6 ms·

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,

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...
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious: 1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people. and the less obvious: 2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat. Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment. Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there. >Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction. I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search. There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of. To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.
josephlord 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. Mass killings (and attempts) with knives happen. China School attacks 21 deaths in about 8 attacks (upto 8 deaths in a single attack), Alaska 2008 killed 4, Korea 2008 (5 dead from stabbing), Akiharbara 2008 killed 4. Osaka 2001 killed 8. Wolverhampton, UK 1996 - injuries but no deaths. The death toll will be far lower in most cases than a similar event with guns. You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack. > The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. "Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)? > 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. Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high. Note that in my view the UK law is probably too strict and I would be in favour of allowing more weapons securely stored at shooting ranges with security requirements based on the weapons kept there.
- clarky07 14y ago
  >You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack. I suspect you could if they attacked 5 year olds in a kindergarten class room. >"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)? I'm not referring to this person as crazy beforehand, or as something we could have somehow prevented. I'm suggesting that the behavior of killing 26 5 year olds is indeed crazy, and there is little we could do to stop this from happening. I'd start though, with armed security / principals etc in the schools (i know of schools in my area (rich white suburbs) that have guns in the schools and I think it's a great idea. That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to. I have no idea why people think they should restrict my access to guns because of this incident. This is a personal responsibility problem. There simply no way we (we as in America) could keep him from having a gun without restricting my freedom and liberty. On the other hand, his mom easily could have, and that wouldn't have effected me at all. >Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high. 4 shotgun shells in a crowded area is going to do huge amounts of damage, so I think that's a bit silly. They also aren't terribly difficult to reload. I don't think the town center comparison holds though. Driving 70 through the middle of town very clearly endangers other people, whereas my owning guns does not make you less safe, and very arguably makes you more safe if you happen to be near me while someone tries to harm you. This person having a gun made these people less safe obviously, but he didn't own a gun. He stole them from his mother. He could have also stolen them from someone else, though maybe that's at least a bit less likely. I assume if he's willing to kill 26 people though, he's also willing to break into his neighbors house or the local gun shop. His mother should have tried harder to prevent him from having access, but there is virtually no law that could have fixed this.
bambax 14y ago
> If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option. This is the option where I live (France). It's not perfect here (very far from it), but I think we have a lot less violence, a lot less people in jail, etc. "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school. > 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. How do you identify "teachers that are sane"? (I would say, teachers that are sane are those that refuse to carry guns.) And what happens when there are no adults around? Should 6-year-olds be required to carry guns? This kind of comment makes me happy I don't live in the US. I have three kids (3-4-7); there is no "security officer" at their school, you can come in and out pretty much as you like. The school is small enough that the principal knows every student by name and every parent by sight. Now, before someone says that I'm stupid because I just generalize from a single data point, and that I probably live in a privileged neighborhood... On weekends my kids go to an American School (so that they can learn some English). The neighborhood is the same, but in the American school they have "security" officers, big doors, big talkies, and you have to wear a badge at all times. The "threat" (or lack thereof) is the same, but the perceived threat, and the culture, is very very different. > Please don't take my guns It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings. But I'm not a US citizen, I don't visit the US often, I'm really not in a position to take anything from you. Do what you think is best.
- thinkling 14y ago
  This is a big cultural divide. It's a big divide within the U.S.; it's even bigger with people outside the U.S. who haven't experienced the gun culture first hand, much less grown up with it. Just a factual side-note: "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school. _cough_ Just this past spring: A gunman has shot dead a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313
  - bambax 14y ago
    He was neither an outlaw nor, stricly speaking «crazy». He was an ideologue, a fanatic and a terrorist. While it's good that there aren't too many guns around, the lack of weapons is not enough to deter terrorists. The only thing that works against terrorism is intelligence. This particular story was a big failure in this regard.

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...
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious: 1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people. and the less obvious: 2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat. Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment. Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there. >Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction. I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search. There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of. To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.

josephlord 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. Mass killings (and attempts) with knives happen. China School attacks 21 deaths in about 8 attacks (upto 8 deaths in a single attack), Alaska 2008 killed 4, Korea 2008 (5 dead from stabbing), Akiharbara 2008 killed 4. Osaka 2001 killed 8. Wolverhampton, UK 1996 - injuries but no deaths. The death toll will be far lower in most cases than a similar event with guns. You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack. > The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. "Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)? > 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. Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high. Note that in my view the UK law is probably too strict and I would be in favour of allowing more weapons securely stored at shooting ranges with security requirements based on the weapons kept there.

clarky07 14y ago
>You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack. I suspect you could if they attacked 5 year olds in a kindergarten class room. >"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)? I'm not referring to this person as crazy beforehand, or as something we could have somehow prevented. I'm suggesting that the behavior of killing 26 5 year olds is indeed crazy, and there is little we could do to stop this from happening. I'd start though, with armed security / principals etc in the schools (i know of schools in my area (rich white suburbs) that have guns in the schools and I think it's a great idea. That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to. I have no idea why people think they should restrict my access to guns because of this incident. This is a personal responsibility problem. There simply no way we (we as in America) could keep him from having a gun without restricting my freedom and liberty. On the other hand, his mom easily could have, and that wouldn't have effected me at all. >Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high. 4 shotgun shells in a crowded area is going to do huge amounts of damage, so I think that's a bit silly. They also aren't terribly difficult to reload. I don't think the town center comparison holds though. Driving 70 through the middle of town very clearly endangers other people, whereas my owning guns does not make you less safe, and very arguably makes you more safe if you happen to be near me while someone tries to harm you. This person having a gun made these people less safe obviously, but he didn't own a gun. He stole them from his mother. He could have also stolen them from someone else, though maybe that's at least a bit less likely. I assume if he's willing to kill 26 people though, he's also willing to break into his neighbors house or the local gun shop. His mother should have tried harder to prevent him from having access, but there is virtually no law that could have fixed this.

bambax 14y ago

> If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option. This is the option where I live (France). It's not perfect here (very far from it), but I think we have a lot less violence, a lot less people in jail, etc. "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school. > 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. How do you identify "teachers that are sane"? (I would say, teachers that are sane are those that refuse to carry guns.) And what happens when there are no adults around? Should 6-year-olds be required to carry guns? This kind of comment makes me happy I don't live in the US. I have three kids (3-4-7); there is no "security officer" at their school, you can come in and out pretty much as you like. The school is small enough that the principal knows every student by name and every parent by sight. Now, before someone says that I'm stupid because I just generalize from a single data point, and that I probably live in a privileged neighborhood... On weekends my kids go to an American School (so that they can learn some English). The neighborhood is the same, but in the American school they have "security" officers, big doors, big talkies, and you have to wear a badge at all times. The "threat" (or lack thereof) is the same, but the perceived threat, and the culture, is very very different. > Please don't take my guns It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings. But I'm not a US citizen, I don't visit the US often, I'm really not in a position to take anything from you. Do what you think is best.

thinkling 14y ago
This is a big cultural divide. It's a big divide within the U.S.; it's even bigger with people outside the U.S. who haven't experienced the gun culture first hand, much less grown up with it. Just a factual side-note: "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school. _cough_ Just this past spring: A gunman has shot dead a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313
- bambax 14y ago
  He was neither an outlaw nor, stricly speaking «crazy». He was an ideologue, a fanatic and a terrorist. While it's good that there aren't too many guns around, the lack of weapons is not enough to deter terrorists. The only thing that works against terrorism is intelligence. This particular story was a big failure in this regard.