At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

[simple1]

After watching a report on the BBC that many States in the USA do not comply with federal law for the submission of data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) I thought I’d do some quick research & I found the following example. http://smartgunlaws....policy-summary/ Accordingly there is a large amount to data that is not captured on the NICS databases. A summary quote follows:

As of April 30, 2007, the FBI identified only 23 states as having submitted mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in NICS. Thirteen of the 23 had submitted less than 50 records. Some had submitted only one record. A few more states began reporting mental health records to NICS soon after the Virginia Tech shooting. Nevertheless, according to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, as of November 2007, only 32 states had submitted mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in NICS.

It was also mentioned that 40% of weapons purchased do not require a permit from a State agency e.g. Montana & Kentucky; details at http://crime.about.c.../gunlaws_mt.htm

Edited December 16, 2012 by simple1

[koheesti]

Aussiebebe, I don't know what it will take, but I grew up with the gun culture and hunting. I wasn't very crazy about hunting, but it was OK. What did turn me completely off was once wounding an animal and having to then kill it, up close and personal. It was the last thing I ever shot. I also then lost interest in guns, although they were all around me and there was always a rifle in the pickup.

The difference was that when I and many of my generation grew up, if we had a gun, it was for hunting animals. Now people seem to have guns for shooting people--people of different races; people of different religions; people with different politics etc..

Yep.

I enjoy TV and watch a lot of the series--CSI, NCIS and a few sitcoms--but it is a constant explosion of gunfire on most of them. Maybe it's from fighting in too many conflicts? But it's a part of the psyche. We need to have our guns and we need to shoot at things. Unfortunately, we've nearly wiped out the wildlife, so now we shoot each other.

Guns:

We've had guns for 200 years and until recently people haven't been shooting up the streets.

Movies & TV:

We've had war movies for about 100 years and people weren't shooting each other in the streets.

We've had cowboys shooting up the large and small screen since the 1920's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had gangsters shooting up the large and small screen since the 1930's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had cops shooting up TV screens since the 1950's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

Music:

We've had "decadent" rock 'n roll since the 1950's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had gangsta rap since the 1990's, glorifying guns and well, people have started shooting up the streets.

Video Games:

We've had violent video games since the 1980's and people weren't shooting up the streets. But in the old days, the graphics weren't so realistic AND you had to pay-to-play at an arcade and that controlled how much you played. Now you can play at home in isolation for days. I have two 20-something nephews like this. Scary. But when kids are younger, living at home, they need to have their game time limited just as a general rule.

Kid behavior:

Misbehaved kids used to be set straight, sometimes with - gasp! - corporal punishment and we didn't have people shooting up the streets.

Nowadays misbehaving kids are given medication and excuses.

Used to be if you got in trouble at school, you got in bigger trouble at home.

Nowadays, you get in trouble at school and your parents will sue the school.

What has really changed in recent decades is the decline of the two-parent home, discipline at home & school. Parents seem more eager to be friends with their kids instead of raising them to be responsible adults. Instead of one parent (father) working and another (mother) staying home to take care of the kids, IF there are two parents, both need to work and the kids end up raising themselves half the time.

So, IMO, the problem is not guns, the problem is we as a society don't raise our children anymore.

[jpinx]

I enjoy TV and watch a lot of the series--CSI, NCIS and a few sitcoms--but it is a constant explosion of gunfire on most of them. Maybe it's from fighting in too many conflicts? But it's a part of the psyche. We need to have our guns and we need to shoot at things. Unfortunately, we've nearly wiped out the wildlife, so now we shoot each other.

Guns:

We've had guns for 200 years and until recently people haven't been shooting up the streets.

Tell that to the Hole in the Wall gang

Movies & TV:

We've had war movies for about 100 years and people weren't shooting each other in the streets.

We've had cowboys shooting up the large and small screen since the 1920's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had gangsters shooting up the large and small screen since the 1930's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had cops shooting up TV screens since the 1950's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

Al Capone's era was pretty wild

Music:

We've had "decadent" rock 'n roll since the 1950's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had gangsta rap since the 1990's, glorifying guns and well, people have started shooting up the streets.

