Connecticut School Tragedy

Got something to talk about? Be it video games, other tabletop or card games, even random stuff - this is the place to post!

Moderator: The Dread Knights

User avatar
Saintofm
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: California

Connecticut School Tragedy

Post by Saintofm »

This is so far the deadliest Elementary school shooting in US history.

20 children, all kindergarten to fourth grade (roughly ages 5-9) were slain as well as 6 adults including the school principle and psychologist.

The gunman, a 20 year old who doesn't deserve to be named, took his own life.


Anyone wish to share their feelings as this is one of those things that no matter your beliefs on faith, politics, and so on this is something that rips your heart out and steps on it.
Who needs sanity? I have a Hydra
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

A very sad and moving tragedy.

Losing a family member is always terrible.
When the cause is understandable (age, illness...), it helps to accept the death.
But here? Nothing is worse than parents losing their children, helplessly. Nothing is worse.
How can parents accept what can't be accepted?

How will all US parents react? "My son, you'll never go to school again, that's too dangerous" ?

I have lived two years in the USA. My two boys went to kindergarten.
After a couple of months, one American told me how safe he felt when he was in Europe. I was stunned. In Europe, I always fear that my wallet be stolen, my car be opened, my home be sacked. I had not the same feeling in the USA. But the American pursued: in the US, there was at all time the possibility to be killed in the street, in a school, in a parking lot, when "trick or treating", for no reason, not even money. In Europe (most of it), nobody has a weapon and the risk to be killed by a weapon is very low, as long as you're not involved in drugs.
Truly, I now nobody in my family who owns a weapon. I know only one friend who hunts and has a rifle and the permit for it. That's the norm, here.

From a European perspective, I can only wonder why the Americans are so attached to the second amendment, when the death toll is so high.
26 killed, that's terrible. But that's just one bloody drop more. I'm afraid and sad that it might not even be one bloody drop too many.
Every year, there are many more who pay with their life the right of their co-citizens to own arms. Let alone the Mexicans who pay for that right for their neigbours.

Sorry to derail into politics.
Such a drama, that's tough to bear.
When people chose not to react, as I expect the majority of US Americans to do, that's even more terrible.
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
Nightcall
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:16 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Nightcall »

As a mother, I can't imagine the anguish the parents of those murdered children must be going through. School is considered a safe place, the senseless killing of so many innocent young lives is beyond comprehension.

My thoughts and prayers to those affected by this terrible deed.
Casaythe Blackstorm - Warrior (Corsair) - Group 22
Skills: Awareness, Endurance
Equipment: Short Sword, Glaive, Medium Armour, Sea Dragon Cloak, Repeater Crossbow, clip of bolts [11/20], 405 gold, Talisman of Darkness, Tool Kit, 2 months' rations
Stats: WS4, S4, T5, D3, I4

Mod, Group 38
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

You can only hope that this guy had some psychological issues. You have to hope no rational person would do this.

As for the 2nd amendment, I understand its origins and I can even understand why it has a place in the modern USA given how remote some parts of it are. For that reason I could understand the ownership of pistols, shotguns or rifles - but the ownership of weapons designed solely to kill people (You don't hunt with an M16) seems crazy.

(Not that it would have made a difference in this particular instance - pistols were used, apparently)

Calisson wrote:From a European perspective, I can only wonder why the Americans are so attached to the second amendment, when the death toll is so high.


To my mind it reflects the different histories, even length of history, of Europe and the US. If we consider France - the French Revolution changed the country, yet it was still France; the US was effectively created from "nothing" - it owed its existence to colonisation and British history (not good when they're the enemy). The original US citizens needed to be loyal to something and the constitution was about all they had at the time that was truly theirs. For good or ill, that loyalty to its principles was maintained and still exists.
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

To put forth an American perspective on the 2nd amendment; I can say that it is certainly a cultural thing, much like most Americans don't understand the fanaticism in Europe about soccer (fine, football), most Europeans don't understand the relationship between Americans and guns. Now I was raised around guns, I was allowed a BB gun before I was allowed a pocket knife growing up. I learned how to shoot a real rifle when I was about 10 and was in marksmanship classes at the age of 12. I learned about hunting which was the primary use of my guns when I was younger. As I got older, I became more interested in shooting as a hobby, and even now I go to the gun range once a month or so for an afternoon of shooting. I would go more often but it's just as an expensive hobby as warhammer :P . Now I own 11 long guns and 3 pistols, 2 of the long guns are semiautomatic rifles that are the most fun to shoot, but most of mine are guns that have been in my family for at least 2 generations, and I will eventually be getting about 20 more as I am the only grandchild who cares about them at this point. Its much like if you were to have grown up larping all your life and suddenly someone was telling you that you could no longer do so because it promotes violence. Sure you can see how that might be true, but its never affected you or anyone you know in that way. The analogy isn't perfect but I hope it kinda gets my point across.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

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

Here is an interesting read. Another tragedy. Just goes to show that bad people will do bad things, regardless of the instruments available to them.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Dyvim tvar
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Posts: 8372
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: The Dragon Caves of the Underway (Indianapolis IN)
Contact:

Post by Dyvim tvar »

Yeah, but the knife injured 22 people. The semiautomatic guns killed 26. The guns do more damage in less time. To put it in terms of a some of the tactics discussions on this site, the gun is a "force multiplier". It's like the difference between a unit of Corsairs (which can kill) and a unit of Corsairs with Mindrazor on them.

I don't think we need to ban guns. I shoot guns and know lots of others who do. But I do think reasonable restrictions are needed. And before you go all Second Amendment on me, I think the proper, conservative interpretation consistent with the framers' intent will allow every U.S. citizen to own a musket. If we can prohibit citizens from owning tanks and enriched uranium, we can prohibit AK-47s and AR-15s.
Truly These are the End Times ...
User avatar
Saintofm
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: California

Post by Saintofm »

I don't think any gun laws would have helped in this case. CT already keeps things pretty strict when it comes to guns. The fact is the weapons all legally owned by the mother who went through all the courses and signed all the paperwork, which allowed police to locate the weapon's true owner.

The problem I have is the bushmaster, a type of assault riffle. They were banned in the state in 1991 but weapon had to have been older and therefor grandfathered in.

That said, even if it was only semiautomatic, I have a hard time justifying someone provatly owning an assault riffle unless they own a buieness and they are worried about riots tearing up the street.
Who needs sanity? I have a Hydra
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

I'll start by saying that it would be extremely difficult on the verge of impossible to create a law that would suppress the sale of semiautomatic weapons in the United States today. The first reason would be the uproar it would cause among the citizens. There is a fast growing sport of gun competitions going on in the US. People invest thousands of dollars into single guns to be able to compete in these things and these competitions require semiautomatic guns. A second problem is that you would destroy a number of businesses by doing so. There are many arms manufacturers here that create semi-auto rifles just for the civilian population, they won't be getting big government contracts for the military, and creating a law would effectively run people out of business.

Furthermore, at what point does a gun become too much of a gun and need to be banned? Sure you say semi-auto rifles, but does that also include semi-auto rimfire weapons such as .22s? They are made for hunting and plinking purposes. However, such things could kill many people quickly. Do semi-auto pistols count? The one rifle I have has a fixed magazine capacity of 10, whereas my pistol holds 17 rounds and can be reloaded much faster. The only difference in potential damage is that one has a better range than the other. Do semi shotguns count as well? Almost every state allows these for hunting, and most only have a magazine of 5, but there are extended ones available. As for no real use for semi-auto rifles, there are many states that allow them for hunting purposes, sadly though, mine is not one of them. My only point with this is that there is no clear line to be drawn in the sand.

The final point is that some of the responsibility lies on the mother of the man who shot the kids. All of my firearms are located in a safe in my house, the key is always on my person unless I'm in the house. I'm the only one with access to it, and the ammo is locked in a separate container as well. Is it a foolproof system? No, someone could steal the ammo crate if they wanted, and the safe isn't immune to a drill, but its about being a responsible firearm owner.

Instead of a massive amount of money spent on trying to enforce and produce a law that would barely be enforceable, I would rather see that money spent on proper mental health care and screening, making sure that people who need the help get it, and in a timely manner. This would also go a long way towards allowing the current ownership screening processes to work more successfully.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Demetrius
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Demetrius »

I agree with Loki, while the 2nd Ammendment SHOULD be abolished, it wont. No President would be stupid enough to do it, the voter backlash from it would destroy their political party, whether it was the Democrats or Republicans. That, and the amount of money weapon manufacturing contributes to America's already dwindling economy is too much to lose.

That said, it is up to the American Government to put in acts and regulations to limit the use and accessibility of weapons, especially semi automatic variants.
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

Loki wrote: My only point with this is that there is no clear line to be drawn in the sand.


That is something with which the lawmakers need to tangle - there has to be some form of agreement as to what is an acceptable weapon for personal use and what isn't. There will be grey areas and weapons will come along that may make that difficult - but hopefully that is what politicians and government lawyers are for: to define what is acceptable in the eyes of the law.

The final point is that some of the responsibility lies on the mother of the man who shot the kids. All of my firearms are located in a safe in my house, the key is always on my person unless I'm in the house. I'm the only one with access to it, and the ammo is locked in a separate container as well. Is it a foolproof system? No, someone could steal the ammo crate if they wanted, and the safe isn't immune to a drill, but its about being a responsible firearm owner.


We have to be pragmatic - while there are guns available, there will always be gun crime (even with the UK's harsh gun laws, gun crime exists). Similarly, with enough time and the right tools nothing is safe. However, that does not preclude restrictions on guns - Canada has half the number of deaths per 100,000 people, for example.

But if right now a new law could reduce the number of deaths by 10/20/30%, it has to be worth it - it could be argued that the right to life (as included in the declaration of independence) is fundamental compared to the right to wield certain weapons (without precluding the use of some weapons for self-defence).

Instead of a massive amount of money spent on trying to enforce and produce a law that would barely be enforceable, I would rather see that money spent on proper mental health care and screening,


It should not be an either/or situation - mental health screening can't catch every nutter in the same way not everyone who holds an illegal weapon can be found and stopped. It has to be a case of both the users and the weapons are carefully analysed and intercepted as to reduce the chances of horrendous crimes like these.
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Dyvim tvar
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Posts: 8372
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: The Dragon Caves of the Underway (Indianapolis IN)
Contact:

Post by Dyvim tvar »

Loki wrote:Instead of a massive amount of money spent on trying to enforce and produce a law that would barely be enforceable, I would rather see that money spent on proper mental health care and screening, making sure that people who need the help get it, and in a timely manner. This would also go a long way towards allowing the current ownership screening processes to work more successfully.


The politicians who are unyielding advocates of gun rights are the same politicians who have gutted social services, including mental health.
Truly These are the End Times ...
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

Sorry again to have derailed the thread, even if it was bound to be so. It seems that the debate is raging in the US (as expected) as well.
Also, apreciate that the debate here seems to keep very reasonable.

That's an interesting debate, by the way.
And I may be all the more concerned that one son is dating an American girl that I shall meet soon.


Back to guns topic,

- The 2nd amendment seems to me nothing more than an excuse. When it has been written, it had a meaning.
The meaning seems now useless. When was the US invaded for the last time? What is the risk it was again?

- Gun makers is just another bad excuse, especially since it is rather easy in the US to change jobs.
The same excuse could be used to let Afghan grow heroin, Moroccans to grow hashish and Columbians to grow cocain. It just happens that those substances kill people, this is why they are prohibited.

Having jobless arm manufacturers is not worse than having children killed at school. Or is it?

- " there is no clear line to be drawn in the sand."
AFAIK, the ability to shoot more than once in a row goes beyond the need for sport shooting, and the ability to shoot more than twice goes beyond the need for hunting.
Remains the need to defend oneself, as the American mentality seems to be that anybody can be their own sheriff.
This is up to politicians to determine which line balances best the wish to own a gun versus the wish not to be killed.

If you guys are satisfied with your balance, well, you are the ones who live in your country, after all.


- I understand that gun popularity is the real issue.
It reminds me with the speed limit and seat belts. When I was young, people used to feel that they were responsible of their own vehicle, and did not pay much attention to speed limits. On highway, speeding was the norm, driving under the authorized speed was the exception. And nobody was wearing any seat belt. Of course, the death toll was heavy. But that was always someone else's fault.
Nowadays, there are radars everywhere. Policement check belts. People have changed their speeding habits. And they curse the government which kills their liberties.
But the death toll has been halved.


Overall, pro-guns have arguments to keep their guns.
But what do they propose? To mourn the dead and resume business as if nothing happened?
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Red... »

I'll start by saying that I'm anti gun. I am. I believe that the argument that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is inherently flawed: it takes a combination of a person and a gun to go on a gun spree. You can't remove the person from the equation (even psycho-analyzing every member of the population wouldn't reliably ensure that everyone was mentally and emotionally stable, and would anyway create a 1984 style thought police run state), but you can remove the gun.

However, the argument that seems to get missed relates to different understandings of freedom. According to a republican conception of freedom (and by republican I don't mean the American right wing party, I mean republicanism as described by theorists such as Rousseau and Madison), a person cannot truly be free as long as someone else holds dominion over them, even if that person allows you every liberty in the world. They still have the power to take that freedom away, consequently you are not truly free. According to a liberal conception of freedom (and again, I refer to liberalism as a conceptual theory, not a political party of any kind), you have freedom if you have the ability to do the things you want, regardless of whether someone else has the ability to curtail those freedoms if they so want.

Think of it using the example of 'bedtime'. As a kid, your parents might let you stay up as long as you want, so according to a liberal theorist, you have the freedom to go to bed whenever you want. However, a republican theorist would argue that you are not truly free in this situation, because your parents have the power to reverse that decision and make you go to bed when they choose. The republican would argue that you are not truly free in this sense until you are an adult and no one else can ever tell you when to go to bed.

Why does this matter? Well, in a republican conception of freedom, a person can only be guaranteed their liberty if they have the ability to defend it. This is where the right to bear arms comes in. A tyrant cannot force you to lose your liberty and if they so try, then you have both the right and ability to defend yourself. In a liberal conception of freedom, you trust inherently that whichever body presides over you will not attempt to curtail your freedom, therefore you do not need weapons to feel free.

How does this relate to the gun argument? Well, as I have already hinted at - America was founded during an era where republicanism as a concept was on the up and indeed theoreticians such as Madison worked to be able to adapt the purer forms of republicanism (as outlined by Rousseau and others) into a system that would work within the United States. This included the right to bear arms as a basic tenet of being free: by having a weapon you could oppose anyon who attempted to remove your liberties from you, without a weapon you had no such mechanism to defend your freedoms.

So, on this basis, it would be possible to argue that attempts to remove the right to bear arms from citizens removes their liberty. It would transition people from a position of republican freedom (freedom from the possibility of domination) to a liberal freedom (freedom that only exists as long as your governing body lets you have it). And that is one of the reasons that proponents of guns are so adamant about retaining their right to bear arms.

That all said, theory is all well and good, but people are dying and the system isn't working. I remain opposed to guns and am heavily in favour of gun control (in all countries, not just the USA) but thought that the above might provide some added food for thought.

P.S. Calisson, regarding your son's girlfriend: my wife is American and I'm British. It's a rollercoaster of a ride, filled with exciting cultural issues, visa headaches, dilemmas about where to live and so on. But it's all worth it ;)
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
Saintofm
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: California

Post by Saintofm »

It also changes form state to state. A democrat in Montana might be a gun nut simply because that's the family tradition, yet you have Romney a republican from Michigan who is firm supporter for gun control.
Who needs sanity? I have a Hydra
User avatar
xFallenx
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by xFallenx »

Rork wrote:
We have to be pragmatic - while there are guns available, there will always be gun crime (even with the UK's harsh gun laws, gun crime exists). Similarly, with enough time and the right tools nothing is safe. However, that does not preclude restrictions on guns - Canada has half the number of deaths per 100,000 people, for example.

But if right now a new law could reduce the number of deaths by 10/20/30%, it has to be worth it - it could be argued that the right to life (as included in the declaration of independence) is fundamental compared to the right to wield certain weapons (without precluding the use of some weapons for self-defence).


These are my feelings as well. I just want to add a personal story from my brides side of the family.
Both of her Parents are rabid gun supporters, to the tune of 8-12 long barrel, and as many hand guns. They make their own bullets and have many years of military service records. The father sells firearms for a living, teaches courses on everything from using to storage. You would think that they, being ex-military, would be ideal representatives of responsible firearm owners. That is until you learn about how two of their handguns were used in fatalities in their communities. The problem was that they have kids with friends that knew about the weapons in the household, and after many break-in’s over the years (To the point where they now have full camera surveillance) two hand guns found their way onto the streets, 1 used in a walk by shooting & the other used in a Police assisted suicide.

You can argue that they were improperly stored & I could argue that if they were illegal in the first place it wouldn’t have happened all day long, & we have, but it wouldn’t change the fact that they were available. Sure a knife could have been used instead, but the odds of them going so far as fatality would be substantially less.

It’s a sticky argument, but at some point changes need to be made. It’s now past that point, just a few months ago we had the Batman shooting & now we have this one. Apologists be damned, sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good. Arguments for hobby, retailers & manufacturers are selfish standpoints of times gone by.
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

I discussed this at some length with Rork in the chat and I will say that its not about being selfish in wanting to keep my firearms, its about a cultural standpoint and a way of life more or less. If this argument was strictly about saving lives, all of you would be be advocating the banning of all alcohol (there are more drunk driving deaths than gun homicides in the US every year) or banning tobacco (which causes more deaths than either alcohol and guns combined, albeit a little slower). In your example xfallenx I would say that the guns were either improperly stored or that if guns were banned, at least one of those incidents would have still happened through guns purchased on the street.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

I have to agree about alcohol being dangerous too.

I live in a country (France) where it was a cultural way of life to start meals with an "apéritif", then get a couple of glasses of wine, especially with cheese, then "un petit pour la route" (one last small glass - of liquor - for the journey).

It has been regulated. No more DUI tolerated.
Like it or not, people changed habits. Now there's the designated sober driver (my wife ;) ). Or someone pays for the taxi.

I noticed that I no longer serve cognac or calvados at the end of meals when I have guests, except for my old in-laws.
That's bad for liquor manufacturers. That's bad for wine makers.

But the death toll has been heavily reduced.


Yes, it took a cultural change and the sacrifice of a very pleasant way of life.
Yes, it took gov regulation and police enforcement, cause people hate that.
But at the end of the year, lives are saved. By the tousands.
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
xFallenx
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by xFallenx »

Loki wrote:I discussed this at some length with Rork in the chat and I will say that its not about being selfish in wanting to keep my firearms, its about a cultural standpoint and a way of life more or less. If this argument was strictly about saving lives, all of you would be be advocating the banning of all alcohol (there are more drunk driving deaths than gun homicides in the US every year) or banning tobacco (which causes more deaths than either alcohol and guns combined, albeit a little slower). In your example xfallenx I would say that the guns were either improperly stored or that if guns were banned, at least one of those incidents would have still happened through guns purchased on the street.


That way of life has changed, evolution of society has made 'culture' & 'way of life' defenses selfish. There are supermarkets in most small communities throughout the continental US. Contrary to popular belief, no-one is invading/challenging ownership of your territories in any serious way. I can accept those reasons from Alaskan Americans as they have very different needs than an American from Connecticut.

It's not about saving lives, but refusal to evolve. You're absolutely right about the tobacco & liquor stands, but unfortunately, completely out of context and must be addressed as the issue it is, without hiding behind the skirts of other 'bad guys'.
There will be little issue with guns being made by bootlegging type organizations. A home-made gun is scary enough to steer people away from purchasing.
Tobacco is an industry on the decline & heavily taxed & regulated. The people that use that product are committing suicide. C'est la vie. They should be rejected any sort of medical assistance through proxy as far as I’m concerned, but that’s an argument for another post.

Getting guns on the street will only happen in the short term, once those guns start being confiscated, as they do/have, the incidents will thin out accordingly. As far as arguing about proper storage in my example, it's not my argument, and the one point we'll agree on. Arguing with someone who has “Extensive Gun training & military service” is only slightly more pointless then arguing that guns are a right to be defended to the death. (“Cold dead hands” 1976)

I promise that this isn’t an attack on you, but on the mentality of an archaic & selfish sense of entitlement. There will be very little common ground between your beliefs & mine. Change pisses & scares people off, that is the gun issue.

Calissons example about Wine, though not completely applicable to guns, outlines reaction to legislation & cause & effect of its evolution.
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

The alcohol/tobacco point wasn't to say we should focus on those rather than guns because they kill more people, but more to say that saying you only want to get rid of guns to save lives is a bit of trying to get morality on your side to make the other side look like they want the opposite point (if we disagree on something and you want to save lives, then by logic (somewhat crappy logic) it would go that I don't want to save lives). If it were only about saving lives, there are many more things people would care about than that. The US has one the highest gun homicide rates per capita of any industrialized nation, but it also has the highest guns per 100 citizens of any nation (at 89 guns per 100 citizens). If you determine the amount of gun homicide rate per gun in a country, the US drops down to a level that is more on keel with the rest of the industrialized world.

If I would use the alcohol issue to make a point, and again its not a perfect analogy, when the US wanted to lower the number of fatalities due to drunk driving, it cracked down on those driving drunk and on the other illegal acts of alcohol, underage drinking and purchasing alcohol for minors, it didn't crack down on those who were drinking legally and responsibly. When it comes to the issue of gun control, people think in the opposite manner. Crack down on those who are legal and responsible owners in hopes that it will lower the criminal behavior. If it were applied to any other scenario, many wouldn't think it would make sense, so why apply it that way here? I would suffer anything that would help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, as long as I can continue on as I am. If it means longer waiting periods or stiffer background checks, then I'll grumble and complain, but if it works then all the better. But what I ask is that as a responsible user of a potentially dangerous item is that I be treated in a way that is the same and equal to any other potentially dangerous item.


And to end, I'll add the old saying: I'd rather die having never needed my guns, then die wishing I had them.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Loflar
Warband Noble
Warband Noble
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:06 am
Location: Praag

Post by Loflar »

Yet another view of the situation:

http://steadystate.org/aristotle-in-connecticut/
L1qw1d
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 890
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: Kittenmarsh
Contact:

Post by L1qw1d »

If I may, I find that gun laws are fairly unimportant when it actually comes to cases like this. Why? People find ways to do the bad. Addressing that is like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

Sensationalisation of the violence doesn't actually HELP matters. It's like a battle for the hearts and minds of youth versus how much garbage they can do or get into.

I personally think it's up to individuals to turn negatives into positives.
Oderint dum Metuant.
User avatar
Saintofm
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: California

Post by Saintofm »

I'm going to look at banning guns in the smae way the US banned booze back in the 20's and start of the 30's. The reasons was to protect people from the drunken idiots who would cause all kinds of problem from disorderly conduct, to physical abuse of spouse and children, to homicide. However criminal elements had taken over, with the various mobs and gangs fighting it out over the lucritve substance. When that ban was lifted they had moved on to blackmailing closeted gays, kept up the gambling rings from the good ol' days, and moved into other illicit drugs both in delivery and production.

Weapons will be the same way.


Quick question for the Australian and UK members, has violent crime gone down significantly since gun bans in your country or is it about the same? And are the illegal weapons still available and on black markets and such (as with much of the IRA's weapons).
Who needs sanity? I have a Hydra
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

@ saintofm
20's prohibition on alcohol was a total prohibition, with no substitute.
Here, there is no talk about gun prohibition but gun control.


@ L1qw1d & saintofm
In my country, it is not legal to have a gun weapon without a permit, nor to own guns made for war. People following the law are not cracked down, what a silly idea?
Sure, bandits own war guns, Kalashnikov and the likes, bought in Bosnia or who knows where. But they have to hide to do that. It makes their life much more difficult and risky. They take great care not to threaten ordinary people, for it would reveal them and give another reason to jail them. Actually, their guns kill mostly other gun owners, policemen or other gangsters.
Much better, when someone goes amok, it is much more difficult for him to get a weapon and kill innocents than if he lived in the USA.
Sure, sometimes, desperate people get a hunting weapon. At least, they can kill only two persons before reloading.



Loki wrote:When it comes to the issue of gun control, people think in the opposite manner. Crack down on those who are legal and responsible owners in hopes that it will lower the criminal behavior.
I've read that the killer's mother owned legally her weapons and was said to be a responsible person.
Her son was not a criminal before he killed his mother.
This is a tragic example of how US present legal system about guns makes it easy for people to become criminal when they lose self-control.
What is very sad is that there is no lesson learned. It happened before, it happened once more, it is bound to happen again, because that's your way of life - and death.
Loki wrote:"I'd rather die having never needed my guns, then die wishing I had them."

There's a third option: to have guns used in an accident or a desperate act.
What are the occurences of guns rightly used to protect lifes?
What are the occurences of guns wrongly used to kill innocents, by accident or desperate act?

Experience in my country shows that the lives of those who own weapons and their relatives are more at risk than those who don't.
xFallenx provided examples of ex-military's guns used in fatalities in their communities.
I don't know how thay can live bearing such responsibility. Compared to them, I will die with a neat conscience (on this matter).


The killer's mother died. Killed by her own son.
Despite having guns. Despite being described as a responsible person.
Because she had guns.
Had she lived, how woud have her bear her partial responsibilty on so many killed in that school?
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
Layne
Arnold Layne
Arnold Layne
Posts: 3398
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:44 am
Location: On Her Majesty Morathi's Secret Service

Post by Layne »

saintofm wrote:Quick question for the Australian and UK members, has violent crime gone down significantly since gun bans in your country or is it about the same? And are the illegal weapons still available and on black markets and such (as with much of the IRA's weapons).


1st answer ; the man who designed our gun control laws was on the TV last night saying as much. I have no idea if it is really true, and if it's true, whether or not it really is related.

2nd answer ; Yes they are. A number of "motorcycle" gangs have been shooting the Jesus out of each other in Sydney and Melbourne with automatic weapons regularly over the last two years. And once they used a rocket launcher, which we're told was stolen from the army. Can't legislate that one out...

********

General answer to Loki's argument ; in Thailand pedophilia is a way of life and a major industry both. Should the Thais ban pedophilia you think? Also you just said that the more guns a society has, the more gun crimes a society will have.

********

And an interesting side note. I once read a detailed account of the massacre at Port Arthur, which people who aren't Australian may still have cause to remember. Apparently, and I wouldn't mind having these facts checked, Martin Bryant is supposed to have killed nearly all of the people he killed, in a cafe. Of the 35 he is supposed to have killed, the number killed in the cafe was 29. With 28 bullets, in roughly 30 seconds. So roughly one per second, with no misses, 100% fatality and even a two-fer. With a rifle that he had never used before.

Apparently.
Layne
Global Moderator. Everything but the weather.


Caveat Numptor.


Karonath - WS6 / S4 / T4 / D5 / I3
Equipment: Bloodfeather, heavy armour, helm, Sea Dragon Cloak, rope x 2, month rations x 2
Inventory: longspear, 2 short swords, glaive, winter gear, shade cloak,
Mount: Dark Steed (Shiny), talisman of kurnous
Gold: 2294
Skills: Ambidexterity, Controlled Frenzy, Basic Ride, Drukh Kaganth
Class: Khainite
Post Reply