By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - While NRA Was on TV Talking About Need for More Guns, Another Mass Shooting was Occurring in Pennsylvania

mrstickball on 21 December 2012
Mummelmann said:
sc94597 said:
Mummelmann said:
While the constitution may state that everyone has the right to bear arms, it does not state that its a good idea for everyone to bear arms.
The whole logic of more guns = less shooting is also puzzling to me.
Maybe I'm just stupid, or maybe I'm a killer in the making since I've played video games my entire life.

The framers of the constitution believed that all sane, law-abiding men had the DUTY to own guns. Now of course, the framers aren't always right, but that was their mindset when they wrote the constitution. So it's understandable that the United States is the way it is today, considering the beliefs of the framers and hence the beliefs of the populous. More guns doesn't mean less shooting. More guns means less crime. Criminals are deterred from breaking into people's homes and attacking them when they know these people could have weapons. 

 

Or they bring bigger guns or more people with guns. If you arm the entire population, criminals aren't going to stop being criminals, they'll simply arm themselves heavier. In Brazil and Colombia when they first started battling the drug lords who owned huge plantations it was a relatively straightforward and simple corps of policmen with standard issue 9mm weapons and bullet-proof vests that made the raids.

The drug lords hired private armies to keep the police at bay, the police were forced to undergo more special training, hire consultants from the military and carry heavier weaponry do deal with this. The criminals cranked it up one more notch and on it went. Today you have heavily armored personel with 12.7mm machine guns, RPG's, hollow point ammunition and air support with helicopters sporting (and using) gattling guns with heavy caliber, the also simply bomb some of the plantations with incendiary grenades and rockets at times, leaving craters and entire regions looking like warzones.

Things escalate. The nuclear arms race during WWII, the Cold War, history is full of these stories and they show one thing; arming yourself more does not reduce hostility, nor does it deterr violence, it escalates the entire thing.

I think the NRA and US government should spend more time finding out what it is that makes their society so prone to situations like these, simply handing everyone and their grandmother a firearm is stone age mentality at best, decidedly fatal for many more children and adults at worst.


You assume that criminals have the money to buy bigger and better weaponry... The vast majority don't. How many thugs do you see wearing body armor?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
TheKoreanGuy on 21 December 2012

I find it hilarious that the NRA says its not the guns, but the person shooting them and then goes on to blaming video games. Shouldn't it be blame the person playing them, not the games themselves? Take whatever you can to fit the argument I suppose.



arcane_chaos on 21 December 2012
killerzX said:
arcane_chaos said:
mrstickball said:
arcane_chaos said:
all he did was blabber about everything but guns.

I don't understand why the NRA can't support a national database regarding to gun ownership and previous crimes to those applying for gun when a recent poll did by an MSNBC or CNN affiliate said that 74% of people belonging to the NRA club said they would support such measures.


So what is the current background check system?


at all depends on which state live in, ironically in Connecticut where the latest tragedy took place has one of the most strict guns laws in the states when applying for guns in the state of CT. but in other states(mostly midwestern states) you can walk right into a gunshow and buy a gun with no backround check whatsoever

I can't confirm this statiastic myself but since I heard it on the HLN/MSNBC/CNN I'm going to say it holds some water; they said that 40% of all guns bought in the U.S. are bought with know backround check at events like gunshows/pawnshops/internet/etc.


Thats because "gunshow loophole" is nothing more than an acknowledgement that the Federal government has no Constitutional basis what-so-ever to mandate who you sell your private property to, especially if you keep it within your state. 

There is no gun show loophole. It is a myth. Any two consenting adults can privately do business WITHOUT government interference. If I want to sell you a Spacely Cog, it is not the Governments business.

I don't think it about the goverment trying to interfere with the initial sale of the firearm(s) but they atleast want a better registration to whom the guns are sold to, you a fan of guns and I have no problem with you but I think me and you can sleep better at night knowing a a person like Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, James Holmes doens't have easy access to aquire firearms.

and as for thr gunshow myth; it's not a myth if it's acutally happening...it doesn't matter if the goverment can't interfere with the business transaction, but it's true that nearly anyone can walk into a gunshow and buy a gun with litterally no hassles.



A_C_E on 21 December 2012
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
killerzX said:
Signalstar said:
300 million guns in this country is still not enough to keep us safe. We need moar nao!

we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, as prooved time and time again by the lower crimerates in areas where citizens are armed in greater numbers thanks to laws that permit them to do so, and high crimes in area with low amounts of legal gun ownership thanks to laws that prohibit lawful gun owners.