Video Games:

We've had violent video games since the 1980's and people weren't shooting up the streets. But in the old days, the graphics weren't so realistic AND you had to pay-to-play at an arcade and that controlled how much you played. Now you can play at home in isolation for days. I have two 20-something nephews like this. Scary. But when kids are younger, living at home, they need to have their game time limited just as a general rule.

Kid behavior:

Misbehaved kids used to be set straight, sometimes with - gasp! - corporal punishment and we didn't have people shooting up the streets.

Nowadays misbehaving kids are given medication and excuses.

Used to be if you got in trouble at school, you got in bigger trouble at home.

Nowadays, you get in trouble at school and your parents will sue the school.

I got leathered regularly at home and school. It did me a world of good and gave me a real sense of respect for the rules - no matter what their content.

What has really changed in recent decades is the decline of the two-parent home, discipline at home & school. Parents seem more eager to be friends with their kids instead of raising them to be responsible adults. Instead of one parent (father) working and another (mother) staying home to take care of the kids, IF there are two parents, both need to work and the kids end up raising themselves half the time.

So, IMO, the problem is not guns, the problem is we as a society don't raise our children anymore.

Agreed 100% !! Families are where it all starts. Unfortunately it's going to take generations of re-education to fix that issue. Simple gun controls would mitigate the situation while the families get sorted out.

Edited December 16, 2012 by jpinx

[DocN]

After reading the below article, I feel the problem are teenagers/young adults who are loners at school, dress in black, wear trench coats, have above average intelligence, are "Goths" or have Asperger's. The Colombine killings were also done by the same type. As were the Dark Knight killings. To be safe, we should round them up, test them, identify the potentially dangerous ones and lock them up. That would save a lot of lives.

http://www.dailymail...Adam-Lanza.html

What?

I didn't even read the article, because if it makes you come to the conclusion, that all "Goth" people and/or Batman-fans should be rounded up and tested psychologically, it must be a) crap or b ) you dint't understand it!

I love the Batman- movies and I don't even own a gun and non of the movies made me want to go out and shoot 20 people!

Guess, I am off the hook then!

But your idea sounds much better than just getting tighter gun laws. Just randomly pick a group that can be widely put under one label and test them.

And to prevent terrorist attacks, just round up everyone looking arabic and test them.

And to prevent children from being molested, just round up all creepy looking guys....brave new world!

I guess you're bringing all Batman fans into this because you can't really find fault with what I actually wrote. First, you don't even read the article I was commenting on, then you add things to my comment in order to disagree. It would be better just to post a fresh comment with your view than to try and connect it to things you haven't read or misread.

First of all: Goths and people with a authism...aha!

Second: find them , round them up, test them and (if probably problematic) put them away! Was that what you suggested or not?

Here is your quote: "To be safe, we should round them up, test them, identify the potentially dangerous ones and lock them up."

That, sir, is the closest to fascism I heard in a long, long time! And that's why I will not read it!

It already starts with an inhumane premiss.

[Thailand2012]

Over the last decades, it seems the stereotype of the typical mass murderer has shifted to become young adult males.

- Columbine school

- Virginia tech

- Colorado theater

- Portland mall

- Today's Newtown school

+ Several others involving younger males as the shooters.

I've been wondering if there is any correlation of this trend with video games. Today's video games are extremely realistic. Many players are immersed in this simulated world where they assume the role of the mass murderer. Scoring higher points as the numbers of those slain increases.

I can't help but think when the REAL LIFE carnage is acted out, it parallels a hyper-violent video game.

It seems that before video games, killing sprees were far less common and would more likely involve older males.

(Of course this is not based on scientific data, but only my personal recollection of news events. However, I would be surprised if real data did not prove this to be true.)

firstly and mostly very sad rip to the victims and the immediate families very sad.as you stated all these offenders are young males,i doubt that any 1 of them would of been able to purchase a firearm or hold a license,gun control or no gun control i doubt that would make a difference as these sick individuals who carry out gutless attacks like this all seem to be premeditated acts,so im sure the first box they will tick would be access firearms,the guns are out there everywhere so theres not alot any can do to stop these cowards very sad state of affairs.

