7 ms·

> yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons. I'm getting very tired of this. If you want to have an informed discussion about gun viol

> yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons. I'm getting very tired of this. If you want to have an informed discussion about gun violence you need to acquire at least a modicum of information about firearms, especially but not limited to different actions, e.g., single-action, semi-automatic, and automatic. Virginia Tech? 2 semi-automatic pistols. Sandy Hook? 1 semi-automatic rifle and 2 semi-automatic pistols. UT Austin? 1 semi-automatic shotgun, 2 bolt-action rifles, 1 pump-action rifle, 2 semi-automatic pistols, 1 revolver, 1 semi-automatic carbine Columbine? 1 pump-action shotgun, 1 break-action shotgun, 1 semi-automatic carbine, 1 semi-automatic pistol. What do those have in common? No automatic weapons. Almost no crimes are committed with legally owned automatic weapons. There are very few of them available and many are quite old, so those owned by non-LEAs are very expensive and largely collectors' items. And even with illegally owned automatic weapons, crimes committed with them barely even register. [1] If you want to argue that semi-automatic weapons are "bad enough," fine. But please have some idea what you are talking about. [1] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

shirederby 14y ago
Wrote this before I saw InclinedPlane's comment.
bambax 14y ago
This discussion about "semi-automatic" versus "automatic" weapons actually strengthens the case FOR regulation; automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings. How one can conclude from these facts that less regulation is better, I don't know. All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse. The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people.
- confusedNRA 14y ago
  You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon. Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post. "automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings." Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have. "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns. I think you have a lot of reading to do.
  - tsycho 14y ago
    I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.
    - confusedNRA 14y ago
      When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field. Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.
      - mpweiher 14y ago
        OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun. Slightly different outcome. How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?
    - clarky07 14y ago
      Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.
      - dmix 14y ago
- tossacct 14y ago
  What weapons do you think people will use once all of the guns are gone? Maybe something less deadly, maybe something far far more deadly. The mass-killers are the issue, not the tools that they use. Effective mental health treatment is a necessary step in reducing the pool of potential mass-killers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_b... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
- clarky07 14y ago
  There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time. You clearly have no knowledge of guns, how they work, how they are currently regulated. The reason automatic weapons aren't used in shootings, is that they cost > 10k. Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun. The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened. Would you like to take the guns away from the police too? If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option. Sorry for the rant, I just get really frustrated when people who haven't done any research into the subject make assertions that are simply not accurate. If we could go back in time 400 years and ban all guns that might be a good idea, at this point the cat is out of the bag though. Please don't take my guns, I'd like to be able to defend myself against the crazy people that already have them.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well I don't want to be the "citation needed" guy, but this is an outrageous claim.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E... from [1] - Related or similar events Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007. People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things: 1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely). 2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...

shirederby 14y ago

Wrote this before I saw InclinedPlane's comment.

bambax 14y ago

This discussion about "semi-automatic" versus "automatic" weapons actually strengthens the case FOR regulation; automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings. How one can conclude from these facts that less regulation is better, I don't know. All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse. The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people.

confusedNRA 14y ago
You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon. Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post. "automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings." Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have. "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns. I think you have a lot of reading to do.
- tsycho 14y ago
  I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.
  - confusedNRA 14y ago
    When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field. Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.
    - mpweiher 14y ago
      OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun. Slightly different outcome. How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.
    - dmix 14y ago
tossacct 14y ago
What weapons do you think people will use once all of the guns are gone? Maybe something less deadly, maybe something far far more deadly. The mass-killers are the issue, not the tools that they use. Effective mental health treatment is a necessary step in reducing the pool of potential mass-killers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_b... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
clarky07 14y ago
There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time. You clearly have no knowledge of guns, how they work, how they are currently regulated. The reason automatic weapons aren't used in shootings, is that they cost > 10k. Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun. The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened. Would you like to take the guns away from the police too? If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option. Sorry for the rant, I just get really frustrated when people who haven't done any research into the subject make assertions that are simply not accurate. If we could go back in time 400 years and ban all guns that might be a good idea, at this point the cat is out of the bag though. Please don't take my guns, I'd like to be able to defend myself against the crazy people that already have them.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well I don't want to be the "citation needed" guy, but this is an outrageous claim.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E... from [1] - Related or similar events Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007. People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things: 1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely). 2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...