Topic: Colorado school Shooting! (case sealed) - page 4. (Read 899 times)

All this killing and man inhuman to his fellow man is really getting out of hand.  I do think that life is a bit protected in some of these advance country but the reverse is seem to be the case this days.  I think we really need to start reminding ourselves that we should value and respect life as we are not the maker of it.

First off, I just previewed this post, and it is a wall of text... I swear I'm not Cryptohunter, sorry. Don't feel obligated to address everything.

I'll first start by saying that my personal experience is that I come from a family of hunters. I've had hunters safety courses, and responsibly handle any weapons. I don't personally own any high capacity weapons, and I don't have any interest in them. I've had a run in or two with bears where I sure would have loved to have had one though, and while I don't personally understand the whole sport shooting thing, I don't really think its my place to judge. As long as people behave safely with their tools, its not my concern. That said, people doing stupid things with guns really gets under my skin.

My, wow the whole gun debate is stupid rant comes from both sides. One, I agree that there are silly loopholes. Two, those that want to patch the silly loopholes do so in the most inflammatory and aggressive ways possible, so that instead of seeing a minor and reasonable patch, it becomes an attempt to aggravate the opposing side, so that they'll respond disproportionately and make an ass of themselves. If politicians actually wanted gun reform, it could have happened by now. Its just a really good way to polarize the citizens, so you secure more voters on single issues that become more important than the rest of their opinions. We can't have independents, you must change your entire political stance if you do/don't support gun rights, abortion, or other "hot" topics that in actuality matter very little.

Its fine if we don't want to breakdown military equipment or the definition of ease, you are right, it probably isn't worth the time. The point that I was going to get across, is that there are a lot of daily things we use that were specifically for military use. The U.S interstate highway system was a military project so that we could transport nuclear missiles across the country. While I initially wanted to clarify what you considered inherently bad about a gun designed for military use in mind versus one designed for sportsman, my argument doesn't change. Its that the problem solely lies on the intent of the user, psychos shouldn't have cars, axes, or guns, they do deserve help however. On a side note, AR15s were never used by the military, they were marketed directly to the public.

I brought up what your experience is buying guns in the U.S, because I don't think its quite as easy as you think. When you walk into Walmart, there is a background check done. I've been denied the purchase of a hunting rifle, because I was attempting to legally purchase it out of state, and I have a security clearance. I've had to wait two weeks before they'd allow me to purchase a gun in my home state. For the most part, people in the US that are informed about the current gun regulations aren't under the misconception that you can just walk into Cabellas, slip them $1k and walk out with a rifle. They check your drivers license and run it against a federal database.  The debate in the US is whether they should expand the background check past just criminal history. Not many gun owners are that against the idea in general, its just that expanded background checks are incredibly expensive, and it would in effect make gun ownership impossible for many.

Where I believe there is a major breakdown, is with a misconception of where the complaint regarding gun laws lies. First off, automatic weapons are illegal. An AR15 shoots just as fast as you can pull the trigger, the same with any semi automatic rifle or handgun. The original concern before it became a hot topic, was that semi automatic rifles had the same purchase restrictions as rifles and shotguns instead of handguns.  Handguns have additional purchase restrictions because their size allows them to be concealed more easily.

I have a really hard time reading taking most politically motivated published statistics seriously. Statistics are the most dishonest math there is. You can skew data with very little effort, or by intentionally or unintentionally omitting correction factors that need to be considered. I'm not arguing that AR15s are not the most used weapon in mass shootings, its just that I can't necessarily agree that its a statistically significant metric.  With dishonest statistics, if the Toyota Camry is the most common car in the US, statistics could show that it is involved in the most car crashes. As a result, you could conclude that something about Toyota Camrys makes them prone to accidents. Unless a study is absolutely transparent about everything I normally disregard them. Again, thats not to say that I'm refuting your claim, just that I'm unwilling to make a statement about it.

I agree with Saltysplatoon about household chemicals,  you can do SO much more damage with simple chemicals bought from the store and its way easier to not get caught.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that shit out either.

Hmmm, okay. I posted a screenshot for a reason but anyway Let's try one more time in simple manner.

Murders rate Per million in India = 34.24

India has more than 1.2 Billion population. Let's say 1.2 billion for now, which means 1200 Million.

Now Let's multiply.

1200 * 34.24 = and you have your answer which is pretty close to murder rate.

For fun you can try this with US's population as well.

Hope this is helpful.  

@SS, thank you for the honest discussion it's refreshing in here, seems most users round here are frothing at the mouth and I appreciate when the norm is "busted"


I didn't say it was a major problem and I apologize if you feel I implied it was (I think perhaps you inferred my meaning but meh maybe I implied it), I mentioned it sort of tongue in cheek saying the US couldn't even legislate a silly loophole closed so good fucking luck with any kind of sane gun control legislation coming out of the House of Congress anytime soon.


I'm about 99% sure you and I will never agree on the definition of Military hardware and short of defining the ever living shit out of the term it doesn't serve a ton of value to run down specifics.  While I think you know I am not American I can see the fact that every single mass shooting I read about is done with "legally" obtained hardware. Again I don't want to define easy (it is a subjective term after all) I find it difficult to believe any logical person can argue with the fact that (considering high income developed nations) the US is the easiest country to legally obtain those weapons.  They also have the highest rate of mass shootings, those 2 figures are connected like it or not.


Ironically all of what you described is much harder than buying an AR and some ammo and strapping up and going to a church, school, work place, concert, bar, mall etc etc, literally ANYONE can do that.  You have to have a few brain cells to make a bomb, most nut jobs think they can walk away like rambo so a suicide bomb is not fucking cool to them!  Poisoning a batch of Coke would be EXTREMELY tough to do UNLESS you already had access to the facility and knew how it worked, you don't need more than a couple of working brain cells to buy, load and fire an AR.

Wow you're fast, this haven't even showed up in my feed yet. RIP and condolences to the bereaved.

I too share your sentiment on this issue. Quite shocking to find out they can just walk into a Walmart and come out with a gun. There's no easy resolution to this, they see it as their right and it is in their constitution. Seems it's was from their frontier era where there really is a need for defending their home. Read somewhere that they were encouraged back then to have arms "just in case" England try to take back the colonies.

Well first, we'd need to break down two things you said. One, what is a military style weapon, and two, how do you define easily available to anyone? Not being facetious at all here, but are you familiar with the gun buying process in the US? The private sales thing was mentioned before, and while I agree that falls under the category of a law that should be sured up, private sales like the link you posted previously are only allowed in some states. In addition, they make up a very small percentage of gun purchases. If a kid or any other wacko had slipped through the cracks and purchased a gun from a gun show, it'd be the poster argument for gun control. Because it hasn't yet happened to my knowledge, its a concern, but not a major one.

AR 15s aren't anything special, they just aesthetically look like something you'd see on a battlefield. If they were painted camo colored and equipped with a scope, they wouldn't be any different than any other semi automatic rifle that people use hunting. If your concern is capacity, you can get a Tommy gun with a 100 round drum, but those don't seem that popular right now. If you want to inflict maximum damage to maximum people, that right there is your problem. Luckily for us, more efficient means haven't been popularized by the media yet (to reiterate, no I'm not blaming the media). Hell, imagine how much damage you could do with $30 worth of household cleaners mixed together? You probably wouldn't have any problem bringing them into a building in plain sight either. Screw trying to sneak a weapon onto an airplane, how much damage do you think a criminal could do by poisoning a vat of Coke after a quality assurance test?

Side note to ease off of such a heavy topic, if you haven't seen it, there is a really good episode of Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia that does a pretty good comedy jab at the issue from both sides.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2999348/

With due respect, you criticized my source without actually reading it yourself, what does it say or mean? The stats I linked are already adjusted per-capita, so your argument is null. No this is not about the USA vs India, it is about the costs and benefits of gun ownership and the right to self defense. Everyone loves comparing the rest of the world to the US relating to "gun crimes" but then they cry about how it is not a contest when the stats work the OTHER way.

Comparing the gun crime ranking is like comparing the automotive death rate of the Amish vs the general car driving population. No shit they have less gun crime, because they don't have any access to guns to enjoy their benefits or their faults. Since cars kill so many people we should ban them. Since so many people drown in pools we should ban them too! Some people overeat we should ban food! Do you see how your logic breaks down when extended to its logical conclusions?

First thing first, It's not about India vs USA. Which I am sure you and me both agree. Having said that I want to correct you here, hope you don't mind, and if you think I am wrong, then please let me know so that I can correct myself.

Posting screenshot of data which you provided, its for other users who don't want to click on the given link.


With due respect, You posted link and didn't even care to look at your source or what does it say and mean?

The 3x murder rate you are quoting is a record of the country which has a population of more than 1.2 billion people. It's not rocket science why India has more (3x) murder rate in comparison to America.

But again, it's just common sense.

Please compare the Gun crime ranking.
USA -1
India-105

I agree banning all guns is ridiculous, my personal problem is with military style weapons.  

It's probably because it's the weapon of choice when nut jobs decide to kill people as fast as possible while being EASILY available to anyone.  If the light saber existed and was used as often as an AR-15 is to kill kids then I would assume light sabers would have a bad stigma as well.


But if someone wants to inflict maximum damage to maximum people while maintaining distance from the vitcims, neither a knife or car will do nearly as much.  Can't get my car into a church or school, if I have to knife everyone I can't do it from the room of a hotel and I won't get a chance to kill anywhere near as many people as I can with military hardware.

I can see that the problem in here is the security of the school itself. None of this will happen if they better the security. I'm not from US but I have a question, does American schools have high security or having a security guard for the school premises? On my country we have. I think this should serve a lesson to all schools for the betterment of their security.

Have you ever heard of passing by catastrophe? Is this true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_by_catastrophe. Somehow it's connected to this.

Wow. Very impressive. What you are basically telling me is if you don't own a car your chances of dying in a car accident drop significantly, so you decide it is best no one own any cars as you unilaterally ignore all of the other benefits of ownership. In this case, you ignore the fact that India, while it has less REPORTED "gun crime" it also has a murder rate that is 3 times as high (among other problems gun ownership helps with). https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/India/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime


Wow, you proved the concept exists. Good for you, you still don't know shit you muppet. Let me ask you a question. Is a criminal, some one who is willing to murder people, going to be restrained by the fact that he knows paperwork is required for him to own a gun? Is that going to prevent him from stealing one, or buying on on the black market if he wants it? No? Then all you are doing is regulating guns out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens.

Lets try another analogy. Opiates are potentially dangerous but also have legitimate benefits for some people. They are tightly controlled and contraband unless tracked and issued by a registered professional. Now if I get prescribed Oxycontin and I go home with it, is the fact that it is illegal to transfer to a 3rd party going to stop me from doing so considering I don't care about the law in this theoretical situation? Of course not. This is why your horse shit about gun show loop holes is meaningless because all it does is strip law abiding gun owners of their rights. Everyone knows prohibition and more regulations have done wonders for the drug war right? RIGHT? Of course, the issue is not really drugs or guns now is it, but the real causes are not ones Communists like you are willing to explore, so these make convenient scapegoats.

You aren't actually breaking any of this down logically, you are just running around drooling yelling "GUNS R BAD!", never once being informed about any of these subjects beyond what you feel. Frankly I don't give a fuck what a British subject has to say about our rights as free humans to defend ourselves anyway. You are a royal subject preaching the virtues of your subservience and servitude.

The (original) nuclear bomb wasn't designed to be a weapon, and silly putty was supposed to contribute towards the war effort in WW2. The intent behind its creation doesn't really matter, how people use it is what matters.

I agree, there is room for improvement with regulation, but the popular pushes are typically far too extreme, thats why they can't gather enough support. My point is that many gun owners understand and respect the tools they own. They cringe just as hard if not harder when someone does something stupid that gives guns a bad name. Scarcity would drive up price, correct, but do you think mass murdering psychos care about emptying out their bank accounts? They don't really need to worry about next month's rent. Lets be honest here, the kids that are doing school shootings aren't buying guns from the black market, they are getting them from irresponsible adults.

If I had to TLDR this, I'm for reasonable regulatory changes with more emphasis on personal responsibility. I just think that the typical pro gun control argument is just as extreme as the far right pro gun argument. You don't get progress fighting fire with fire, you get progress by making reasonable demands and concessions.

I think there lies a greater problem than guns though. Violence glorifying culture + hormonal/bad decision making + constant bombardment of information by social media/news is a bad combination. Prior to Columbine,  gun ownership laws were even less strict, yet because it wasn't glorified previously, it wasn't a common occurrence. I'm not saying the media is at fault here, but slapping a ban guns bandaid on probably won't change anything, and just creates more enemies.

Right, that and rubber duckys aren't exactly designed to be weapons.

Laws don't stop criminals but making it harder for them to acquire a gun might.

Let's just say there weren't more guns than people in America. That would mean their scarcity would drive their black market price up and potentially put them out of reach of at least some would-be mass murdering psychos.

I'm not saying guns need to be banned outright but there's definitely some room for improvement in current legislation.

I wouldn't say that an AR-15 is the best hunting/home defense weapon, but there are very real circumstances where someone may want one. I don't personally care for them, but I don't see why they are stigmatized. Knives are designed to cut, guns are designed to shoot, cars are designed to drive. If someone wants to shoot someone but doesn't have a gun, they can either stab or run down someone. Guns are just a tool, what matters is the intent of the owner.

I do not agree that people need guns to defend themselves in public. I'm fairly against open/concealed carry. If you are in the woods and you are carrying a machete to hack bush, thats fine. If you carry that machete into a grocery store, you deserve whatever is coming your way. If you have a shotgun for home defense, so be it. As long as I don't break into your house, its none of my concern.

If I had to take a stab at one of the major points of the issue is, its that the US is BIG. If there is a federal gun law, it applies to Alaska the same way that it applies to New York. Shootings aren't taking place in Wyoming, they are taking place in population centers.  People do legitimately need guns in some places, in others they may not need them, but as long as they meet certain criteria (an adult, not a felon, etc) and they take responsibility for their tools, so be it.

Only in America is a miltary weapon considered a tool.  A fucking AR-15 is designed to do 1 thing and 1 thing VERY effectively, kill a person.  IMO there is simply no need for the general public to have easy access to these types of weapons.  In all honestly I am personally happy that none of my neighbours are allowed to poses military designed hardware simply because the VAST majority are simply to stupid to be able to safely own such equipment.

My kids have NEVER once been in an active shooter drill at school, I am perfectly fine with not allowing military hardware in the GP's hands if it means my children can actually grow up without fearing being shot at fucking school...

Its a tricky issue here, because the proposals to change are too far in the extreme to get support from regular gun owning citizens. Its become a polarizing issue, because people aren't willing to talk about starting reasonable low impact measures, and testing the results. Gun violence is indeed a problem, but the best solution isn't necessarily the most extreme solution, and those are the only ones being proposed.

We could get rid of all rubber duck related fatalities if we executed anyone who owned a rubber duck, but that isn't really the best solution. If you talk to a lot of people that are pro gun rights, they don't have anything bad to say about the responsibility of gun ownership. Many have no problem with requiring basic safety measures, teaching hunters safety, properly storing cleaning, etc. Things that prevent accidents. Guns are just tools, they are a bit more convenient for violence than say a chainsaw in slasher movie style.

Gun responsibility is completely skipped over, and the first reaction after something occurs is, this wouldn't have happened if guns were illegal. People don't seem to realize that minors can't own guns legally. Their possession is illegal, yet they somehow don't seem to obey the law? Laws don't stop criminals, if you are planning on doing something that will result in a life sentence in prison or your death regardless, you don't care how much money you need to spend to obtain a weapon illegally, or the other consequences, which more often fall on the guy who wants a hunting rifle to shoot deer with. If you want to keep guns out of kids hands, teach their parents to keep their weapons unloaded and locked up, you don't need to penalize people who aren't doing anything wrong, in the process of making a statistically futile effort at lowering violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

And of course as predicted the hard alt right wing nut jobs right on Q   MOAR GUNS MURICA FUCK YA

No sir, I am not trying to decide about living arrangements of others, I just pointed out the common sense.

As @nutildah pointed out correctly that I am Indian and I only hear news about the gun shooting in my country when some terrorist attack happens or police encounters.
 


Where can I read about that more?

Most murders don't receive media attention.  Just because it happens in a school they make a big deal out of it.

Criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what, at least give regular people an option to defend themselves if they want.  Most crimes stem from wealth inequality so that is the issue that needs to be tackled if you want to stop violence.