[Mosha]

LAST YEAR, HANDGUNS KILLED:

48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN

8 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN

34 IN SWITZERLAND

52 IN CANADA

58 IN ISRAEL

21 IN SWEDEN

42 IN WEST GERMANY

10,728 IN UNITED STATES

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Old data hint. West Germany

[Exsexyman]

That is very disingenuous. I am a liberal and I support the 2nd Amendment. I don't own a gun, never wanted one on my property, and didn't allow hunting on my land. My neighbors all had guns and I didn't begrudge them their weapons--which were seldom used, I might add.

I object to concealed weapons (generally) and assault type weapons.

Not all us liberals believe there should be no guns. In the US we have a pervasive attitude that leads people to believe that guns solve problems. In part, the attitude has to change. No law is going to do that--it is going to take a shift like there was with cigarette smoking--which still is available, even though it is very bad for you.

I like your post, so do you think this latest shooting will cause a shift in attitude? As a foreigner looking at the US, I myself wonder when the tipping point will arrive. Out of the 12 worst shooting sprees in US history, 6 happened in the past 5 years and every time I've wondered "maybe this time" but nothing changes. With this latest shooting, with 20 of the victims being just 5-6 years old, if nothing happens this time I'll just be dumbfounded, what will it take? 20 innocent Kindergarten students shot on average 11 times each and it's still not enough to counter the NRA's influence on US gun laws?

Sadly for every sensible person like Credo who advocates gun control, there will be another who calls for teachers to be armed. The NRA lobby are just too powerful, and there is too much money to be made by selling these weapons to people. And the hard fact of life is that for many, the lives of innocent children come a very poor second to the money. Nothing will change. The only unknown is the location and date of the next school shooting. The countdown has already started.

[Jingthing]

Teachers won't go for being armed, but there will likely be a lot of noise about full time armed guards at schools.

[jpinx]

LAST YEAR, HANDGUNS KILLED:

48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN

8 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN

34 IN SWITZERLAND

52 IN CANADA

58 IN ISRAEL

21 IN SWEDEN

42 IN WEST GERMANY

10,728 IN UNITED STATES

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Old data hint. West Germany

LAST YEAR, HANDGUNS KILLED:

48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN

8 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN

34 IN SWITZERLAND

52 IN CANADA

58 IN ISRAEL

21 IN SWEDEN

42 IN WEST GERMANY

10,728 IN UNITED STATES

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Old data hint. West Germany

Have the relative positions in the table changed significantly since then?

[Mosha]

That is very disingenuous. I am a liberal and I support the 2nd Amendment. I don't own a gun, never wanted one on my property, and didn't allow hunting on my land. My neighbors all had guns and I didn't begrudge them their weapons--which were seldom used, I might add.

I object to concealed weapons (generally) and assault type weapons.

Not all us liberals believe there should be no guns. In the US we have a pervasive attitude that leads people to believe that guns solve problems. In part, the attitude has to change. No law is going to do that--it is going to take a shift like there was with cigarette smoking--which still is available, even though it is very bad for you.

I like your post, so do you think this latest shooting will cause a shift in attitude? As a foreigner looking at the US, I myself wonder when the tipping point will arrive. Out of the 12 worst shooting sprees in US history, 6 happened in the past 5 years and every time I've wondered "maybe this time" but nothing changes. With this latest shooting, with 20 of the victims being just 5-6 years old, if nothing happens this time I'll just be dumbfounded, what will it take? 20 innocent Kindergarten students shot on average 11 times each and it's still not enough to counter the NRA's influence on US gun laws?

Sadly for every sensible person like Credo who advocates gun control, there will be another who calls for teachers to be armed. The NRA lobby are just too powerful, and there is too much money to be made by selling these weapons to people. And the hard fact of life is that for many, the lives of innocent children come a very poor second to the money. Nothing will change. The only unknown is the location and date of the next school shooting. The countdown has already started.

Money, that's the nail on the head, Maybe all gun shops should be forced to join the NRA. When there is a rampage charge the NRA 1 M USD per victim not including the perp. They just might change their stance

[Mosha]

Old data hint. West Germany

LAST YEAR, HANDGUNS KILLED:

48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN

8 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN

34 IN SWITZERLAND

52 IN CANADA

58 IN ISRAEL

21 IN SWEDEN

42 IN WEST GERMANY

10,728 IN UNITED STATES

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Old data hint. West Germany

Have the relative positions in the table changed significantly since then?

