'Many die' in US school shooting

[LittleLuka]

I dont think some of these are good examples to be honest...

I wouldn't let my child go to a school/college where students were carrying guns, and why would a teacher need to carry a gun!

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

it was in his vehicle?

you must have much nicer school systems over there than we do. teachers are threatened, beat up, and harassed all my students/parents. i'm in school to be a teacher and i see what my friends that have already graduated go with.... i wouldn't classify the whole country but down in the south where education isn't the best that's how it is.

[LittleLuka]

also in response to the bomb debate,

it doesn't take much knowledge to make a pipe bomb ( i think thats what its called) a kid blew up our principals office when i was in highschool because he didn't like her. she fortunately wasnt in the office but it blew it to pieces.

he was a 17 year old and by no means a genius.

[Elyse]

the majority of people who own rifles or shotguns do use them for hunting?

no offense, but i don't think you have the right to tell me i can't protect my home. i agree that it should be more difficult to obtain a weapon but you don't know the crime rate i live around. All of the criminals here don't obtain guns illegally so whether or not they were legal wouldn't affect them whatsoever. i also think everyone needs to step back and realize that every country IS DIFFERENT. what may work for you, may not work for me. All i can tell you is while i do not own a concealed weapons permit and carry a gun around i don't judge people who do. i do however have a glock in my night stand and if you enter my home with the intent to harm me i would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

human life is important to me just like everyone else, and i think what happened Friday is HORRIBLE. so horrible that words can even begin to describe it but i believe even if laws were different it would still have happened somehow. there will ALWAYS be nut jobs out there that want to harm innocent children.

i think the answer is making it more challenging to obtain a gun as opposed to just a background check EXP. semi-automatic rifles. Also, having a uniformed officer in EVERY school along with metal detectors, harsh i know but i don't see any other way.

many of you may not understand the type of chaos that would ensue if guns were outlawed, the citizens of my country would start riots or some other method of craziness.

I didn't say you shouldn't have a right to protect your home. I said nobody should have the right to own a gun that is excessive, like for example an assault rifle. Unless an army of people breaks into your house at once, you do not need an assault rifle.

The right to owning a gun and your right to protecting your property are 2 different things: The right to own a gun is a privilege, no matter what the constitution says, and the the right to protect your property is a basic human right...one that everyone should have.

Besides, the constitution is over 200 years old. Times have changed, I think it needs an update, IMO.

And I agree, every country is different. And this is why I love my country, I feel heck of a lot safer.

I don't think we're saying guns should be outlawed, the American people would 'explode' in riots, but I think we all agree the laws on gun control have to tighten considerably....but not all at once, gradually throughout the years so the people get used to it.

[ponder85]

LOL. People calling for the ban of assault rifles. Do any of you know what an assault rifle is? You don't.

By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon. Meaning it's capable of firing multiple rounds per pull of the trigger.

They are already mostly outlawed, and have been since 1986. Are you all suggesting we outlaw them again? Ha, we could make them twice as illegal. Unless you have $8000+ for one, you're not going to get one legally.

Now, since that's over, maybe you are talking about assault weapons. There is a distinction. However, most of you calling for the ban of them probably have no idea what makes a weapon an assault weapon.

[Sparks]

LOL. People calling for the ban of assault rifles. Do any of you know what an assault rifle is? You don't.

By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon. Meaning it's capable of firing multiple rounds per pull of the trigger.

They are already mostly outlawed, and have been since 1986. Are you all suggesting we outlaw them again? Ha, we could make them twice as illegal. Unless you have $8000+ for one, you're not going to get one legally.

Now, since that's over, maybe you are talking about assault weapons. There is a distinction. However, most of you calling for the ban of them probably have no idea what makes a weapon an assault weapon.

It doesn't matter what they are really does it. If it can be fired at children then why is it legal?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

[Elyse]

LOL. People calling for the ban of assault rifles. Do any of you know what an assault rifle is? You don't.

By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon. Meaning it's capable of firing multiple rounds per pull of the trigger.

They are already mostly outlawed, and have been since 1986. Are you all suggesting we outlaw them again? Ha, we could make them twice as illegal. Unless you have $8000+ for one, you're not going to get one legally.

Now, since that's over, maybe you are talking about assault weapons. There is a distinction. However, most of you calling for the ban of them probably have no idea what makes a weapon an assault weapon.

I'm sorry that we don't know the difference between the two. We have no need for excessive violence in our countries, so excuse our ignorance. So please enlighten us, what IS the difference? Couldn't find anything about them on Google other than the fact that 'crazy democrats' want to take away or regulate your guns. Heaven forbid.

Edited December 17, 2012 by SolitaryHowl

[Emma]

The problem with guns is that if you keep them legal the wrong people can own them, if you ban them the wrong people will still own them. Someone got shot at stretham ice rink many years ago, and ironically one of my friends got called to a shooting on a road called shooters hill a couple years back (she's a paramedic). Admittedly the deaths here are fewer than the usa but my point is, if a nutjob wants to get a gun, then no law will stop them.

[ponder85]

Which gun is more dangerous?

A)

or

Obviously, its B! It has an evil pistol grip! and a muzzle device! Those are two distinctions of an assault weapon. Now, what if I told you they are the same gun? The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (From 1994 to 2004) banned selling guns that looked like B, but A was legal. Both guns I posted are Saiga rifles in 7.62x39mm. They are both made at the Izhmash plant in Russia. The difference is that weapon B has been converted back to its original form, (known as a "converted" rifle). They both fire the same round, at the same rate of fire, and hold the same amount of rounds.

In 2009, there were 13,636 murders in the US. Rifles were used to murder 348. And that's all rifles, not only the evil "assault" weapons. So, that's 2.5% of murders that used a rifle. We don't know how many were of the "assault" variety.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912115/posts

I'm sure that in those 348 murders, handguns, or shotguns would have been just effective.

Additionally, most assault weapons use a MEDIUM powered cartridge. The media keeps reporting the Sandy Hook shooter used a "Bushmaster .223" rifle. This is an AR15. ARs shoot .223, or 5.56mm rounds. This is by no means a "High powered rifle". The average hunting gun has a hell of a lot more power. A 5.56 has around 1300 ft/lbs or energy at the muzzle. The most common round used to hunt deer is 30-30 Winchester, which has around 1900 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. The .30-06 has around 3,000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. .30-06 is nowhere near the most powerful cartridge allowed to be owned by civilians. That would be .50BMG (I think, not sure), which produces around 15,000 ft/lbs of energy.

So, a common hunting rifle is capable of inflicting far greater damage. You can buy semi auto .30-06s. They don't hold the same capacity, but do a lot more damage with each trigger pull. One could just as easily pull off a mass shooting with a non assault weapon.

[ponder85]

It doesn't matter what they are really does it. If it can be fired at children then why is it legal?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248054/China-stabbing-22-children-elderly-woman-stabbed-outside-primary-school-Chinese-knifeman.html

guess we need to outlaw knives too.

[ponder85]

I'm sorry that we don't know the difference between the two. We have no need for excessive violence in our countries, so excuse our ignorance. So please enlighten us, what IS the difference? Couldn't find anything about them on Google other than the fact that 'crazy democrats' want to take away or regulate your guns. Heaven forbid.

From Wikipedia

the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.^[4]

[HuskyGuerl]

We watched this in school on the news it was horrible...

[Elyse]

Thanks...didn't know any of that. I figured they were about the same with only a few minor differences, so I hope you can see why many of us get confused. They are still the same gun, but with only a few cosmetic differences.

One could just as easily pull off a mass shooting with a non assault weapon.

Which is why, I hope, you see the need to regulate all guns and gun ownership. This doesn't mean taking your guns away. I don't see why many people fail to realize that regulation does NOT equal a complete ban of guns.

Although, I still don't see why people feel the need to own assault riles/weapons. It's completely unnecessary.

[LittleLuka]

I didn't say you shouldn't have a right to protect your home. I said nobody should have the right to own a gun that is excessive, like for example an assault rifle. Unless an army of people breaks into your house at once, you do not need an assault rifle.

The right to owning a gun and your right to protecting your property are 2 different things: The right to own a gun is a privilege, no matter what the constitution says, and the the right to protect your property is a basic human right...one that everyone should have.

Besides, the constitution is over 200 years old. Times have changed, I think it needs an update, IMO.

And I agree, every country is different. And this is why I love my country, I feel heck of a lot safer.

I don't think we're saying guns should be outlawed, the American people would 'explode' in riots, but I think we all agree the laws on gun control have to tighten considerably....but not all at once, gradually throughout the years so the people get used to it.

I apologize i misunderstood. I can concur that no one "needs" an assault weapon. My boyfriend is purchasing a semi-automatic after Christmas. Do i think it's stupid? honestly, yes. He doesn't need one, he will never use it, and i personally think it's a waste of money. However, it's not my decision, it's his. He's not breaking any laws and i know he's not a psycho and won't abuse the privilege of owning it. Yes, it shouldn't be as simple as snapping your fingers, having a background check ran, and ta da you have a new rifle. I am all for tightening up who is allowed to own one.

I don't feel like the right to owning a gun and the right to protect my property are so far apart. How else would i be able to protect myself? As a woman of only 5'2 I don't see me being able to defend myself against an average sized male. Just to put it in to perspective for you 147 people were murdered in the city of Memphis, TN last year. Gang crime here is HIGH as where people are afraid during initiation week because innocent people can be targeted. While you may feel safer without guns, I feel safer with them.

We may have a liberal president currently, but the USA is still very much conservative to an extent. Exp. in the lower region. Not to mention i don't really think it's fair for anyone that isn't a citizen of my country to tell me what's best for our country. I'm not a fan of universal healthcare but i wouldn't dare go tell Canada that it should be changed. You say you understand the difference but yet it seems like you still are passing judgement? I'm not trying to be rude or offensive by any means, just simply asking.

Just my thoughts....

Edited December 17, 2012 by LittleLuka

[Sparks]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248054/China-stabbing-22-children-elderly-woman-stabbed-outside-primary-school-Chinese-knifeman.html

guess we need to outlaw knives too.

I'd rather go up against someone with a knife than a gun, wouldn't you?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

[Jay]

Thanks...didn't know any of that. I figured they were about the same with only a few minor differences, so I hope you can see why many of us get confused. They are still the same gun, but with only a few cosmetic differences.

Which is why, I hope, you see the need to regulate all guns and gun ownership. This doesn't mean taking your guns away. I don't see why many people fail to realize that regulation does NOT equal a complete ban of guns.

Although, I still don't see why people feel the need to own assault riles/weapons. It's completely unnecessary.

I agree with your point of view, but unfortunately I don’t think ANY laws restricting guns will pass in this country in the next decade. Republicans (who are considered the pro-gun political party) have a majority in the House of Representatives, and will probably keep control of that body of government until the next census. Any law would have to be passed by the House, and that would never happen.

I also agreed with the statement that the constitution is over 200 years old and needs some updating. What worked back in 1776 does not work today, and the right to bear arms meant something totally different then, and it has grown to mean the right for an individual to own a gun, and the supreme court has ruled on this many times.

America is a pro-gun culture, and I don’t think any amount of tragedy and violence will change that. There are too many people that believe that banning guns will not do anything to prevent things like this from happening, and that we should be able to protect ourselves, or those who use guns for sport.

If you look at the statistics you can see that gun violence in countries that have strict gun laws, or total bans are much less than the US. Although I am not pro-gun, I can understand that people should be able to legally have one, however there definitely needs to be more restrictions on who can obtain them, and a more through background check. There also needs to be bans on certain types of weapons. I see no reason why anyone would need an assault weapon, assault gun, automatic or semi-automatic ANYTHING that fires off that many rounds at once. If you are using it for sport, you don’t need a hundred rounds to take down a deer.

[Storm Angel n Auroras Mum]

Explosives, home made bombs Sadly many people know how or could easily find out how to make these and I shudder at the thought of the death toll

a 16 year old kid was found.with things to make one in his school. the one my son attends in in northamptonshire, england!!

[ponder85]

Just saw this on the news...

How many gun deaths per 100,000 people per country:

Wales and England 0.1

Canada 1.2

USA 3.1

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

I'll agree that these numbers are disturbing. I don't think they tell the complete story. I searched online for a while, but can not find any concrete numbers, so what I'll offer is speculation.

A big number of our murders are gang related.

Chicago leads the US in murders per capita. Its speculated that 75-80% are gang related.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57451996/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

I couldn't find an average for the entire country. Some other cities with high rates suggested that 50% or more are gang related.

We have a vastly different culture compared to other countries.

Murders are always higher in densely populated areas. The US has 311 mil people. Canada, while larger in mass, only has a population of 35 mil.

There are plenty of things that can kill people other than guns: baseball bat, knife, claw hammer, screwdriver, crowbar, gasoline, vehicle, ax, chainsaw, etc.

Infact, the link I shared in a prior post shows that blunt objects are used more frequently than assault weapons in homocides.

Yes, guns make it easier. But outlawing guns isn't going to stop someone who wants to take a life.

We've tried outlawing guns in some places here. There was one city that had a handgun ban which was finally struck down in 2010 by our supreme court. Assault weapons happen to be banned there. City name? Chicago... oh yea, that city that has the highest rate of gun homicide in the US. Hmm... really worked well for them.

My point in these posts is that you can't just ban guns and the problems go away. There are deeper causes that must be addressed. It seems like a lot of the school shootings have a common theme: bullied kids. Cities that have high murder rates have gang problems (chicago is the biggest gang area in the eastern us, in the west its a city in cali, which also has a gun ban and an extremely high murder rate).

You have to fix the root of the problems.

An assault weapon ban has been tried. From Wikipedia:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."^[6] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."^[7]

Banning assault weapons is not the answer.

[ponder85]

Thanks...didn't know any of that. I figured they were about the same with only a few minor differences, so I hope you can see why many of us get confused. They are still the same gun, but with only a few cosmetic differences.

Which is why, I hope, you see the need to regulate all guns and gun ownership. This doesn't mean taking your guns away. I don't see why many people fail to realize that regulation does NOT equal a complete ban of guns.

Although, I still don't see why people feel the need to own assault riles/weapons. It's completely unnecessary.

This is the exact problem. A lot of people don't know much about guns, or gun crime statistics, including our politicians. However, they feel the need to start making new laws about them.

How would you propose regulation?

[Storm Angel n Auroras Mum]

guys. while you are all debating or arguing this, the fact remains 20 children are dead!!

Almost all of them were the same age as my daughter.

heartbreaking, I cant imagine how the parents are feeling now and i dont want to.

It seems to be a uk thing against usa and anywhere that has guns, and i can see why.

We do have strict gun laws and rarely have shootings, and none like the one that just happened.

We have had other things such as dunblane but that was a long time.ago.

[LittleLuka]

I Just feel like everyone is so eager to blame the problems of messed up individuals on other things. He killed a bunch of people so we should outlaw guns or video games or movies or etc. When do we start holding people accountable for their actions? He made this decision and I believe that if guns weren't available or not it still would've happened somehow.

I think we can all agree that this guy was one messed up individual and needed help which he didn't receive.

[ponder85]

I'd rather go up against someone with a knife than a gun, wouldn't you?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

1 on 1, do you think you have much of a chance either way?

[LittleLuka]

guys. while you are all debating or arguing this, the fact remains 20 children are dead!!

Almost all of them were the same age as my daughter.

heartbreaking, I cant imagine how the parents are feeling now and i dont want to.

It seems to be a uk thing against usa and anywhere that has guns, and i can see why.

We do have strict gun laws and rarely have shootings, and none like the one that just happened.

We have had other things such as dunblane but that was a long time.ago.

I agree the fact does remain that 20 innocent little babies have lost their lives. Not to mention the 6 adults that were also taken.

You do have different crime statistics than us, but you also have a completely different culture. Things are ran completely different in the UK than in the USA. We all have to respect eachothers cultures.

[Jay]

I am actually in favor of more restrictive gun laws, but I am wondering if a ban on assault weapons, or more gun laws are not the answer, in your opinion, what would be something we could do to prevent these types of things from happening?

Besides gang related shootings, many of the individuals that have been responsible for these shootings have been mentally unstable. The mental health system in this county is very poor, so perhaps if the US would start by doing something about that and educating people some of these incidents can be prevented.

[ponder85]

It's alot harder to kill with a bomb than it is a gun...

Tell that to the families of the 168 victims killed in the Oklahoma city bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

[ponder85]

I am actually in favor of more restrictive gun laws, but I am wondering if a ban on assault weapons, or more gun laws are not the answer, in your opinion, what would be something we could do to prevent these types of things from happening?

Besides gang related shootings, many of the individuals that have been responsible for these shootings have been mentally unstable. The mental health system in this county is very poor, so perhaps if the US would start by doing something about that and educating people some of these incidents can be prevented.

People always say more restrictive gun laws. How so? What needs to be changed?

I agree things need to change. I just don't know how. I said it before, but a lot of the kids that shoot schools are bullied. That's how they get their revenge. That was the story at Columbine. As a culture, we have to look at how we treat each other. People just don't care about others any more. Guns have been in the US since the country was founded. 60 yrs ago people took them to school, then went hunting afterwards, and no one thought anything of it.

We have to stop treating each other like shit. It has to be done at home, by parents. It has to be a culture thing. Unfortuntely, government can't legislate that.