Diasfora
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: smokester on December 15, 2012, 07:01:47 AM
-
I have just read about the Newtown massacre and I am close to tears reading the story. I know it's a bit of an elephant in the room here, but I don't want to start a thread as here in the U.K we have very different views regarding firearms and it can often create friction with our American friends if we state them. That said, we all pretty much have the same view and solutions to the freaks among us.
Words cannot convey the sadness I feel about the loss of life over there, and I can only offer a prayer for the survivors.
-
I'm sad to say this, but we get the society we deserve. As long as people think it's more important to have the right to own automatic firearms, these kinds of incidents will continue. Some people clearly think owning guns trumps the rights of people to be safe in public places. I am sickened by the prospect of all these sweet children gunned down in the one place where they were supposed to be safe and nurtured, but I am even more sickened by the periodic gnashing of teeth and lack of action to do anything to prevent it from recurring. I can't even bring myself to read the expressions of sadness, because I think there's no real point. Congresswoman Giffords gets shot in the head, and it's not enough. These children get gunned down in school? I still think it's not enough. And that's America for you. It makes me sad, angry and still, that's us. It's the society we choose.
-
This is a horrible tragedy. My heart and prayers go out to the families of those who lost someone as well as to the whole community.
Also, this is the last thing I'll say on this but the U.S. has had the right to bear arms for more than 200 years and while shooting of this nature have been occurring more often, it is not the norm. The person was obviously mentally ill. Putting the focus on our gun laws misses the crux of this guy's issues. I work at Virginia Tech and was here for the number of shootings on campus. I blame the person, not the object.
That being said, I will support anyone's right to have a different opinion than I as long as it is present in an adult, mature manner and isn't judgmental or attacking others in nature.
-
its sad indeed. :'(
Unfortunately its not the gun, its the person pulling the trigger.
-
The fact that they were kids and so little and it happened in a school is so bloodcurdling I'm reading the information just in pieces cause I really can't stand it. Jesus, poor people and their families!!
-
I have split this out and created a new thread after all, as it will allow the LPTSW thread to move on.
-
LPTSW, what?
-
"Last Person To Speak Wins" thread, where this topic started. Excellent call smokes. This deserves more than a passing page of comments.
-
Yup, I've removed several facebook friends so far.
-
I had to do that with the election.
I haven't been on facebook or the internet really since I read about this, of course we have had a ravager of a flu.
I believe it's the fundamentals that we should look at. I wonder why the mother didn't have this person under close observation? Maybe it could have been the fact she was a teacher. Where did this person get the gun? Why was it never observed that he was mentally ILL? He should have had a record kept that prevented him from Ever purchasing a gun. Something tells me his parents didn't want to admit he was problematic, therefore he wasn't treated ever, especially at a young age. That is another question I keep passing through my head. Why were people not aware of the psychosis, the father made statements as if he were confused, and I guess I am too.
-
Would it be difficult to obtain a firearm in the U.S., illegitimately? They're incredibly rare here but at a push I think I could get my hands on one if I really had a mind to.
-
The shooter had access to legally acquired guns. Gun laws would not have prevented the shooting. But I'd like to know why normal citizens have to have automatic weapons. My family regularly hunted game for food. They never needed automatic weapons. We had guns in my home and we were taught to respect them, sternly taught never ever to point them at another person.
I have a close friend who has struggled with schizophrenia most of his adult life. He lives in poverty, largely shunned by most of our friends. But he's not violent. It was a struggle to get him help. Many people suffer from this illness and it's hard to recognize or admit a loss of control, and the social stigma against it makes it even harder to admit one needs help. Social and medical programs are often the first to be cut when governments look at budgets. Mentally ill people are poor and can't afford expensive lobbyists, so they often bear the brunt of budget cuts. There is no question, having read about Lanza's behavior from the accounts of his contemporaries, that he struggled with some kind of mental problems. Why his mother, a kindergarten teacher, needed three automatic weapons at home is something I cannot begin to fathom. There have to be limits to liberty, and being able to kill everybody in a movie theatre on a day when you are especially pissed off does not seem to have been included in the Second Amendment of our Constitution. That's where I draw the line.
It's this simple: your freedom to swing your arms about stops the minute you hit me in the nose. There are laws about drinking and driving. Nobody gets hysterical when those are imposed. They are commonsensical. Why, then, shouldn't there be restrictions about how and under what circumstances one can use other deadly devices? One begins to wonder if people equate guns with their phalluses or something. It's irrational. I have no problem if you have properly locked up weapons that are under control and pose no danger to law abiding citizens, but I think you should have to buy liability insurance to cover unauthorized damage. If your kid gets in your car and runs somebody over with it, you should have to pay for the damage he causes. By the same token, if your kid gets into your guns and shoots somebody, you should have to be liable for the damage caused. Presently there are no restrictions of this type and there should be.
Perhaps if people were held liable for such tragedies, we'd be less likely to see this kind of insane shooting rampage. I may be wrong, but it's better to try to do something to stop it than to just sit around wringing our hands, saying tsk tsk every time somebody shoots up a shopping center, movie theatre, place of worship or kindergarten.
-
Do you have a citation that the weapons were full auto? I've not heard that from any sources.
-
the only one responsible here for the murders of those children and teachers is Adam Lanza, not his mother, not congress, not the government. He decided that day for whatever reason that he was going to kill his mother and innocent children and adults, Even if his mother wasn't a gun enthusiast, he would have found a way to hurt who ever he wanted to.
-
You can call me crazy, but I can't think of one single good reason why normal citizens need automatic or semi automatic weapons.
Had the shooter had a knife instead, he very well may have killed several children, but the likelihood of his having killed less would have been significantly greater. And the longer interval necessary for him to perform this heinous crime may have enabled crucial interventions. And if you think you have really good reasons why we all need our own personal semi automatic weapons, or for that matter, our own personal hydrogen bombs, I'd like to hear it.
-
Sent you a reason in PM. Friend doesn't like me telling that story in public.
-
The news has updated the situation. The mother was not a teacher at the school. The school was locked and the shooter shot his way in. The mother was a gun enthusiast who regularly took both her sons target shooting. All of the weapons were owned legally. The owner's son shot her dead in the face in their home. He clearly has mental problems. The fact is that he used a semiautomatic assault rifle commonly deployed in the field of war in Afghanistan to shoot his way into an elementary school. He should not have been able to do so. You can argue that he could have gone to buy fertilizer, constructed a homemade bomb and wreaked the same havoc, but it would have raised the bar, made this attack more difficult to execute and required much more planning and premeditation. In short, making access to such weapons more difficult might have prevented this tragedy or reduced its scale. How many first graders' lives must we pay for our liberty? Try telling the parents of those children that their kid's life is less important than your desire to have semiautomatic weapons at your disposal 24/7.
Again, why such extremely dangerous firearms are not required to be kept at a firing range and not in a domestic environment is beyond me. There is a point where some weapons, like tanks, rocket launchers and hydrogen bombs are deemed too dangerous for personal use and their deployment restricted. These kinds of incidents should make us question just how restrictive our regulations regarding guns with such kill power should be.
-
Unfortunately the second amendment didn't foresee the manufacture of semi / automatic weapons / grenades
etc etc.
as stated he and his family had guns legitimately, how can anyone have foreseen this.
Even if a law was passed ensuring guns and ammo are retained at clubs only, would they have been able to prevent this.
A sad year for children being killed indeed :'( :'(
Have seen some of the comments on Fbook and they are varied, mostly about keeping guns legal for anyone to keep.Havent seen any "pro-killer" and i hope i dont
-
I absolutely agree with 6pairofshoes what do you need all this guns for, to kill each other ? We live in violent societies and this kind of actions because of the notoriety involved ,will increase. We as Italian are only 60 millions but have killing almost every day, I can't imagine if some of this people had free access to any kind of firearms what will happen then...
Of course you have a very powerful guns lobby to contend with, so I don't think a law making them loosing their business will easily pass....
-
AR-15 is a civilian model, not military 6.
I'm not sure if your line on ammo/weapon restriction was a question or a statement. But no, that would not prevent a criminal from gaining access to / using a firearm.
-
A long time ago I realised that trying to implant my British ideology of gun ownership into that of the Americans, was futile and perhaps even a little insulting. I realised then that American culture, as is that of all nations of the world, is theirs to do with what they want and is not the business of outsiders. Not only that, but we have had at least 3 incidents here that compare (Dunblane being the worst) so having a society all but bereft of firearms does not mean it cannot happen. The stark difference here is that after a gun incident where innocents have died, the country is pretty unanimous in agreeing that there should be even tighter laws on these types of weapons - i.e. no one beyond farmers should own them.
-
Dirty politics? Gun control is a pyrrhic battle. Gun control advocates want guns taken away or banned. It can be done, but it will be washed away by the next set of politicians.
Right now on MSNBC Tom ridge is talking about surveillance and law enforcement control of the internet to try and prevent the next shooting.
Dianne feinstein is going to resubmit the assault weapons ban. The last time the law was rammed through, it cost the democrats everything, and the bush administration allowed it to quietly die.
This is becoming a cultural divide, urban against rural. I grew up in the middle of that divide, and the urban side is coming off as patronizing and condescending.
-
I question the need to have semi automatic weapons, period. But you have discussed elsewhere some reasons for this. My assertion is this: hold people liable for the damage that is caused by misuse of their firearms.
I have a car. If I kill someone, either accidentally, or intentionally, I have insurance that will cover some of the losses and damages. I have to take exams periodically that prove my continued fitness to operate a car. I have to have a license to drive one that is predicated on my understanding how to operate the car, my ability to see adequately, and my knowledge of traffic laws. I have to renew my registration every year and periodically, I have to submit my car to inspection to insure that it does not pose a health hazard (pollution) and that it is safe to operate.
Why gun ownership should not be subject to the same oversight escapes me. If I want to avoid this scrutiny, I can ride a bicycle or take public transportation.
-
I fully agree with what you're saying 6pair. No "but...", "or...", or "except...". I don't think guns should be banned, but there definitely needs to be some sort of training and accountability. Extending the driver's license analogy, I can be licensed to drive a car, but if I want/need to drive a motorcycle, bus, or multi-axle vehicle, I need to take special classes and a test to prove my proficiency in handling said vehicle responsibly and safely.
A waiting period and cursory background exam is a good start, but something more needs to be done. Yes, people should have the right to bare arms (my opinion) but that shouldn't give them the right to ownership without responsibility.
-
I have a DOJ certified certificate of safe handling which shows I went through the required safety course.
It expires every 3 years and requires me to pay a $25 fee and demonstrate safe handling. The re-cert is much easier than the initial course, all you have to do is show how to safely load and unload the weapon.
I don't have to do a behind the wheel exam every time I renew my drivers license.
As to semi-automatic vs. single action, I posted another thread in the members area that discusses the different models of handgun, and the reasons someone would select one over the other.
No but, or, or except. If you're asking me to pay insurance on my weapon? I'm not interested, and neither are a majority of voters. The democrats passed an assault weapons ban in 1994, and it cost them everything politically. And their law was washed away by the next administration.
Semi-automatic does not mean burst fire. It means a round is chambered after the previous round is fired.
-
Thank you for that clarification. I've been scratching my head all day about what "semi automatic" means. I assume "automatic" refers to the ability of the weapon to reload itself. That the woman who owned the guns used in the most recent massacre did not exercise sufficient caution in keeping them from a child who was demonstrably mentally unstable is obvious. The problem is: how to force people to be accountable in such situations.
8ully, I am sure that paying liability insurance is not popular, but let's look at it this way: when I was in college, they decided people could have pets in the dorm if they paid a deposit in case their pets caused damage. One woman did not pay her deposit. Her cat got into my room, pissed in my bed, urinated on my pillow. She did not want to be responsible for paying for replacing the pillow and cleaning the damaged bedclothes.
The damage we are discussing here, many dead 6 year olds and their teachers, is astronomically worse. Who should pay for that damage? The taxpayers? or the gun owners? I think you can see where this is going. The woman who owned the cat who pissed in my bed didn't want to take responsibility. Who, then, can mete out justice? The body politic, that's who.
-
Owner of the guns is dead. No one left to tax, unless you want to pass it on to me.
-
... and it metes out justice to the woman who owned the cat who pissed in your bed, as she is only avoiding her responsibilities.
But what if the woman who owned the cat who pissed in your bed committed suicide to avoid justice? What does the body politic do then?
(I assume that you are not recommending that cats are banned - but maybe you are?)
Liability insurance is great for those cases where money can resolve the issue: for instance in the cat case, a new bed, new pillows, and a few dollars for the indignity. Liability insurance is not so good when the casualty is something that money can't buy (like schoolchildren).
The issue (for me) is that some people do bad things. The rest of us just need to learn that poo happens, and that we cannot always get revenge/ restitution/ justice, and we cannot prevent a bad person from doing a bad thing.
We seem to be having this problem all over - people do things that people just shouldn't do, and then the legislators, supported by the rabid pitchfork carrying mob - whipped up by the ever-populist press - pass laws that just cannot solve the problem. Politicians have to be seen to be doing something, or the media pillory them, and the public in their turn crucify them. It has to be someone's fault, and the miscreant is just too small a thing to blame, therefore "society" feels that we have to be seen to be doing something, even if that something is worse than useless. Churchgoers blame it all on moral breakdown, and recommend that the legislators make Church attendance mandatory (and that we execute anyone that won't sign on the dotted line).
More security at airports slows the world down, but doesn't prevent bad people, similarly more security at schools - "Megan's Law" wouldn't have helped Megan, and gun control can't stop Columbine/ Newton/ Virginia Tech/ Anders Breivik/ William Calley or Dunblane. Harold Shipman killed a bunch of folk, but the law changes wouldn't have stopped him, and vicious dogs are still vicious.
Until we can find a way to legislate against the bad things that people can/ may/ will do we are stuck and I think (hope?) that this is eternal, as I, for one, don't want to live in the Brave New World where people cannot do bad things because some way has been found of identifying and stopping them in advance.
^ Needs to be kept.
....vicious dogs are still vicious....
Vicious dogs with their teeth removed find it a lot harder to do harm.
There can be no mistaking that guns could give any one of us the ability to take someone's life at will. I cannot think of another item that could do that. Sure you could run me over, but not while I am sitting on the second floor like I am while writing this, nor could the majority of you kill me with a knife (excluding RG and possibly Red). That said, I completely understand that if the public is already armed in that way, as it is in the U.S, you need to then arm yourself equally to at least create the illusion of security. Is that the argument?
-
Im working up the strength to read this thread. Its effecting me pretty harshly, cant seem to stop crying. I look at my girl scouts and remember when my daughter was young and all of her friends and those images are just stuck. Havent really reached a point where I want to place blame or figure it out, just trying to let it soak in. Maybe by the time Im ready someone will of come up with an answer..... a start to a solution.
-
If he didn't have a gun, would he not just get a knife / machete .
as in Wolverhampton machete attack occurred at St Luke's Church of England infants' school, on July 8, 1996.
There will always be a way for "the wrong " person to do harm.
" Until we can find a way to legislate against the bad things that people can/ may/ will do we are stuck and I think (hope?) that this is eternal, as I, for one, don't want to live in the Brave New World where people cannot do bad things because some way has been found of identifying and stopping them in advance. "
believe a movie was made about that. ;)
-
As my daughter is 6 and a bundle of joy beyond compare, I can sense the enormity of the loss only too well. I think I would nuke the world if someone were to take her from me in this way.
poo may well happen and there are children dying every minute of the day in some part of the world, but the sheer senselessness of this incident is too difficult for my brain to compute. I just want to vomit when I think of it.
The Wolverhampton attack does not compare and only reinforces Six's view. No one was killed there and brave adults willingly took hits with the machete to protect the children, as I would and I'd guess so would everyone else here. If Horrett Campbell had had a semi automatic firearm, I doubt anyone would have been left alive and this is a real example of how having near to no guns in this country probably saves a lot of lives every year.
-
I so agree, our gun laws keep us "safe".
Unfortunately USA will have a fight on their hands to change their law and more importantly mind set.
-
The Wolverhampton attack does not compare and only reinforces Six's view. No one was killed there and brave adults willingly took hits with the machete to protect the children, as I would and I'd guess so would everyone else here. If Horrett Campbell had had a semi automatic firearm, I doubt anyone would have been left alive and this is a real example of how having near to no guns in this country probably saves a lot of lives every year.
That was exactly my point when I said I am happy that here few people have guns and you need special permission to own them, many instable persons don't have access to one and I believe the police have to keep public order nor me or you, still for people who like firearms there are special places where they can excercise themselves
-
Dahmer killed one person at a time. He didn't shoot his way into a school with a military style assault rifle. You are right. There is no way to prevent evil people from doing evil things, but you can throw obstacles in their way. That's all we can do besides wringing hands and gnashing teeth.
And, no, money won't bring back dead children, but it might help defray funeral expenses and rebuild the structure that the shooter demolished in his frenzy to kill. All this chaos and destruction caused physical damage that will require labor and resources to put right. Liability insurance could have helped at least defray some of this. It's not much, I know, but if I have to have it in order to operate an automobile, is it too much to ask that owners of guns likewise be held responsible for accidental damage? It won't bring back Ms. Lanza, but at least it will insure that her estate will help make right some of the terrible damage wrought by her failure to insure that her guns were secured and kept safely away from a mentally defective son.
-
Nope. (at least not mine).
My argument (as I summed up in the second post) is that legislation cannot stop a determined person from doing extraordinarily nasty things. No matter how you legislate, someone will always find a way to circumvent the legislation to do their dark deeds.
Legislation, on the other hand, almost always inconveniences the law-abiding without affecting the criminal, be it by gun, by dog or by scalpel. I don't recall Jeffrey Dahmer having a gun.
I know what you are saying here, but I'd give you 3 days to obtain a semi automatic firearm, and then the ammo (which will be far harder to obtain btw) and I bet you'd either fail or be arrested in the process. If I gave you a month you may just do it although I doubt you'd get that many rounds. This is the reality of availability of guns here in the U.K and I saying that as someone who has seen them about in my past. That prick who killed the children wouldn't have even been able to buy a gun of the gangsters here, they'd have just robbed him and sent in on his way. He may have buddied up with a farmer and obtained a shotgun, but it would have been a double barrelled and he'd wouldn't have been able to reload it more than 2 or 3 times before he'd been brought down.
I am not judging America's policies on gun ownership as that is their affair, but I don't think it is debatable that Lanza would have had to have been a lot brighter and infinitely more resourceful to have carried out the attack here.
-
I don't think focusing on gun control helps, I think that the issue is much, much wider than guns.
In this particular case, the guns were legally owned (as I understand it) and it is entirely possible to legally own several guns, and ammunition, in this country too - therefore the dumb kid of a gun owner could use those guns in exactly (well not quite exactly, but close enough to make no difference) the same way here.
As I said: laws only really hamstring the law-abiding - law-breakers and lunatics aren't even slowed.
As I understand it (these days), it is no easy matter to acquire a gun license and I recall after Dunblane when the law was tightened even more, recognised sportsmen even had difficulty obtaining them for their sport. It's certainly not unheard of in farming/rural communities as guns are required for pest control, but here in the smoke I do not know a single, licensed gun owner.
The point of what I am saying which is just repeating what I said before, is that if you, or I, flipped and decided to go on a killing spree at this particular moment, we would have no chance in acquiring the weaponry (or certainly not the ammo) to carry it out.
-
That is also true for most Americans.
I suppose I am just trying to make sense of the mechanics involved with this incident, and trying to reassure myself that it is less likely to happen here.
I won't disagree that access to lethal weapons does not stop someone that is intent on killing, they'll undoubtedly find a way. But I do think that the absence of guns, removes the option in peoples minds of shooting someone who has really pissed them off. They're more likely to look round for a lump of timber.
-
The weapon used, owned legally, was a military style assault rifle. Why this weapon was available to be used to shoot its handler's way into an elementary school is a reasonable question.
If the reason to own and enjoy such a weapon is for target shooting, then why not require it to be retained and locked down between sessions at a carefully monitored target range? Why do Americans need so much firepower? I live in a high crime relatively dangerous city and I would feel less secure with a gun than without one. We have a peculiar culture here that equates freedom and autonomy with weaponry. That needs to change. How one effects this is an open question.
-
As I said: laws only really hamstring the law-abiding - law-breakers and lunatics aren't even slowed.
QFT
There's not really a need for a market of easily available assault rifles (these rifles are NOT automatic, as automatic weapons are against the law), but I don't see how they differ much from other guns. The ammunition might be a bit larger, maybe they hold a few more rounds than, say, a handgun. But they aren't really more deadly. If an attacker only had a few handguns at his disposal, he'd still easily kill many.
Hell, the truly sick people who go out and do this kind of thing don't even need guns. Take away all the guns? You still can't take away their urge to do it, and they'll just end up resorting to other means, such as explosive devices.
I'll step out of the conversation now. I don't like getting into politics and/or "the right to bear arms" discussions in light of the tragedy that was.
-
I'm sorry, but that's defeatist logic.
It's like saying this:
If you make people get drivers licenses to operate a car, only good drivers will get licenses and the bad drivers will find a way to drive anyway.
While this is true, the bad drivers are largely kept to a minimum. And when people are caught driving without a license, they are fined or jailed.
So, what does one say to the families of the dead six year olds? Too bad? There's nothing to be done? We'll all just throw in the towel and wail and pray every time a crazy gets weapons and shoots up a school because that's the way it is?
I know if my child had been murdered, I'd not accept such a pronouncement. I'd move heaven and earth to see that nobody else had to suffer the way my family had for no good reason. But that's me.
-
Thousands of people drive with a suspended or no license...just saying.
-
Thousands of people drive with a suspended or no license...just saying.
I think what Six meant is that the authorities actively try and stop and prosecute such people, and that they are condemned on the whole by the general public.
-
I'm sorry, but that's defeatist logic.
It's like saying this:
If you make people get drivers licenses to operate a car, only good drivers will get licenses and the bad drivers will find a way to drive anyway.
No, it isn't. It is like saying that cars must be banned, because sometimes even licensed owners kill people with their cars. (When was the last time a mass shooting was conducted using unlicensed guns?)
... or that cars with more than 50cc engines must be banned, because licensed owners with powerful cars could potentially cause more damage than licensed owners of little cars.
So, what does one say to the families of the dead six year olds?
One says “It was a tragedy, and the only person to blame has killed himself. Sorry, it is time for the healing process to start.”
Look upon inhumanity as a force of nature – you can’t legislate to stop lightning, flood, famine or plague (although we, along with King Canute, perennially try), so why would we try to legislate against the unpredictable and unknowable madman?
There is nothing that can be done. Nothing. This is not throwing in the towel, it is stating a simple truth.
I know if my child had been murdered, I'd not accept such a pronouncement. I'd move heaven and earth to see that nobody else had to suffer the way my family had for no good reason. But that's me.
And that is your right. Do whatever you have to do to try to live with your loss, but please don’t try to tell me what I can and can’t do in my normal, law-abiding life. I am fed up to the back teeth with people whose desire for revenge/ restitution/ whatever make my life a misery on a day to day basis, whilst continuing to fail to prevent atrocities.
I am fed up with having to be frisked and scanned at airports, after an hour-long queue, when there are no recorded instances of a bomber having been stopped, caught or deterred by the machines: the bad guys find a way to avoid being scanned. The only reason for the scanners to exist is because “someone has to do something”.
I am fed up with grannies having to undergo onerous expensive and time-consuming checks for previous child-abuse convictions before they are allowed to teach children to knit in a classroom surrounded by other adults, when paedophiles don’t submit themselves for checks. The only reason for the checks to exist is because “someone has to do something”.
We need to re-learn, as a society, that bad things happen – they can’t be eradicated, and they are not always “someone’s fault”.
The way I see it is: I keep the sharp knives in a drawer that is out of the reach of my children as I know that children and sharp objects are not a good mix. I realise that they'll probably find something else to cut themselves with, but I'll be damned if I move those knives to within reach.
-
You don't go reaching in my drawers, hopefully.
-
True.
... and concomitantly if someone else doesn't have the same discipline, and their children cut themselves in their kitchen, you don't expect knives to be banned.
Or do you?
I am not suggesting bans either here or in the U.S. and have not throughout this thread. I am happy with our laws and American gun policy is none of my business as I am not eligible to vote there.
What I am saying in response to your "poo happens" (which it does) view, is that you can be sensible about things without being oppressive.
-
I have not suggested banning anything.
I've only stated the obvious: that extremely dangerous weapons need to be secured and that the owner should be responsible for their failure to see to it that they are. They should be required to obtain liability insurance to cover their accidental misuse.
-
THE NEW YORKER ONLINE ONLY
« The Right Day to Talk About GunsMainWhat Obama Must Do About Guns »
DECEMBER 14, 2012
NEWTOWN AND THE MADNESS OF GUNS
POSTED BY ADAM GOPNIK
After the mass gun murders at Virginia Tech, I wrote about the unfathomable image of cell phones ringing in the pockets of the dead kids, and of the parents trying desperately to reach them. And I said (as did many others), This will go on, if no one stops it, in this manner and to this degree in this country alone—alone among all the industrialized, wealthy, and so-called civilized countries in the world. There would be another, for certain.
Then there were—many more, in fact—and when the latest and worst one happened, in Aurora, I (and many others) said, this time in a tone of despair, that nothing had changed. And I (and many others) predicted that it would happen again, soon. And that once again, the same twisted voices would say, Oh, this had nothing to do with gun laws or the misuse of the Second Amendment or anything except some singular madman, of whom America for some reason seems to have a particularly dense sample.
And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)
So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.
All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.
-
As Adam Gopnik isn't here, there is no point telling him how wrong he is. You can only discuss things with people if they are involved in the discussion.
But that article is flawed. Emotional, powerful, and wrong. Exactly what we don't need if we are to determine a way forward.
Clue: never ever trust someone on the internet that says that something is a simple fact.
I posted because much better than my words express my feeling. And as I already said if it was in my power i will make a big bonfire and put there all the weaponry of this world, but if the Usa doesn't do anything don't cry when something like that will happen again, and it will happens because the world is changed and violence permeate our societies
-
I am led to wonder what is different now. What is different in people, in behavior, in society that creates or fosters the creation of these monsters that leads to these terrible events? For approximately 100 years now, common citizens in the US have had access to semi-automatic (and for a period even fully automatic) weapons with high capacity magazines, but outbursts of this type just did not occur, especially not on the scale they do today and definitely not the seemingly endless examples of senseless, unprovoked murders of innocent people as there are now.
The information regarding theses events often puts the beginning of the trend at the Columbine massacres, but what changed suddenly prior to and along with that horrific event? What seems different is the way people handle anger or frustration. How has anger management changed? People of the past were notorious for holding in their anger, especially men, and one would think that would be lead directly to mass killings, but it didn't happen. American citizens now live in a society that accepts and encourages self-expression as the norm, presumably letting people vent more easily their frustrations in a safe and acceptable manner, but the opposite seems to be happening. These are obvious outbursts of just blind, irrational anger, but what has changed so drastically that leads so many individuals to believe the only answer left is to kill a school full of children or a theater filled with movie-goers?
Like most people, I'd like to see a stop to this madness, and like many US citizens I don't believe taking away the established rights of over 100 million law-abiding, private gun owners is the answer, but I would like someone to find out what is causing this trend, what is so often putting people into a position in life that the only way to quell their particular pain is by taking the lives of absolutely innocent victims. Like so many others, I find myself confused because it just doesn't make any sense.
Media, morality (lack of).
I posted because much better than my words express my feeling.
That's fair enough.
Adam Gopnik is a credible commentator so I won't dismiss his views too readily, if only in an attempt to make a little more sense of this inexplicable situation.
-
Gopnik is a gifted journalist who writes on cultural affairs and art for the New Yorker magazine. He is not an expert on public policy or gun control. His opinions are his own and not those of an authority on the subject. You can accept or reject them for what they are: the opinions of an educated and intelligent private citizen.
Our lack of commitment to a reasonable health care system that includes services for the mentally ill is, I believe, at the base of so many of these recent massacres. But nobody wants to pay for universal health care. The hysteria surrounding this is surpassed only by those proposals for legislation related to regulating gun ownership. Maybe we eat too much sugar, who knows?
-
The post is a very strong one sided emotional argument.
-
That is indisputable. And, for the record, while I can appreciate Gopnik's frustrations and passionate stance, I think he's hardly likely to change the minds of his opponents by calling them baby killers.
I've been thinking about this a good deal lately. When people on here post opposing views, I listen and think about them. Hysterical name calling is not going to change the situation.
I think about regulation and licensing and automobiles. I construct arguments to strengthen the positions of my opponents in my head. I think about the time I was at the DMV to get my driver's license renewed and there was someone there who had taken the test three times and failed. And finally, the clerk bent the rules and let the guy have his license anyway. So, the cold facts are this: no system is perfect. Set up rules and people will figure out a way around them. The only real way to get at the problem is to identify its causes and try to effect a solution. People are upset because guns make the scope of violence greater and easier. But many people who hold to non regulation also don't want to pay taxes to take care of the Adam Lanzas in this world who end up shooting up elementary schools when they fall through the cracks of an inadequate health care system.
I don't have the answers, and I understand that both sides have great merit. But still, something must be done. If regulation isn't it, then what is?
-
I'm not sure how Adam Lanza fell through cracks of health care system. he came from wealthy family, I'm sure there was no worry about health insurance at all. If he really was mentally ill (some articles suggest he wasnt) then we can't truly blame it on health care system. maybe the school system for not educating parents that something may be a little off with their kids or let them know what warning signs to look for.
From what I've read so far and what's been reported, is that their were no medical reports of him being ill. Sure, now that this has happened everyone says "oh he was strange" "he was anti social " etc.
The only situation that I think of at the moment where the health care system could take partial blame for a shooting would be James Holmes guy were there was prior medical documentation of him being mentally ill.
when does it end if we allow the government to control and take control of every aspect of our lives.
-
Something that confuses me is why guns are not allowed on aeroplanes in the U.S.? I mean, if they are not inherently dangerous, but the owners can be, then why when you have every bit of information about the passenger would they worry about them taking guns on board? Christ and others have suggested that people will always find a way to do evil deeds, so why the fuss?
-
A suggestion about sixpairofshoes doubts could be a firearms license, as much as you can demostrate you don't have mental illness you can carry your guns, exactly as for driving the car you need one. I know it is utopic because people there don't want regulation of any sort but why then have car regulation? Or as Smokester suggested no guns on airplaines, I can add museums and important places all around Usa and probably in the future personal searches when entering schools or kindergartens
-
in most states in order to carry a gun on your person, you have to be evaluated and you get something filed at the police station, that gives you a right carry a gun with you. a firearms license sounds like a great idea but it won't keep mentally ill people from getting a licenses because some mentally illness are not always diagnosed until later in life, like schizophrenia etc. so I don't really see that as being a deterrent.
-
I don't know how it works there for driving licence, but here ,after few years you have to renew it, and it should be so for a firearms license. I don't know if that 's enough as a deterrent but could be a start
-
I have a safe handling certification issued by the DOJ bubu. And there is no bending in that. If you can't demonstrate safe handling, you can't get the certification, and you can't get a gun.
In fact, if you've begun purchasing a gun (They take the money first) and you fail the certification, they keep a goodly percentage of the money. I don't remember the exact percentage, but it is enough that I would not have purchased a firearm if I had any doubt about passing certification.
And yes, you do have to be re certified.
Apologies if I've posted this information here before, I've been fielding questions about this at just about every website I am a member on.
The hate has died down though, and that's nice. I really don't need to hear about what a horrible person I am for owning a gun.
This certification included a check by a licensed range master.
-
The DOJ you have ,does include a certification from your doctor about your mental balance (I don't doubt yours ) ? Sorry I really don't know all your laws...
-
Most of my relatives own guns, not for target practice but for hunting. I grew up with guns, so no, 8ullfrog, there's no way I automatically assume you are a bad person for owning one. People have many reasons for owning guns.
I'm sure there are histrionics on both sides. I think it's reasonable to have a discussion about what might be done to avert such tragedies in the future. And thanks for the info about the process of certification required for you to have a gun. What's sort of sad about this recent tragedy is that the shooter was encouraged to go to target practice with the guns by his mother. More details are coming out about her, but he seems to have had antisocial tendencies and a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. That, in itself, doesn't necessarily mean he was crazy, but it's hard for me to put my head in a place where shooting up an elementary school makes sense. It seems like a cry of extreme rage or despair to me. Teaching children how to cope with frustration and disappointment at an early age might help in the future.
-
I had to authorize them to look into my medical records, but it's not like I had to get a physical. My buddy the pilot has to do those fairly regularly.
Pretty sure they just look into your medical history, but I don't know the extent they check up to. (I am not law enforcement)
Either way they don't allow teenagers to buy pistols.
-
I live in a state that is relatively permissive regarding gun ownership, but if you choose to buy a concealed carry license which allows you to carry a pistol on your person while in public, you have to maintain a certain level of expected behavior. If you get a DUI, drug charge or any sort of violence related conviction, even if you aren't carrying a weapon at the time, you will lose your concealed carry license.
-
I don't fully understand the nuances of American gun laws but they do seem pretty in depth which must be a good thing.
I prefer the society I live in to be bereft of guns which includes the police not having them, that way, no particular person has direct control over whether I live or die. I can perish by many other means I know, but I would like to think that most of them I either have control over or can outrun.
To be frank I don't really care one way or the other about U.S. gun ownership as ultimately it is not my affair, but I would like never to have to read another story about so many beautiful children's lives being ended by one bent up family and their weaponry.
-
Something that confuses me is why guns are not allowed on aeroplanes in the U.S.? I mean, if they are not inherently dangerous, but the owners can be, then why when you have every bit of information about the passenger would they worry about them taking guns on board? Christ and others have suggested that people will always find a way to do evil deeds, so why the fuss?
The same reason that you go through metal detectors: it feels to folk that "something is being done". The something that is being done is pointless and irritating, but it is non-negotiable.
My personal feeling on this topic is summed up by the simple fact (irony - heh!) that cars (automobiles) are used to kill an awful lot more kids (and other people) than guns. Why is it that every time that there is a car accident in which a baby is killed or orphaned no-one suggests banning cars? No-one. Cars don't kill people, people kill people - but it is very difficult to kill a person by walking in to them.
The answer, in my view, is that the general populace see the utility of the car, and therefore they don't try to ban them - on the gun side of things there is a sizeable, and vocal, group that don't see the utility of guns. Is perceived utility a good enough excuse? I don't know, but I do know that there would be a lot less deaths in the world if we banned cars.
Natural disasters kill too but their action is unintentional, which is similar to most road deaths.
-
My personal feeling on this topic is summed up by the simple fact (irony - heh!) that cars (automobiles) are used to kill an awful lot more kids (and other people) than guns. Why is it that every time that there is a car accident in which a baby is killed or orphaned no-one suggests banning cars? No-one. Cars don't kill people, people kill people - but it is very difficult to kill a person by walking in to them.
With that line of reasoning, chris, I'm surprised you don't advocate eliminating metal cutlery since plastic is much less deadly. This analogue is specious and I'm surprised to hear you draw it.
Guns have one primary function -- launching metal projectiles at great speed. While this technology can be used to kill enemies, game animals, etc., its misuse has disastrous consequences.
Although, like guns, cars can be used for sport, their primary function is for transportation. Occasionally, accidents happen where cars cause injury and death. Their use is regulated. Does this mean the occasional maniac won't use a car to commit homicide? No. But it insures that most people who are not equipped to operate a vehicle won't do so without first undergoing training and being licensed to do so.
-
since plastic is much less deadly
You can buy plastic and ceramic knives that are just as deadly. I chop my onions with a hot pink plastic knife.
As to flying with guns, you just check them like luggage.
As I've said to you numerous times, gun ownership and usage is regulated in the US.
I'm starting to think you just don't want to hear the other side of this issue. Mac VS. PC indeed.
Another note, The security theater of the airports is both invasive and offensive. You're put through the pornoscanner, and then a security agent cups your genitals at SAN. Meanwhile, at Kennedy, which is 12 miles from Manhattan, all I had to do was flash my ID and I was waved right through. Didn't even have to kick my shoes off.
If poo ever does go down on a plane, I keep a spare sock in my cargo pocket. batteries go in sock, keys go in sock, change goes in sock, and I've got a garden variety blackjack. When I fly I keep a good supply of change anyway to feed the vending machines.
I don't like this substitute argument, it's too easy refute. A firearm is not equivalent to a vehicle. About the only way the argument works is if you say certain accessories should be banned because they are not required for day to day use. For instance, I do not shoot in day to day life, so one could argue that I do not REQUIRE a pistol. I don't drive everyday either, should my car be confiscated in the name of safety? I don't smoke, should I be prohibited access to butane or lighter fluid? Those could be used as weapons quite easily. I don't farm, should I be restricted from access to fertilizer? What if I want to grow tomatoes in my yard? Should there be a waiting list before I can purchase it? How about diesel? my car runs on unleaded.
How about uhauls? now we're talking land of sketchy. So if I'm transporting fertilizer in a uhaul that runs on diesal, my threat level has just jumped exponentially. I'm in possession of weapons that can and have been used against federal buildings and the world trade center itself.
golly, this post is gonna get me on several watch lists.
-
Thanks for the update on cutlery, 8ully. If guns were regulated in a standard way across the states and as carefully as they clearly are in California (where you reside), then there may be less problem and as chris notes, we'd all feel safer even if there is no actual reason for us to do so, since some crazed woman could kill me with the heel of her shoe if she wanted.
All kinds of stuff can be dangerous.
You wrong me by saying I suffer from some kind of Mac/PC blindness. I am the first to admit there are no easy answers, but I still am very uncomfortable with the idea of doing nothing. Maybe it's just that I think children are sweet and should be protected from being shot in school. If anything can be done to keep this from happening again, I say, let's do it. Rejecting it as just another tragedy we have to live with goes against my grain, I guess.
p.s. If you want to grow tomatoes, rather than go out for some nasty chemical fertilizers, I recommend bunny poop. It works a treat and it won't blow up any buildings.
-
California has some overreach in the gun laws in my opinion. Standard magazines don't need to be neutered to appease people who demand Something Be Done. ™
You can add as many laws as you like, still wouldn't have stopped the shooter. He managed to step around the gun laws.
-
You can add as many laws as you like, still wouldn't have stopped the shooter. He managed to step around the gun laws.
In the short term that is unquestionably true, but as far as I know you have no experience of living in a nation without readily available guns as I do, and that guy probably wouldn't have been able to carry out that attack here. There are those with access to that kind of weaponry for sure, but there is no mystery to what kind of people they are and the worst case scenario around them is that you'd be hit by the crossfire. Lanza would have had to plan that attack for some time, gain trust from people that are notoriously hard to approach, and then sought the ammo which would have cost an arm and a leg on the black market. He'd have more than likely flipped out and grabbed a machete which I would gladly take my chances with.
-
I am always wary of fear based legislation in the US. After the attacks of 9/11, people were justifiably scared, so they cried out and demanded changes to protect the innocent and to ensure something like that never happened again, the end result being the Patriot Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act). This is just terrible legislation enacted by president Bush that over steps every privacy boundary imaginable and has been extended as recently as 2011 by president Obama. As a group, we Americans are infamous for lacking subtlety, nuance, or restraint and that goes ten fold for our elected officials in the legislature and the laws they create.
Personally, I believe a law abiding citizen's right to self determination (including gun ownership and self defense) takes precedence over anyone else's fear or concerns so I don't believe in the infringement of Second Amendment rights in the name of safety, but I am especially opposed to it because I have absolutely no faith in our elected officials to draft these supposedly "reasonable restrictions".
-
So, if I understand you correctly, you are advocating an extreme libertarian stance in which there should be no regulation based on the reasoning that any such efforts are ineffective. No matter what we do, bad people will do bad things.
So we should do nothing but accept that there is evil in the world? Perhaps this seems an extreme interpretation, but I'm just puzzling to understand just when you might find intervention necessary, and if so, under what circumstances?
-
I have a friend in England who got the same pistol I have, with a higher capacity magazine than I have. Cost him two liters of cider, which is a damn sight better than what I paid for it, $500.
As to the ammo, I wouldn't know, but when he got it, it was loaded.
Needless to say, I said he was full of poo, so he held the gun up on Skype, let me check the chamber.
I believe in reasonable restrictions on firearms. The problem is that many politicians are not educated about firearms. Or reasonable. Here is a legislator, who has no idea what she is banning:
Tip: a collapsable stock is not a barrel shroud. I bless'ed hate Tucker Carlson, and I despise gotcha journalism, but holy poo is that a frightening video.
I am neither an extremist or a libertarian.
In this specific shooting, the shooter was able to bypass the existing gun laws in CT. ANY additional laws will need to address this fact, or they will be no better than simple platitudes.
-
From what I recall, the VT shooter acquired ammo over a period of months, ordered from online stores in different states with looser laws.
-
Natural disasters kill too but their action is unintentional, which is similar to most road deaths.
True: which is why a car ban is the only worthwhile solution -- if the deaths were deliberately caused then that would muddy the thinking. For cars there is no falling back on the "ban the madmen that use the cars as weapons" argument. And again, the reason I note it is that no-one seems to care enough about automobile casualties to stir up the "mr. angry" set, but let some little angel get winged by a bullet and the whole world is in an uproar.
With that line of reasoning, chris, I'm surprised you don't advocate eliminating metal cutlery since plastic is much less deadly. This analogue is specious and I'm surprised to hear you draw it.
I didn't advocate anything. A simple negation doesn't invalidate an analogy, even with emotive language. "Specious" indeed. Tsk.
Cars don't "occasionally" kill. Thousands upon thousands of people are killed by cars.
It doesn't matter what the primary purpose of the lethal weapon is, I was noting the effect. DDT had a useful primary purpose too, as did Thalidomide - that didn't make them any less deadly, nor invalidate the need to ban them.
I noted, and restate, that some people find it easy to jump on the "ban guns" bandwagon because they see no defence for them, but those same people will find discussions about other killing agents "specious" ("cars have a use" indeed)
Although, like guns, cars can be used for sport, their primary function is for transportation. Occasionally, accidents happen where cars cause injury and death. Their use is regulated. Does this mean the occasional maniac won't use a car to commit homicide? No. But it insures that most people who are not equipped to operate a vehicle won't do so without first undergoing training and being licensed to do so.
... and still, as I noted above, the damned things kill thousands of innocents. If we can't prevent those deaths by regulation/ training/ licensing/ whatever, then surely a ban is the only way to save those poor darlings.
In the short term that is unquestionably true, but as far as I know you have no experience of living in a nation without readily available guns as I do, and that guy probably wouldn't have been able to carry out that attack here.
That is exactly what we thought in England up until July 1987. Hungerford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre) showed that argument was incorrect then, and not a lot has changed since then, really.
That is exactly what we thought in England up until July 1987. Hungerford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre) showed that argument was incorrect then, and not a lot has changed since then, really.
Just repeating your last comment there as the Hungerford incident in 1987 did reveal that some Brits had access to guns far to easily and again made our government toughen the laws even further:
Hungerford and Britain would never be the same. A year after the massacre, British gun laws were changed and semi-automatic weapons like Ryan's Kalashnikov were outlawed by the government.
Just over 10 years later you can get shot in the head for carrying a chair leg (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm).
I have a friend in England who got the same pistol I have, with a higher capacity magazine than I have. Cost him two liters of cider, which is a damn sight better than what I paid for it, $500.
As to the ammo, I wouldn't know, but when he got it, it was loaded.
Needless to say, I said he was full of poo, so he held the gun up on Skype, let me check the chamber.
That is precisely my point 8ully. There are those who can acquire firearms illegally and I am telling you that that 2 litres of Cider crap is cowpoo to the extreme, but Lanza would not be one of them. If your pal over here wants to wave his gun around online again, you might want to remind him of Mr Stanley in the link above.
-
He's a pretty poor dude, but he doesn't go waving it about. He dug a hole in his floor and dropped a safe in. I know he's taken it out a few times to fire it, no clue where the golly he went to do it.
Criminals can and will find a way to get around laws. I'm not saying that makes the laws irrelevant, just that criminals find a way.
Laws need to come from a place of studied thought, not knee jerk reaction-ism.
-
A question to everybody ,what if this happened in a school or kindergarden and killed was a son or a nephew or a brother of yours? Do you still think it is a collateral damage? And everything can exactly continue as before?
-
8ully, I agree with you that it's likely that many lawmakers need to be educated about firearms. There also needs to be some standard established regarding terms like "assault" weapons and "automatic" "semi automatic" etc. The problem is that people either own guns or they don't and those who don't know little about them except the fearmongering that comes about when this kind of tragedy occurs. It's certainly understandable that people are crying for something to be done. What happened was terrible, and it's a good thing to get the facts out, understand exactly what did occur and if anything could have been done differently that might have prevented it.
The way our governments enjoy varied spheres of influence between states, municipalities, and the Federal agencies, there are overlaps, inconsistencies, and different language that hampers and obscures gun ownership and the requirements from one place to another. So the existing legislative framework is already piecemeal. Slapping on some more bandaids is not the answer, but getting to a state of national understanding and consensus about this is crucial. Dialogue is one way to get started on this. People need to ask questions and to educate one another. This doesn't mean everyone will agree, but at least people will be able to communicate and understand what guns are and how they work when they undertake to legislate the conditions of their use and ownership. This isn't a small undertaking, either, but it's a necessary one.
-
PS - knee-jerk legislation the other way doesn't help either: the NRA's idea of having an armed guard in every school is every bit as stupid as the "ban guns" lobby.
A question to everybody ,what if this happened in a school or kindergarden and killed was a son or a nephew or a brother of yours? Do you still think it is a collateral damage? And everything can exactly continue as before?
No, I would not consider this collateral damage (see my post above). I would, however, hope that I could resist the temptation to jump on the "something must be done" bandwagon.
I am not against laws that help. I am against laws that don't help, even when they are popular.
Criminals can and will find a way to get around laws. I'm not saying that makes the laws irrelevant, just that criminals find a way.
Lanza was not a criminal before this act, or at least not that I know of.
I live in the gun capital of London - if not the entire U.K. - and even here you'd stand no chance removing firearms from that particular element of society even with the extremely tough laws. That said, most of the guns a crude and even converted replica and blank firing pistols, and as I have mentioned, ammo isn't easy to get. Whilst that means that gun crime is rife and that people are getting shot, it is confined to those certain groups and none of them are going to arm a weird kid and wave him on his way.
That is why my argument isn't about American gun ownership per se, but I do believe the absence of firearms here (generally speaking) means that it is not easy for those who breakdown to go on a killing spree.
China has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and virtually no gun crime. I don't believe that is a coincidence.
-
PS - knee-jerk legislation the other way doesn't help either: the NRA's idea of having an armed guard in every school is every bit as stupid as the "ban guns" lobby.
No, I would not consider this collateral damage (see my post above). I would, however, hope that I could resist the temptation to jump on the "something must be done" bandwagon.
I am not against laws that help. I am against laws that don't help, even when they are popular.
But as 6pairofshoes suggested have common laws in all Usa could not be an help? And wich is your idea of a law that help?
Lanza was not a criminal before this act, or at least not that I know of.
I live in the gun capital of London - if not the entire U.K. - and even here you'd stand no chance removing firearms from that particular element of society even with the extremely tough laws. That said, most of the guns a crude and even converted replica and blank firing pistols, and as I have mentioned, ammo isn't easy to get. Whilst that means that gun crime is rife and that people are getting shot, it is confined to those certain groups and none of them are going to arm a weird kid and wave him on his way.
That is why my argument isn't about American gun ownership per se, but I do believe the absence of firearms here (generally speaking) means that it is not easy for those who breakdown to go on a killing spree.
China has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and virtually no gun crime. I don't believe that is a coincidence.
Today example, a fool in Sicily shoot from a balcony on the crowd but because he had only an hunting rifle with small bullets all he accomplished was to injure a policeman on a cheek and get killed...
What if he had access to bigger guns?
-
Hunting rifle's don't fire small rounds unless you're talking about a .22.
-
What if he had access to bigger guns?
bubu, in this case though, if this man really wanted to hurt someone, he would have. Running out and physically injuring people is still way easier than trying to obtain a proper gun in his country, so if he wanted to hurt someone, for real, he would have cut them. It's like people who cry suicide, like crying wolf, they just want attention. Who knows? Maybe he was a cowardly lion type, and could not bring himself to come in such close contact to murder people, and then, you would be right.