Probably not

[Mosha]

Aussiebebe, I don't know what it will take, but I grew up with the gun culture and hunting. I wasn't very crazy about hunting, but it was OK. What did turn me completely off was once wounding an animal and having to then kill it, up close and personal. It was the last thing I ever shot. I also then lost interest in guns, although they were all around me and there was always a rifle in the pickup.

The difference was that when I and many of my generation grew up, if we had a gun, it was for hunting animals. Now people seem to have guns for shooting people--people of different races; people of different religions; people with different politics etc..

Yep.

I enjoy TV and watch a lot of the series--CSI, NCIS and a few sitcoms--but it is a constant explosion of gunfire on most of them. Maybe it's from fighting in too many conflicts? But it's a part of the psyche. We need to have our guns and we need to shoot at things. Unfortunately, we've nearly wiped out the wildlife, so now we shoot each other.

Guns:

We've had guns for 200 years and until recently people haven't been shooting up the streets.

Movies & TV:

We've had war movies for about 100 years and people weren't shooting each other in the streets.

We've had cowboys shooting up the large and small screen since the 1920's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had gangsters shooting up the large and small screen since the 1930's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had cops shooting up TV screens since the 1950's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

Music:

We've had "decadent" rock 'n roll since the 1950's and people weren't shooting up the streets.

We've had gangsta rap since the 1990's, glorifying guns and well, people have started shooting up the streets.

Video Games:

We've had violent video games since the 1980's and people weren't shooting up the streets. But in the old days, the graphics weren't so realistic AND you had to pay-to-play at an arcade and that controlled how much you played. Now you can play at home in isolation for days. I have two 20-something nephews like this. Scary. But when kids are younger, living at home, they need to have their game time limited just as a general rule.

Kid behavior:

Misbehaved kids used to be set straight, sometimes with - gasp! - corporal punishment and we didn't have people shooting up the streets.

Nowadays misbehaving kids are given medication and excuses.

Used to be if you got in trouble at school, you got in bigger trouble at home.

Nowadays, you get in trouble at school and your parents will sue the school.

What has really changed in recent decades is the decline of the two-parent home, discipline at home & school. Parents seem more eager to be friends with their kids instead of raising them to be responsible adults. Instead of one parent (father) working and another (mother) staying home to take care of the kids, IF there are two parents, both need to work and the kids end up raising themselves half the time.

So, IMO, the problem is not guns, the problem is we as a society don't raise our children anymore.

For which we have the PC brigade to thank. Nothing to do with religion, just parents not taking responsibility. As a kid I would not dare tell my parents I'd being whacked at school. These days the parents can't complain quick enough.

[koheesti]

Here is your quote: "To be safe, we should round them up, test them, identify the potentially dangerous ones and lock them up."

That, sir, is the closest to fascism I heard in a long, long time! And that's why I will not read it!

It already starts with an inhumane premiss.

And advocating the gov't taking guns away from law-abiding citizens because of a few nut cases is even worse. Over 300 million guns in the USA and only a handful of nutjobs shooting people. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun. We arrest drunk drivers, we don't outlaw automobiles. Look, I'm sure you consider yourself a humane, caring, enlightened, better person than anyone who would ever be so evil as to own a gun, but you and others like you do nothing to solve the problem by focusing on the inanimate object (gun) and ignoring the people behind the tragedy.

[troy]

Over 300 million guns in the USA and only a handful of nutjobs shooting people

That handful of nutjobs shot over 10,000 Americans last year. The Vietcong never had it so good.

[DocN]

Here is your quote: "To be safe, we should round them up, test them, identify the potentially dangerous ones and lock them up."

That, sir, is the closest to fascism I heard in a long, long time! And that's why I will not read it!

It already starts with an inhumane premiss.

And advocating the gov't taking guns away from law-abiding citizens because of a few nut cases is even worse. Over 300 million guns in the USA and only a handful of nutjobs shooting people. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun. We arrest drunk drivers, we don't outlaw automobiles. Look, I'm sure you consider yourself a humane, caring, enlightened, better person than anyone who would ever be so evil as to own a gun, but you and others like you do nothing to solve the problem by focusing on the inanimate object (gun) and ignoring the people behind the tragedy.

Who asked for that?

No me!

And I don't know , who is actually?!

If you read most of my comments and most of the others that are "contra"- guns, it is about MORE CONTROL!

MORE CONTROL...not "taking them all away"!

Big difference!

But as I said before: right wing nutters often twist the stuff we pesky treehuggers say, so it fits their needs!

Don't bother with logic!

[F430murci]

I forgot to add. I have never seen an AK-47 in the US. A very few with special permits do have them, but they are rare, expensive, and hard to get a permit for. They are banned in many states in the US.

What civilians can actually have and some don't even know it, is an AKM-47. It is the semi-automatic, non-assault rifle version of the fully automatic, machine gun style AK-47.

Haha, you are apparently also confused.

Assault weapon is correct term for AR and AK.

AK was technically produced up to 1951. AKM is just modern variant produced on mass scale after 1950s. The AKM is also select fire or fully automatic and was weapon used in Vietnam War. The AK 74 came out in the 70s.

There is a ton of AK variants on the streets with different factory receivers, especially because Romania mass produced them so cheaply. Mexican cartels buy the Romania versions and the Chinese AK 56.

So your correct in that most of the versions you see now are AKM because it replaced the AK in 1950s. Who wants a 60 year old machine gun when you can get newer better version? You are incorrect that AKM is not full auto.

You generally see AK variants such as MAK90 or WASR 10.

What you apparently don't get is that fully auto is not even desirable except for suppression fire purposes. For killing, semi mode is much more efficient, effective and accurate than either full auto or even burst mode.

Splitting hairs between assault rifle and assault weapon is also disingenuous.

Semi auto AKs and ARs are just as deadly than full auto counter parts as full auto is generally pretty useless and inaccurate unless suppression fire is needed.

How often does the need for suppression fire arise on the streets of the US.

Edited December 16, 2012 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Here is your quote: "To be safe, we should round them up, test them, identify the potentially dangerous ones and lock them up."

That, sir, is the closest to fascism I heard in a long, long time! And that's why I will not read it!

It already starts with an inhumane premiss.

And advocating the gov't taking guns away from law-abiding citizens because of a few nut cases is even worse. Over 300 million guns in the USA and only a handful of nutjobs shooting people. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun. We arrest drunk drivers, we don't outlaw automobiles. Look, I'm sure you consider yourself a humane, caring, enlightened, better person than anyone who would ever be so evil as to own a gun, but you and others like you do nothing to solve the problem by focusing on the inanimate object (gun) and ignoring the people behind the tragedy.

"Few nut jobs." If 10,000 plus killed by guns in US, how many injured by guns each and every year. Lots of nut jobs. Perhaps most people owning guns or advocating ownership rights are the one's with the screw lose.

Maybe just nut jobs with guns should be banned from seeing anything but G rated movies since seeing violent movies made the gun owners want to go out and shoot someone. Only Snow White and Bambi for you.

Uhm, it is the nut jobs you refer to that love guns want and love the shoot up violent movies.

Don't they have violent movies in countries where gun deaths are low. Maybe it is because they keep assault weapons out of the hands of nut jobs as opposed to censoring what they watch or music they listen to.

I cannot believe someone would advocate government censorship of the content of our entertainment just so, heaven forbid, we don't make it difficult for just anyone to get their hands on assault rifle. That is some of the most backward nut job logic ever.

Edited December 16, 2012 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Oh yeah. Just a few nut cases as Kohesti says:

The CDC collects two sets of relevant data. The first is data for deaths by guns, which is included in an annual report about deaths of all types during calendar year 2009. The numbers for gun deaths is broken down into several categories:

Suicide: 18,735 deaths

Homicide: 11,493 deaths

Unintentional: 554 deaths

Legal interventions: 333 deaths

Undetermined: 232 deaths

Total: 31,347 deaths

The second data set tracks non-fatal injuries by guns. According to the CDC, there were 73,505 non-fatal firearm injuries in 2010. (We will ignore an additional 13,851 non-fatal injuries from BB or pellet guns.)

If you add together the gun deaths and the non-fatal gun injuries, you get 104,852 people shot every year.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/

Edited December 16, 2012 by F430murci

[tideout]

A fairly comprehensive article from the Washington Post on mass shootings. A fair amount of data to consider.

Highlights for me:

- Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.

-15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

- Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.

- America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

- States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Some will undoubtedly continue to find reasons to "debate" this but it's not really all that debatable. While mass shootings are not a weekly occurrence they are not merely aberrant events and don't even include the ongoing number of "regular" shootings. More gun control means fewer deaths. While humans in general may act in violence this is not a "level playing field" issue.

The data doesn't support the comparisons made here and other places to the knifing in China or the mass shooting in Norway etc.. They are different because they are - different.

[koheesti]

Here is your quote: "To be safe, we should round them up, test them, identify the potentially dangerous ones and lock them up."

That, sir, is the closest to fascism I heard in a long, long time! And that's why I will not read it!

It already starts with an inhumane premiss.

And advocating the gov't taking guns away from law-abiding citizens because of a few nut cases is even worse. Over 300 million guns in the USA and only a handful of nutjobs shooting people. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun. We arrest drunk drivers, we don't outlaw automobiles. Look, I'm sure you consider yourself a humane, caring, enlightened, better person than anyone who would ever be so evil as to own a gun, but you and others like you do nothing to solve the problem by focusing on the inanimate object (gun) and ignoring the people behind the tragedy.

Who asked for that?

No me!

And I don't know , who is actually?!

If you read most of my comments and most of the others that are "contra"- guns, it is about MORE CONTROL!

MORE CONTROL...not "taking them all away"!

Big difference!

But as I said before: right wing nutters often twist the stuff we pesky treehuggers say, so it fits their needs!

Don't bother with logic!

Here;s an article you might even take time to read. To show you it isn't a fascist site, I'll paste the comment that goes against what I proposed doing...

4 Awful Reactions to Sandy Hook School Shooting - And Thoughts on a Better Response

As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote

regarding Loughner

, even the most vociferous propopents of locking up potential killers grant that maybe 10 percent of schizophrenics become violent. Academic studies of presumptive detention of the mentally ill suggest that mental health professionals do about as well, and sometimes worse, than regular people in figuring out who exactly is going to go postal. Such results should temper any and all calls to start rounding up more people in the name of protecting innocents.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/15/4-archetypally-awful-reactions-to-sandy/singlepage

[koheesti]

A fairly comprehensive article from the Washington Post on mass shootings. A fair amount of data to consider.

Highlights for me:

- States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

That's odd considering Chicago & Washington DC have strict gun laws and they are the gun-killing capitals of the US.

-15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

And 10 of 25 took place in countries with more strict gun laws? How is that possible?

Edited December 16, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

A fairly comprehensive article from the Washington Post on mass shootings. A fair amount of data to consider.

Highlights for me:

- States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

That's odd considering Chicago & Washington DC have strict gun laws and they are the gun-killing capitals of the US.

Neither are states.

[koheesti]

Oh yeah. Just a few nut cases as Kohesti says:

Those stats don't address my comment - which I stand by as correct. To back my claim, here is a chart from Mother Jones, a very anti-gun, liberal website.

300 million guns, approx 31,000 gun-related deaths (2009), and even in that same year the number of deaths by mass-killing crazies total less than 40. So yeah, I'm right, a few nut cases.

Edited December 16, 2012 by koheesti

[F430murci]

A fairly comprehensive article from the Washington Post on mass shootings. A fair amount of data to consider.

Highlights for me:

- States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

That's odd considering Chicago & Washington DC have strict gun laws and they are the gun-killing capitals of the US.

Neither are states.

Let's not let facts get in the way.

[F430murci]

Oh yeah. Just a few nut cases as Kohesti says:

Those stats don't address my comment - which I stand by as correct. To back my claim, here is a chart from Mother Jones, a very anti-gun, liberal website.

300 million guns, approx 31,000 gun-related deaths (2009), and even in that same year the number of deaths total less than 40. So yeah, I'm right, a few nut cases.

Yep, ignore everything else and all facts cited and refer to a single piece of information to misrepresent a broad proposition. The fact is 100,000 plus people are shot and injured by guns each year. Way too many nutcases out there shooting people.

[F430murci]

Gun rights advocates simply manipulate and ignore statistics, common sense and reality all in the name of their precious right to have an assault weapon or arsenal. For what. To feel maucho, shoot up a tree, impress their sons or neighbors or scare others.

Cool. I have an AK. Went shot up a tree. It was real fun. Can nit wait to shoot up a fence post tomorrow. Thisus such much fun that no human should be deprived of so much fun no matter at what costs to society or danger posed by such weapons.

Fact is, there are 20 sets of parents out their not spending Christmas with their 6 and 7 year old sons and daughters because guns and assault weapons are so easily accessible.

Fact us there are 7 families and/or children nit spending Christmas with their moms, sisters and aunts because guns and assault weapons are so easily accessible.

[folium]

Oh yeah. Just a few nut cases as Kohesti says:

Those stats don't address my comment - which I stand by as correct. To back my claim, here is a chart from Mother Jones, a very anti-gun, liberal website.

300 million guns, approx 31,000 gun-related deaths (2009), and even in that same year the number of deaths by mass-killing crazies total less than 40. So yeah, I'm right, a few nut cases.

Not quite sure how the stats re mass killings help your cause. The trend is upwards and rather than just fixing on the episodes of mass killings how about just the day to day killings with guns.

To put things in perspective 2010 saw 636 homicides in the UK, with 60 caused by firearms (and I deliberately chose that year as it includes the shotgun rampage in Cumbria which claimed 12 lives, 2011 saw half that number of firearms related deaths, so I cannot be accused of cherry picking).

In the USA in 2010 there were 12,995 homicides, with 8775 firearms related. Given that the US population is 5x that of the UK, there is more than a slight statistical blip here. UK less than 10% of homicides gun related, USA 68%. I know the US has a fixation about exceptionalism, but do Americans really enjoy being exceptional in this respect?

What is the difference between the UK and USA? the UK after Hungerford or Dunblane has actually done something about it. Having a disarmed population has not led to mass murder by the government... Koheesti I am still waiting for examples where a disarming of the population leads to such mass murder, or perhaps that's just a good story devoid of fact?

[tideout]

Gun rights advocates simply manipulate and ignore statistics, common sense and reality all in the name of their precious right to have an assault weapon or arsenal. For what. To feel maucho, shoot up a tree, impress their sons or neighbors or scare others.

Cool. I have an AK. Went shot up a tree. It was real fun. Can nit wait to shoot up a fence post tomorrow. Thisus such much fun that no human should be deprived of so much fun no matter at what costs to society or danger posed by such weapons.

Fact is, there are 20 sets of parents out their not spending Christmas with their 6 and 7 year old sons and daughters because guns and assault weapons are so easily accessible.

Fact us there are 7 families and/or children nit spending Christmas with their moms, sisters and aunts because guns and assault weapons are so easily accessible.

Your post is of course is what matters. What's precious about gun ownership in comparison with these kids (not to mention the other people lost to gun violence)? Nothing compares as you correctly point out.

The need for some to continually debate minor points with almost no insight into what really matters in life is of course a part of the problem and indicates at some level some of the emptiness of American culture.

The truth is is that many Americans (and apparently even greater numbers of Canadians, Japanese, Europeans etc.) are able to take walks into the wilderness without a firearm, look at animals as something other than potential targets and check their paranoia and aggression. The inability to do so is a deep cultural problem in the US.

[tideout]

I know the US has a fixation about exceptionalism, but do Americans really enjoy being exceptional in this respect?

One writer who I respect has said (I believe correctly) that the religion of America is America.

I'm afraid sometimes that all of the reasonable reasons on earth will fail as you are essentially arguing about what is more of a religious belief about how exceptional they are than anything else.

[koheesti]

Here's an interesting article written from a different perspective...

I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

"I can wear these pants," he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

....

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother