made - one guy tried to blame the Simpsons TV series as corrupting young Americans. I tried to rationalise that as the series was shown worldwide, I didn't recall outbreaks of school massacres elsewhere.

briantrumpet

Monty Dog wrote:

I tried to rationalise that as the series was shown worldwide, I didn't recall outbreaks of school massacres elsewhere.

I don't think rational thinking goes into this debate. It's a matter of faith - and for many powerful Americans the right to bear arms is non-negotiable, and outweighs the right not to be shot.

mallorcajeff

heavymental

Nice poster but what does that bit of small print under the US stat say?

The_Special_One

West Germany, how old is that poster ?

fast as fupp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... NETTXT9038

meanwhile some children are fair game for out rootin' tootin' pistol packin' yankee 'friends'!

Frank the tank

Until the American populous demand that something be done about gun laws they will (I'm affraid) have to keep putting up with nutters killing their children. The gun lobby is too powerful for the politicians to ignore because it's all about money and power and all the dead people are collateral damage.