There are more crimes in those 'low crime' areas (lol) than anywhere in Canada so there is your proof that guns need to be put in the hands of officers and not just your average Joe (Adam Lanza) who could at any point take a gun from their parents and go mass shoot some 1st graders at a public school.  

If the gun wasn't in the hands of Adam Lanza; if he didn't have access to the guns, then the shootings wouldn't have taken place. Only a moron would defend this situation.

A mass shooting resulting from a random person with a gun has just taken place...lets give every random guy a gun.

Only in America. Okay maybe afghanistan too.

The homicide rate in Canada is about 1.6. The homicide rate in New Hampshire (one of the most free gun states) is .6. The homicide rate of my county in Pennsylvania is .8. The homicide rate in Washington D.C during it's handgun ban was 35, after that was declared unconstitutional it dropped to 24. Just to put things in perspective. Adam Lanza could have easily driven a car into the building, set it on fire killing people as they fled, or bombed the school. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of ways to kill people without guns. 

Yes I know I went overboard with 'anywhere in Canada' statement but it holds true overall for America.

Just because there are plenty of ways to killing people doesn't mean anything. Psychologically the human brain will look for the easiest way to do something and in this case guns are the easiest way to kill someone. Its all about means and if you take that convenience away from someone then psychologically it won't be worth it for them. The main reason someone would choose means over convenience would be if it were a targeted person that they were trying to kill. Adam Lanza didn't have a target (most mass shootings don't, if any at all) and what was the weapon used? A gun of course because its the easiest way to kill someone.

If Lanza were to have hated someone and killed them there is the possibility of other means of killing them in which case you would have a point, but if your just going to point out that he could have just taken a car and crashed it into a school then light that school on fire...when the hell has this ever happened? And how many times? There are cars all over the streets in America and are stolen all the time. Everyone's got a friggin' lighter or match. So why didn't he just do it that way in the first place? Because his mother (a random person in America) had a gun. I've never heard of someone doing something like that. Not in places other than America where Gun Laws are more prominent.



mrstickball on 22 December 2012
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
killerzX said:
Signalstar said:
300 million guns in this country is still not enough to keep us safe. We need moar nao!

we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, as prooved time and time again by the lower crimerates in areas where citizens are armed in greater numbers thanks to laws that permit them to do so, and high crimes in area with low amounts of legal gun ownership thanks to laws that prohibit lawful gun owners.

There are more crimes in those 'low crime' areas (lol) than anywhere in Canada so there is your proof that guns need to be put in the hands of officers and not just your average Joe (Adam Lanza) who could at any point take a gun from their parents and go mass shoot some 1st graders at a public school.  

If the gun wasn't in the hands of Adam Lanza; if he didn't have access to the guns, then the shootings wouldn't have taken place. Only a moron would defend this situation.

A mass shooting resulting from a random person with a gun has just taken place...lets give every random guy a gun.

Only in America. Okay maybe afghanistan too.

The homicide rate in Canada is about 1.6. The homicide rate in New Hampshire (one of the most free gun states) is .6. The homicide rate of my county in Pennsylvania is .8. The homicide rate in Washington D.C during it's handgun ban was 35, after that was declared unconstitutional it dropped to 24. Just to put things in perspective. Adam Lanza could have easily driven a car into the building, set it on fire killing people as they fled, or bombed the school. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of ways to kill people without guns. 

Yes I know I went overboard with 'anywhere in Canada' statement but it holds true overall for America.

Just because there are plenty of ways to killing people doesn't mean anything. Psychologically the human brain will look for the easiest way to do something and in this case guns are the easiest way to kill someone. Its all about means and if you take that convenience away from someone then psychologically it won't be worth it for them. The main reason someone would choose means over convenience would be if it were a targeted person that they were trying to kill. Adam Lanza didn't have a target (most mass shootings don't, if any at all) and what was the weapon used? A gun of course because its the easiest way to kill someone.

If Lanza were to have hated someone and killed them there is the possibility of other means of killing them in which case you would have a point, but if your just going to point out that he could have just taken a car and crashed it into a school then light that school on fire...when the hell has this ever happened? And how many times? There are cars all over the streets in America and are stolen all the time. Everyone's got a friggin' lighter or match. So why didn't he just do it that way in the first place? Because his mother (a random person in America) had a gun. I've never heard of someone doing something like that. Not in places other than America where Gun Laws are more prominent.

