ANOTHER mass shooting? TIme to grow up folks; HOW do we address this?

[Wehrwolfen]

22 kids, 1 adult hurt in China school knife attack​

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
Associated Press
Dec 14, 2012

No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.

In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship.


News from The Associated Press

After we ban guns, do we then ban knives?​

Wchich is a better deterent?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One lefty checking in here stating the position that "gun control" may NOT be the solution to the problem.

The real question is "what is it with young men and violence"? I'm not reading about mass killings of this sort by women. I'm sure someone can dig up a few cases here and there, but in large this is a problem with young men and violence.

No answer to the problem, just pointing out the obvious.

Be prepared to be called an idiot for not thinking like the mob.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

If you don't have any suggestions about how to deal with this other than we need to talk you really should shut the fuck up.

 

[Dick Tuck]

People who want to own firearms should undergo a thorough background check. Noone should be able to buy firearms at gun shows, auctions only at a licensed dealership and never without a background check.

Anyone who owns a gun now should have to submit to a background check and be licensed. Either that or give up their guns. If they resist, they should be fined heavily and then give up their guns.

If you live with someone who is mentally ill, no guns.

Can we also wet it up that people who live with mentally ill relatives also lose their cars and knives? After all, we need to make sure that no mentally ill person gets behind the wheel of a car and uses it to mow down a bunch of kids on a playground, and we all know that crazy people can use a knife to kill people.

So you are for gun ownership for paranoid schizophrenics, sociopaths, and psychotics?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A HUNDRED americans killed EVERY DAY on the highways and nothing is done about that.

That's a lie. Autos are well regulated. Drivers are licensed. There are fewer fatalities in car accidents today than 30 years ago, and most of it is due to mandated safety equipment.

That was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read.

 

[Dick Tuck]

A HUNDRED americans killed EVERY DAY on the highways and nothing is done about that.

That's a lie. Autos are well regulated. Drivers are licensed. There are fewer fatalities in car accidents today than 30 years ago, and most of it is due to mandated safety equipment.

That was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read.

That suggests you buy ShitSpeeders lie, that autos aren't regulated, and nothing is being done about car accidents. Are you really this dumb?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think about it folks, is taking a gun away going to make idiots like this man any more sane?

What keeping guns out of his hands may do is limit the amount of carnage but it isn't going to make him sane.

So here are my suggestions.

1. No more online gun sales.

2. If you want to own a HANDGUN or an ASSULT weapon then you are responsible for gun control. IF you lose control, as in the weapon is used in a crime, then you are also held responsible. Even if the gun were stolen. If you want to have a killer dog then you must keep that dog away from society. If it escapes and hurts someone then you will be found responsible. It could be no different with hand guns and assault weapons. You have the freedom to own them you just have to have the responsibility to control them.

There isn't any part of this post I can disagree with.

Change the word gun to cell phone and see if you still think people should be held responsible for someone using their phone in a crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think about it folks, is taking a gun away going to make idiots like this man any more sane?

What keeping guns out of his hands may do is limit the amount of carnage but it isn't going to make him sane.

So here are my suggestions.

1. No more online gun sales.

2. If you want to own a HANDGUN or an ASSULT weapon then you are responsible for gun control. IF you lose control, as in the weapon is used in a crime, then you are also held responsible. Even if the gun were stolen. If you want to have a killer dog then you must keep that dog away from society. If it escapes and hurts someone then you will be found responsible. It could be no different with hand guns and assault weapons. You have the freedom to own them you just have to have the responsibility to control them.

Add that all private gun sales must go through the same background check as the ones from licensed dealers.

I'd also make it illegal to sell high capacity magazines to individuals. I mean seriously. Currently we have 30 round clips, up from 8-12 rounds before reloading. Before that we had six shooters. Before that we had single shot breech loaders. Before that we could maybe get 3 rounds a minute off with ball and powder. How hard would it be to create 100 round clips? Not very.

Note that this doesn't impact the right of an individual to own and bear arms. It's now the responsibility of the seller.

Do you want to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? How do you propose to mandate background checks for private individuals without giving them said access?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sarah G is repeating a myth
Here in North Carolina we do back ground checks for purchase permits, and even for gun shows so shut the fuck up.
If you live with someone who is mentally ill the person should be in a mental institution. Why do you support allowing mentally ill people out on the streets?

40% of all gun purchases in the US have no background checks. They're mostly from private sales.

As for your suggestion that we involuntarily incarcerate anyone with a mental illness shows what a pathetic little Nazi you are.

You didn't read the OP, did you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gun violence today is a direct result of gun control laws. The fewer people armed, the more victims for those that are armed.

Then why do states with the highest percentage of handgun ownership have significantly higher rates of handgun homicides?

Because you are lying.

 

[racewright]

Well, now we have it. The 'Conservatives' on this board are just fine with twenty little children being gunned down. Just don't breath a word that the availability of the weopons might be part of the problem. And the sick psychology of the worship of guns by the far right.



You know this is such a worthless reply--do you really think anyone is fine with this type of thing PLEASE
If you have to blame something blame the jerk who did the crime not his implement. He was educated in the local schools and had a school teacher mom maybe there is some kind of connection with schools, they obviously did a poor job on this jerk.

Maybe it is time to have more home schooling,,schools are not about educating the kids anyway they are just about teachers unions.
t is time for internet learnig for children, it is out there and would keep kids from being jammed up is an easily attackable room.
[/I

 

[Dick Tuck]

Think about it folks, is taking a gun away going to make idiots like this man any more sane?

What keeping guns out of his hands may do is limit the amount of carnage but it isn't going to make him sane.

So here are my suggestions.

1. No more online gun sales.

2. If you want to own a HANDGUN or an ASSULT weapon then you are responsible for gun control. IF you lose control, as in the weapon is used in a crime, then you are also held responsible. Even if the gun were stolen. If you want to have a killer dog then you must keep that dog away from society. If it escapes and hurts someone then you will be found responsible. It could be no different with hand guns and assault weapons. You have the freedom to own them you just have to have the responsibility to control them.

Add that all private gun sales must go through the same background check as the ones from licensed dealers.

I'd also make it illegal to sell high capacity magazines to individuals. I mean seriously. Currently we have 30 round clips, up from 8-12 rounds before reloading. Before that we had six shooters. Before that we had single shot breech loaders. Before that we could maybe get 3 rounds a minute off with ball and powder. How hard would it be to create 100 round clips? Not very.

Note that this doesn't impact the right of an individual to own and bear arms. It's now the responsibility of the seller.

Do you want to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? How do you propose to mandate background checks for private individuals without giving them said access?

So you really don't care how easy it is for the mentally ill or criminals to obtain guns. And why would I have to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? You assume that a "law abiding" private seller would have only a single option to determine if the buyer is disallowed to make the purchase.

You're not very bright.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not talking about self-defense, justifiable homicide. I'm talking about illegal handgun murders. The murder rates I used, come from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina lead the nation in handgun murder rates. Those three states, also have among the highest percentage of handgun ownership.

Here's another bit of news for you. Most murders are the result of domestic arguments, and not in the commission of other crimes.

I doubt MS, LA, and SC lead the nation in handgun murders. Flint and Detroit can probably beat each of them. I think you are referring to a percentage rate. You also switched from illegal handgun murders to handgun murder rate. Not the same. Try again?

They do lead the country in murder RATES, which is what I said. Totals make no sense, when talking about crime.

The murder rate in Louisiana is 7.75 per 100,000, while New York is 2.64. As for cities, how can we compare them in any reasonable way. I'm sure that cities have higher homicide rates. I'm also sure that criminal on criminal murder is the most dominant form in cities.

In any case, the argument that handgun ownership reduces or deters crime is bullshit. The armed robbery rate in Texas, for example, is 64.57 per 100,000 while in New York it's 12.97. That's almost a 5 to 1 difference.

DC has a higher murder rate than any state, it also has the lowest per capita legal gun ownership. How does that fit in with your theory?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't suppose distance to a crime ridden country has ANY part in that?

It may, yet New Mexico has half the rate of armed robberies than Texas and a much lower rate than South Carolina. In any case, one can't discount easy access to handguns being a significant factor. But the argument remains that the contention that being more armed makes us safer is a myth.

It is not a myth. You cannot provide any actual evidence that legal gun ownership makes people less safe.

Feel free to prove me right by trying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People who want to own firearms should undergo a thorough background check. Noone should be able to buy firearms at gun shows, auctions only at a licensed dealership and never without a background check.

Anyone who owns a gun now should have to submit to a background check and be licensed. Either that or give up their guns. If they resist, they should be fined heavily and then give up their guns.

If you live with someone who is mentally ill, no guns.

Can we also wet it up that people who live with mentally ill relatives also lose their cars and knives? After all, we need to make sure that no mentally ill person gets behind the wheel of a car and uses it to mow down a bunch of kids on a playground, and we all know that crazy people can use a knife to kill people.

So you are for gun ownership for paranoid schizophrenics, sociopaths, and psychotics?

Want to point out where I said that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a lie. Autos are well regulated. Drivers are licensed. There are fewer fatalities in car accidents today than 30 years ago, and most of it is due to mandated safety equipment.

That was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read.

That suggests you buy ShitSpeeders lie, that autos aren't regulated, and nothing is being done about car accidents. Are you really this dumb?

The simple fact is that more people die in cars than as the result of all gun accidents and homicide combined. If all that really mattered to you is that fewer people die than 30 years ago you wouldn't be whinging about people getting killed with guns since that rate has also dropped from 30 years ago.

That makes what you said the dumbest thing I have ever read, all without me having to resort to strawman arguments, the way you do every time you try to defend your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Add that all private gun sales must go through the same background check as the ones from licensed dealers.

I'd also make it illegal to sell high capacity magazines to individuals. I mean seriously. Currently we have 30 round clips, up from 8-12 rounds before reloading. Before that we had six shooters. Before that we had single shot breech loaders. Before that we could maybe get 3 rounds a minute off with ball and powder. How hard would it be to create 100 round clips? Not very.

Note that this doesn't impact the right of an individual to own and bear arms. It's now the responsibility of the seller.

Do you want to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? How do you propose to mandate background checks for private individuals without giving them said access?

So you really don't care how easy it is for the mentally ill or criminals to obtain guns. And why would I have to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? You assume that a "law abiding" private seller would have only a single option to determine if the buyer is disallowed to make the purchase.

You're not very bright.

Funny how you didn't actually answer my question. the simple fact is that the only reason background checks are not required for private gun sales is that no one can figure out how to require them without giving everyone access to the law enforcement databases that are used for them.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I doubt MS, LA, and SC lead the nation in handgun murders. Flint and Detroit can probably beat each of them. I think you are referring to a percentage rate. You also switched from illegal handgun murders to handgun murder rate. Not the same. Try again?

They do lead the country in murder RATES, which is what I said. Totals make no sense, when talking about crime.

The murder rate in Louisiana is 7.75 per 100,000, while New York is 2.64. As for cities, how can we compare them in any reasonable way. I'm sure that cities have higher homicide rates. I'm also sure that criminal on criminal murder is the most dominant form in cities.

In any case, the argument that handgun ownership reduces or deters crime is bullshit. The armed robbery rate in Texas, for example, is 64.57 per 100,000 while in New York it's 12.97. That's almost a 5 to 1 difference.

DC has a higher murder rate than any state, it also has the lowest per capita legal gun ownership. How does that fit in with your theory?

Maryland and Virginia sell handguns like candy. I'm also not comparing a state to a city. That makes no sense. The fact remains that those states with the highest handgun ownership rates, and laxest laws tend to have significantly more gun related crime.

Now if you want the fools errand of comparing similar size cities, why not start with DC compared to New Orleans.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It may, yet New Mexico has half the rate of armed robberies than Texas and a much lower rate than South Carolina. In any case, one can't discount easy access to handguns being a significant factor. But the argument remains that the contention that being more armed makes us safer is a myth.

I'd rather be armed when some asshole breaks into my house than unarmed.

So would I, but the facts show that it doesn't make me really safer.

But it makes the fucking criminal decidedly less safe and that's good enough for me.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do you want to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? How do you propose to mandate background checks for private individuals without giving them said access?

So you really don't care how easy it is for the mentally ill or criminals to obtain guns. And why would I have to give criminals access to law enforcement computers? You assume that a "law abiding" private seller would have only a single option to determine if the buyer is disallowed to make the purchase.

You're not very bright.

Funny how you didn't actually answer my question. the simple fact is that the only reason background checks are not required for private gun sales is that no one can figure out how to require them without giving everyone access to the law enforcement databases that are used for them.

Bullshit. Licensed gun dealers have access to data entry screens, not access to law enforcement databases. You're probably too dense to understand the difference. You could also just use a telephone for private sales, or have a purchaser produce some official documentation that he's entitled to own a firearm.

The reason we don't do anything at all to stop private sales, is because the right wing doesn't want to. They could care less about criminals or mentally ill having access to purchase firearm.