The problem is....If there are states that have very loose gun laws, and very low crime rates, shouldn't that tell you that there are other significant factors at play in regards to the problem of violence in America?

There are states with very horrendous crime rates. There are states with very European crime rates. This is despite the fact that most have very similar gun laws. If this is the case, then it has to be another reason. If you can't see that, then I believe you're not trying to look at the situation properly.

If guns were banned, maybe Mr. Lanza would not have done what he did. But alternatively, what if such a ban provoked other would-be mass murders to do their deed, believing they wouldn't be caught? That should be a core issue - if access to firearms really yields more murder and violence.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
sc94597 on 22 December 2012
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
killerzX said:
Signalstar said:
300 million guns in this country is still not enough to keep us safe. We need moar nao!

we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, as prooved time and time again by the lower crimerates in areas where citizens are armed in greater numbers thanks to laws that permit them to do so, and high crimes in area with low amounts of legal gun ownership thanks to laws that prohibit lawful gun owners.

There are more crimes in those 'low crime' areas (lol) than anywhere in Canada so there is your proof that guns need to be put in the hands of officers and not just your average Joe (Adam Lanza) who could at any point take a gun from their parents and go mass shoot some 1st graders at a public school.  

If the gun wasn't in the hands of Adam Lanza; if he didn't have access to the guns, then the shootings wouldn't have taken place. Only a moron would defend this situation.

A mass shooting resulting from a random person with a gun has just taken place...lets give every random guy a gun.

Only in America. Okay maybe afghanistan too.

The homicide rate in Canada is about 1.6. The homicide rate in New Hampshire (one of the most free gun states) is .6. The homicide rate of my county in Pennsylvania is .8. The homicide rate in Washington D.C during it's handgun ban was 35, after that was declared unconstitutional it dropped to 24. Just to put things in perspective. Adam Lanza could have easily driven a car into the building, set it on fire killing people as they fled, or bombed the school. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of ways to kill people without guns. 

Yes I know I went overboard with 'anywhere in Canada' statement but it holds true overall for America.

Just because there are plenty of ways to killing people doesn't mean anything. Psychologically the human brain will look for the easiest way to do something and in this case guns are the easiest way to kill someone. Its all about means and if you take that convenience away from someone then psychologically it won't be worth it for them. The main reason someone would choose means over convenience would be if it were a targeted person that they were trying to kill. Adam Lanza didn't have a target (most mass shootings don't, if any at all) and what was the weapon used? A gun of course because its the easiest way to kill someone. 

If Lanza were to have hated someone and killed them there is the possibility of other means of killing them in which case you would have a point, but if your just going to point out that he could have just taken a car and crashed it into a school then light that school on fire...when the hell has this ever happened? And how many times? There are cars all over the streets in America and are stolen all the time. Everyone's got a friggin' lighter or match. So why didn't he just do it that way in the first place? Because his mother (a random person in America) had a gun. I've never heard of someone doing something like that. Not in places other than America where Gun Laws are more prominent.

If you subtract the large cities in the United States, which have strict gun control laws then the crime rate isn't that much different: about 2.2 vs. 1.6. 

He could have hit people with a car killing children as they left school, for example. This man did it by accident, imagine what he could do on purpose.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2195610/Preston-Carter-drives-sidewalk-near-school-hits-11-people--including-children.html

But since you're interested, there were 500,000 arsons in the period of 1987-1997 in the United States. 2.2% of those were at schools. That's 11,000 arsons at schools over 10 years, or a rate of 1,100 arsons at schools per year. 

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/arson.pdf



kain_kusanagi on 22 December 2012
mrstickball said:
kain_kusanagi said:
sc94597 said:
I don't understand how a background check would've prevented Mrs. Lanza from obtaining her weapons. She was a law-abiding citizen with no mental health problems herself. She was well-educated on gun use and regularly practiced.


Yeah. If you think about it, her guns were stolen. It was her son, but he still stole them. He illegally obtained those guns and no law can stop someone from breaking the law.


That is the crux of the issue.

Even if the Democrats have their way and ban hi-cap mags, assault rifles, and create more stringent background checks, it would not have stopped Mr. Lanza from killing his mom, taking her guns, and killing the kids at school.

Why? Because it is literally impossible to do a retroactive ban without lots of people dying. Law enforcement has even said this - that they can't take away anyones' assault rifle. It'd be similar to the 1994 AWB, and we still had mass murders during the ban.

The entire gun debate is tangental to the real debate that has to go on - what causes a man like Mr. Lanza to kill 20 kids, and how do we address it. 14,000 people are murdered every year. Is that because gun ownership exists in the US? Unlikely, because a large portion of those murders take place in cities with total bans on firearms. There is a deeper issue in America as to what causes murder and crime.

If you look at all the data that is out there, you'll find a few things:

  1. Murder rates drop by 50% among whites and 80-90% among blacks if they graduate high school and complete at least 1 year of college or technical school.
  2. Murder rates began rising when America had 3.0 live births per woman, and began dropping when it hit 2.3
  3. Worldwide, murder correlates heavily with education and economic inequality
  4. Despite concealed carry permits being allowed in many states, there has been no uptick in crime
  5. Murder rates are at a 40 year low per capita in the US, despite gun ownership staying steady at 40% of the US population

Those facts deal with murder. The reality is that the gun debate deals not with murder or what causes it, but guns. Deal with murder and what causes a man to kill children, or another human being. Deal with it, and gun ownership ceases to be relevant.

You'll get no arguement from me. I agree with every common sense word your typed.



A_C_E on 22 December 2012
mrstickball said:
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
killerzX said:
Signalstar said:
300 million guns in this country is still not enough to keep us safe. We need moar nao!

we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, as prooved time and time again by the lower crimerates in areas where citizens are armed in greater numbers thanks to laws that permit them to do so, and high crimes in area with low amounts of legal gun ownership thanks to laws that prohibit lawful gun owners.

There are more crimes in those 'low crime' areas (lol) than anywhere in Canada so there is your proof that guns need to be put in the hands of officers and not just your average Joe (Adam Lanza) who could at any point take a gun from their parents and go mass shoot some 1st graders at a public school.  

If the gun wasn't in the hands of Adam Lanza; if he didn't have access to the guns, then the shootings wouldn't have taken place. Only a moron would defend this situation.

A mass shooting resulting from a random person with a gun has just taken place...lets give every random guy a gun.

Only in America. Okay maybe afghanistan too.

The homicide rate in Canada is about 1.6. The homicide rate in New Hampshire (one of the most free gun states) is .6. The homicide rate of my county in Pennsylvania is .8. The homicide rate in Washington D.C during it's handgun ban was 35, after that was declared unconstitutional it dropped to 24. Just to put things in perspective. Adam Lanza could have easily driven a car into the building, set it on fire killing people as they fled, or bombed the school. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of ways to kill people without guns. 

Yes I know I went overboard with 'anywhere in Canada' statement but it holds true overall for America.

Just because there are plenty of ways to killing people doesn't mean anything. Psychologically the human brain will look for the easiest way to do something and in this case guns are the easiest way to kill someone. Its all about means and if you take that convenience away from someone then psychologically it won't be worth it for them. The main reason someone would choose means over convenience would be if it were a targeted person that they were trying to kill. Adam Lanza didn't have a target (most mass shootings don't, if any at all) and what was the weapon used? A gun of course because its the easiest way to kill someone.

If Lanza were to have hated someone and killed them there is the possibility of other means of killing them in which case you would have a point, but if your just going to point out that he could have just taken a car and crashed it into a school then light that school on fire...when the hell has this ever happened? And how many times? There are cars all over the streets in America and are stolen all the time. Everyone's got a friggin' lighter or match. So why didn't he just do it that way in the first place? Because his mother (a random person in America) had a gun. I've never heard of someone doing something like that. Not in places other than America where Gun Laws are more prominent.

The problem is....If there are states that have very loose gun laws, and very low crime rates, shouldn't that tell you that there are other significant factors at play in regards to the problem of violence in America?

There are states with very horrendous crime rates. There are states with very European crime rates. This is despite the fact that most have very similar gun laws. If this is the case, then it has to be another reason. If you can't see that, then I believe you're not trying to look at the situation properly.

If guns were banned, maybe Mr. Lanza would not have done what he did. But alternatively, what if such a ban provoked other would-be mass murders to do their deed, believing they wouldn't be caught? That should be a core issue - if access to firearms really yields more murder and violence.

I am trying to look at the situation from both sides but I don't agree with one side of it. And yes I do agree that if guns were banned it would lead to people being provoked to retaliate, not necessarily with murder but other things too. I'm sure it would be a core issue but I'm also sure a nation/government with centuries of civilization behind it can figure out how to combat an issue with a reasonable outcome. I mean is America so effed up to the point where if you banned an inanimate object then everyone would just kill each other?



A_C_E on 22 December 2012
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
killerzX said:
Signalstar said:
300 million guns in this country is still not enough to keep us safe. We need moar nao!

we need more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, as prooved time and time again by the lower crimerates in areas where citizens are armed in greater numbers thanks to laws that permit them to do so, and high crimes in area with low amounts of legal gun ownership thanks to laws that prohibit lawful gun owners.

There are more crimes in those 'low crime' areas (lol) than anywhere in Canada so there is your proof that guns need to be put in the hands of officers and not just your average Joe (Adam Lanza) who could at any point take a gun from their parents and go mass shoot some 1st graders at a public school.  

If the gun wasn't in the hands of Adam Lanza; if he didn't have access to the guns, then the shootings wouldn't have taken place. Only a moron would defend this situation.

A mass shooting resulting from a random person with a gun has just taken place...lets give every random guy a gun.

Only in America. Okay maybe afghanistan too.

The homicide rate in Canada is about 1.6. The homicide rate in New Hampshire (one of the most free gun states) is .6. The homicide rate of my county in Pennsylvania is .8. The homicide rate in Washington D.C during it's handgun ban was 35, after that was declared unconstitutional it dropped to 24. Just to put things in perspective. Adam Lanza could have easily driven a car into the building, set it on fire killing people as they fled, or bombed the school. Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of ways to kill people without guns. 

Yes I know I went overboard with 'anywhere in Canada' statement but it holds true overall for America.

Just because there are plenty of ways to killing people doesn't mean anything. Psychologically the human brain will look for the easiest way to do something and in this case guns are the easiest way to kill someone. Its all about means and if you take that convenience away from someone then psychologically it won't be worth it for them. The main reason someone would choose means over convenience would be if it were a targeted person that they were trying to kill. Adam Lanza didn't have a target (most mass shootings don't, if any at all) and what was the weapon used? A gun of course because its the easiest way to kill someone. 

If Lanza were to have hated someone and killed them there is the possibility of other means of killing them in which case you would have a point, but if your just going to point out that he could have just taken a car and crashed it into a school then light that school on fire...when the hell has this ever happened? And how many times? There are cars all over the streets in America and are stolen all the time. Everyone's got a friggin' lighter or match. So why didn't he just do it that way in the first place? Because his mother (a random person in America) had a gun. I've never heard of someone doing something like that. Not in places other than America where Gun Laws are more prominent.

If you subtract the large cities in the United States, which have strict gun control laws then the crime rate isn't that much different: about 2.2 vs. 1.6. 

He could have hit people with a car killing children as they left school, for example. This man did it by accident, imagine what he could do on purpose.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2195610/Preston-Carter-drives-sidewalk-near-school-hits-11-people--including-children.html

But since you're interested, there were 500,000 arsons in the period of 1987-1997 in the United States. 2.2% of those were at schools. That's 11,000 arsons at schools over 10 years, or a rate of 1,100 arsons at schools per year. 

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/arson.pdf

I'm not interested in how many arsons there were because I myself have set fire to things when I was younger. Most of those arsons you posted didn't result in someone getting killed (30 people by gun point for example). My point; my original point is that guns are by far the most convenient way to kill someone. You take that away and there will be less deaths. You seem to think that I think that if you take guns away then the world is safe. I don't see it that way. I see a bullet being the easiest way to kill someone and that is not good for the human mind due to our psychological patterns. It's only common sense. I realize you can kill someone with a car or a fire but guns are in a league of their own.



sc94597 on 22 December 2012

"Much study has been done of the comparative experience and policies of Canada with its southern neighbour the United States, and this is a topic of intense discussion within Canada.

Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US.[16] Since violent crimes are a smaller fraction of all crimes, the difference between the two countries is less than the homicide rate might make it seem, and the overall rates are generally close (see Crime in the United States).[citation needed]

Furthermore, in recent years,[when?] the gap in violent crime rates between the United States and Canada has narrowed due to a precipitous drop in the violent crime rate in the U.S. For example, while the aggravated assault rate declined for most of 1990s in the U.S. and was 324 per 100,000 in 2000, the aggravated assault rate in Canada remained relatively steady throughout and was 143 per 100,000 in 2000. In other areas, the U.S. had a faster decline. For instance, whereas the murder rate in Canada declined by 36% between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. murder rate declined by 44%. [17] Both Saskatoon and Regina consistently have violent crime rates that would place them among the 10 most violent cities in the US, and often individually exceed larger US centres in terms of total numbers for Aggravated Assaults and Robbery.[citation needed]

The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post-1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[18] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[19]

By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004, the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [17]

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada."