When there's a tragedy there's also "those people"

[Abomination]

Spoiler: -Snip-

As if people need firearms to commit mass murder.
You know firearms have been used for self defense.

on the same day there was attack in China. Im sure it has gotten quickly forgotten because "hey white kids dieing are more important right?". the difference is, the chinese guy didnt have acess to a gun, so he used a knife. result? 0 dead, 22 kids wounded.

free access to firearms make mass murder easy. it should not be made easy.

Mass murder can and has been committed in America with explosives and non-guns.

You want to talk about one knifing where no one died I can point to a lot of them where have died, and instance of people using a gun to stop an attack.

But like I said this is assuming they couldn't just get guns from the black market.

the point is about making mass murder hard, not about "one guy managed to do it so its impossible to prevent"

And yet your whole post rests on 'one guy managed to not kill anyone therefore it's impossible to kill a bunch of people with knives'.

And explosives aren't impossible to make. Guns are easier but if you take away their access to guns (big IF since black markets etc.) they may just stick to explosives.

In this particular case the shooter wouldn't have been able to just take his mother's guns that she had for whatever ineffective reason and go murder teachers and children.

Explosives are not as easy to make as Hollywood or Breaking Bad would have you believe, especially those with sufficient yield to level buildings. It is far easier to acquire a gun in the States than it is explosives, I also imagine a 'killer' feels a lot more satisfaction with watching direct consequence of his own directed actions via a gunshot against an individual than the more passive effect and less-reactionary-capable method of bomb placement.

The Black Market guns argument holds no water - other developed nations have essentially only black market guns to turn to for crime and the statistics are a literal fraction of those in the United States. The sheer access to firearms United States citizens have is the primary contributing factor to its incredible gun crime rate.

 

[Vault101]

I can turn the table on you and ask why you care only after something has happened? Did you care about psychopaths and maladjusted people before this? Will you care as much about them after you've forgotten this tragedy?

do you mean in a general sense? (since there was no way of knowing about the specific guy that did it)

ummmm..yeah? I mean I get really sad when I hear about people being constantly victimized for the "crime" of being different in school, if they are poor, or nerdy or just a bit odd,if they have some kind of mental illness , if they were abused physically or emotionaly by bad parents, if they didn't have parents and went through "the systm"

I can;t imagine what any of that would be like, I look at my life and how I was raised and think how would it be different if I just happened to go to a different school environemnt?...one where I could have [b/]very likley[/b] been ostracised and bullied , I doubt I'd instigate a shcool shooting but there's a million other ways a person can be messed up, I'd probably be somthing of a wreck and half the person I am now and all it would take was a change in circumstance

thats why it really pisses me off when people dismiss the issue of bullying, saying kids need to toughen up or (god forbid) its "builds charachter" (people who say that can go fuck themselfs...IMO) no one deserves that, no one deserves to become damanged because they had a slightly unlucky start in life,

thats just the bullying angle anyway (which no doubt contributes to maladjustment) people with those severe conditions need help no doubt, the problem is we seem so behind in treating mental illnesses, and we never seem to pick thease people out untill its too late.


[quote/]Or other than that, do you care just as much about every single tragedy? Do you have to mourn every tragic occurance as deeply as you advocate in your post. You'd be very busy with hat.
[/quote]
did you read my post? [b/]I am not actually saying people HAVE to care...nor am I saying that "I" actually care anymore than the averge person[/b]

I'm just saying people who go out of their way to make some kind of statment of "not caring" piss me off

 

[Strazdas]

In comparison, those who'd compare the problem of one tragedy to death rates, or larger tragedies, tend to be people who have an overinflated opinion of their own intellect. "I bet you didn't know millions die all the time." Blah blah blah. They're Brittas (For the Community reference). "Likes to use French politics to make themselves feel special, but doesn't actually want to do anything.... itis." Oh really? Something bad's happening? Why not do something about it rather than telling us we're caring wrong?

and if we actuaklly do something more than post in facebook about "mass effect made him do it"? quick to assume arent you?

Normally, I don't like Critical Miss, but this perfectly illustrates how inane that is:

touche. good one sir.

Yeah, sure, tons of people, including kids, die, every day. That doesn't make a bunch of them being wiped out at once any less tragic. If you're only going to care about the biggest tragedy, you'd better not get excited or saddened by everything, since the Holocaust trumps pretty much any event that'll happen in your life.

holocaust is only the 3rd biggest atrocity. the soviet starvation of populating and trains full of people to work in siberian mines and whne they couldnt anymore just stake them (bullet was too much of a waste according to soldiers in those camps) and drop in the forest for wild animals to feed, comes in second, while mao Tze Tung comes in first.

I don't really get annoyed by these people, so much as scroll past their ankle biting non-contributions to the discussion. Engaging them is feeding them, and, to be fair I'm sort of doing that now.

and posts like "OMG IM SO SAD" is contributing a lot....

To address the false equivalence people keep trying to use: People being sappy "Oh, my prayers are with them". "Oh the horror", are equally annoying, and the trend of groups on Facebook exploiting this "Like if you're against animal abuse"< DIE, is obscene, but that doesn't make the opposite any better.

internet is a race of extremes, who can be more repulsive - wins.

 

[Thyunda]

I care about pretty much every tragedy that happens, and if there was something I could do to stop it, I genuinely would. But I can't. So I won't. And no, I won't post on Facebook 'RIP those angels who died in Connecticut'. It wouldn't help anybody, and I don't care if people think I care or not. I care about all the pointless wars in the Middle East and the barbarism in Africa, and I care more than anything about the fact that despite the shootings, America still has legal civilian firearms. That enrages me.

As if people need firearms to commit mass murder.

You know firearms have been used for self defense.

People don't need firearms to commit mass murder, but it certainly helps. You can run away from a knife. You can't outrun a bullet.

Do you know what else has been used for self defence? A warship. What is a warship for? It's for sinking other warships. We don't sell civilian warships because, aside from the sheer logistical nightmare of it, nobody needs warships. So, if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns. There is no justification for possessing them. At all.

Did you know, Father Time, that in the United Kingdom, guns are not legal? And did you also know, that in the United Kingdom, people still dare to go outside. And did you know that they don't get ambushed and stabbed because they don't have a gun?

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

frankly... half of your posts seems to be around your own moral superiority.....

you call it moral supirority..I call it calling out dickish behaviour

maybe you misunderstood me, but you just called your own posts "dickish behaviuor"....

Either you're trying to be snide in a manner that I cannot fathom or you need to re-read what she said there, champ...

 

[hazabaza1]

Sure, but it's your right to say it.

I guess but it would still make me seem like a real ass...especially if in an inapropriate context

When has that ever stopped people?
I agree that these "hurd de dur, life goes on, loldeadkids" guys are shit people, but saying that someone is being a **** has never stopped people, nor will it start stopping people, especially on the internet.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I care about pretty much every tragedy that happens, and if there was something I could do to stop it, I genuinely would. But I can't. So I won't. And no, I won't post on Facebook 'RIP those angels who died in Connecticut'. It wouldn't help anybody, and I don't care if people think I care or not. I care about all the pointless wars in the Middle East and the barbarism in Africa, and I care more than anything about the fact that despite the shootings, America still has legal civilian firearms. That enrages me.

As if people need firearms to commit mass murder.

You know firearms have been used for self defense.

People don't need firearms to commit mass murder, but it certainly helps. You can run away from a knife. You can't outrun a bullet.

Do you know what else has been used for self defence? A warship. What is a warship for? It's for sinking other warships. We don't sell civilian warships because, aside from the sheer logistical nightmare of it, nobody needs warships. So, if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns. There is no justification for possessing them. At all.

Did you know, Father Time, that in the United Kingdom, guns are not legal? And did you also know, that in the United Kingdom, people still dare to go outside. And did you know that they don't get ambushed and stabbed because they don't have a gun?

As a resident of the United Kingdom, I feel I must point out this depends very much on where in the United Kingdom you live. You do not, for example, go outside, on your own, after dark, in Manchester. Not if you value your money and/or your life.

I'm not saying I support gun policy in the US, but neither do I think just taking away the nasty guns will fix anywhere near as much as people like to think it would. The one common denominator of all violent crime is that it is committed by people. You take away their guns, they resort to knives, you take away their knives, thy resort to baseball bats with nails hammered through them, and so it goes on. I wouldn't even say that it's even that much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with another tool. While I'm sure it isn't pleasant to be shot anywhere, relatively few single gunshot wounds are actually fatal unless you're a trained marksman or you're using something that just off the fucking chain when it comes to stopping power. Besides, if you're scared/angry/unstable enough to take someone else's life, you'll quite happily use whatever tools are available to you. The mentality of a killer matters far more than what they have access to.

I'll also concede that at least in certain parts of the US there's a damn good reason for the right to bear arms. I live in one of the most rural parts of the UK, and I'm never going to be in any danger of waking up in the morning to find a bear, or a cougar, or a pack of wolves in my back yard. The scariest thing I'll ever probably encounter out here is an angry badger. That's something you're not taking into account when you use the UK as a comparison.

 

[Thyunda]

I care about pretty much every tragedy that happens, and if there was something I could do to stop it, I genuinely would. But I can't. So I won't. And no, I won't post on Facebook 'RIP those angels who died in Connecticut'. It wouldn't help anybody, and I don't care if people think I care or not. I care about all the pointless wars in the Middle East and the barbarism in Africa, and I care more than anything about the fact that despite the shootings, America still has legal civilian firearms. That enrages me.

As if people need firearms to commit mass murder.

You know firearms have been used for self defense.

People don't need firearms to commit mass murder, but it certainly helps. You can run away from a knife. You can't outrun a bullet.

Do you know what else has been used for self defence? A warship. What is a warship for? It's for sinking other warships. We don't sell civilian warships because, aside from the sheer logistical nightmare of it, nobody needs warships. So, if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns. There is no justification for possessing them. At all.

Did you know, Father Time, that in the United Kingdom, guns are not legal? And did you also know, that in the United Kingdom, people still dare to go outside. And did you know that they don't get ambushed and stabbed because they don't have a gun?

As a resident of the United Kingdom, I feel I must point out this depends very much on where in the United Kingdom you live. You do not, for example, go outside, on your own, after dark, in Manchester. Not if you value your money and/or your life.

I'm not saying I support gun policy in the US, but neither do I think just taking away the nasty guns will fix anywhere near as much as people like to think it would. The one common denominator of all violent crime is that it is committed by people. You take away their guns, they resort to knives, you take away their knives, thy resort to baseball bats with nails hammered through them, and so it goes on. I wouldn't even say that it's even that much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with another tool. While I'm sure it isn't pleasant to be shot anywhere, relatively few single gunshot wounds are actually fatal unless you're a trained marksman or you're using something that just off the fucking chain when it comes to stopping power. Besides, if you're scared/angry/unstable enough to take someone else's life, you'll quite happily use whatever tools are available to you. The mentality of a killer matters far more than what they have access to.

I'll also concede that at least in certain parts of the US there's a damn good reason for the right to bear arms. I live in one of the most rural parts of the UK, and I'm never going to be in any danger of waking up in the morning to find a bear, or a cougar, or a pack of wolves in my back yard. The scariest thing I'll ever probably encounter out here is an angry badger. That's something you're not taking into account when you use the UK as a comparison.

Their country folk should be permitted guns, god knows ours are. They're the only people who NEED them. What does an inner-city New Yorker need with a handgun? Nothing if nobody else has one.

And yeah - I'm from Stoke-on-Trent. Going outside alone in the dark here isn't too sensible either. Not as bad as say, Mosside, but still pretty stupid.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

on the same day there was attack in China. Im sure it has gotten quickly forgotten because "hey white kids dieing are more important right?". the difference is, the chinese guy didnt have acess to a gun, so he used a knife. result? 0 dead, 22 kids wounded.

free access to firearms make mass murder easy. it should not be made easy.

Wrong. Mass murder can be and has been committed without the need of firearms. The deadliest examples of mass killing in U.S. history have all been done with either

A) Knives (The 9/11 attacks were done with an assortment of blades. This attack led to the deaths of over 3,000 people.)
or
B) Explosives (Much more common, examples include the Oklahoma City Bombing (168 dead) and the Bath School disaster (45 dead)

Not to mention that there are other factors that effect these shootings than the availability of weapons, but I'm not gonna write 40 paragraphs about how mental health, childhood, prejudices, planning, financial situation or social behavior all play into this. To put it bluntly here, guns are nothing to be afraid of. There are ways to curb crime, banning a weapon doesn't work. Just ask England.

 

[Hagi]

Well seeing as you just wrote a massive rant on an internet forum, including a sentence in all-caps, I'd say you probably are over-reacting.

My stance is pretty simple, if these people can't bring up the effort for basic human empathy then I see no reason to expand any effort on them. If they feel the need to post about their not caring on internet forums, then by all means they should do so, I'll just focus my attention and replies on more interesting posts.

 

[Inuprince]

They are probably just doing it for the attention, probably pretty much the people with the same attitude, who go on forums and let their hatred be known for no reason. I never could understand those people. I mean I don't like everything, there are probably things I hate with a passion, but even as I type this, it's hard to try and give just one example, because I don't focus my life on things I hate. I never wasted my time going to a forum where they talk about a movie, band, game they love and I came strolling in telling how I hate it. Guess they just like wasting their free time.

 

[ThisGuyLikesNoTacos]

When people are used to hearing terrible news, another much bigger one simply can't make them give a damn. They are already expecting terrible things and have learned to accept them as a natural way of life. They will find anyone, unrelated to the event speaking about how horrifying it is, annoying.

Still, it would be nice to see people at the very least stay humble around these kinds of events. Is it really too much to ask? I mean, I can't say I'm that sorry for people I don't even know (especially when I could just act like it didn't even happen), but at least I'm not bitching about it at people who do care.

 

[Abomination]

Spoiler: -snip-

Spoiler: -Snip-

As if people need firearms to commit mass murder.
You know firearms have been used for self defense.

on the same day there was attack in China. Im sure it has gotten quickly forgotten because "hey white kids dieing are more important right?". the difference is, the chinese guy didnt have acess to a gun, so he used a knife. result? 0 dead, 22 kids wounded.

free access to firearms make mass murder easy. it should not be made easy.

Mass murder can and has been committed in America with explosives and non-guns.

You want to talk about one knifing where no one died I can point to a lot of them where have died, and instance of people using a gun to stop an attack.

But like I said this is assuming they couldn't just get guns from the black market.

the point is about making mass murder hard, not about "one guy managed to do it so its impossible to prevent"

And yet your whole post rests on 'one guy managed to not kill anyone therefore it's impossible to kill a bunch of people with knives'.

And explosives aren't impossible to make. Guns are easier but if you take away their access to guns (big IF since black markets etc.) they may just stick to explosives.

In this particular case the shooter wouldn't have been able to just take his mother's guns that she had for whatever ineffective reason and go murder teachers and children.

Explosives are not as easy to make as Hollywood or Breaking Bad would have you believe, especially those with sufficient yield to level buildings. It is far easier to acquire a gun in the States than it is explosives, I also imagine a 'killer' feels a lot more satisfaction with watching direct consequence of his own directed actions via a gunshot against an individual than the more passive effect and less-reactionary-capable method of bomb placement.

Gun are easier to use than explosives so killers use guns. You take away guns, they may turn to explosives even though they're harder to use. There are probably instructions to make them on the internet (those instructions are covered under the first).

Spoiler: -snip-

The Black Market guns argument holds no water - other developed nations have essentially only black market guns to turn to for crime and the statistics are a literal fraction of those in the United States.

Correlation is not causation, and gun control isn't the only thing in the world that can effect the crime rate.

The U.S. crime rate has been dropping for years now despite there being looser and looser gun control.

And I'm pretty sure sharing a border with Mexico would make the gun black market be much bigger in the U.S.

I am not seeing any argument that more strict gun control laws wouldn't at least REDUCE the number of gun related crimes in the United States. So far we have seen that explosives are far more difficult to effectively implement than guns, that non-gun related weapons have a far lesser fatality rate and that nations where criminals only have access to Black Market firearms there is only a fraction of the amount of gun related crime per capita.

It is a delusional stance to believe that reducing the number of guns in circulation wouldn't reduce the amount of violent crime and/or the severity of said violent crime. Access to firearms has removed many disincentives for murderers, it pushes the chance of success far higher than if they did not have access to firearms.

People wanting or needing firearms to feel safe is a failure in the standard of living in a nation, and in the United States it is pointlessly self-perpetuating. People "need" guns to protect themselves because other people have guns because they're allowed to have guns.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

geez Vault101, you're being a self rightious, passive agressive twat!

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking.

Personally, I don't care because 1) I'm a terrible person and honestly find it hilarious, 2) because in the grand scheme of things, 28 dead is nothing, and 3) you only see this kind of press coverage when it's a bunch of white people in a well-to-do area (most of the time).

If someone actually cares about people dying, good for them. Seriously. Empathy is a good quality to have. But to pick and choose what you're going to be vocally empathic about, and to choose something that's relatively insignificant, well...that's hardly admirable.

I'm sorry, but you are a horrible person for finding it hilarious. You don't have to care, but finding it funny? Where do you fucking get off?

 

[Abomination]

Spoiler: -snip-

Spoiler: -snip-

Spoiler: -Snip-

As if people need firearms to commit mass murder.
You know firearms have been used for self defense.

on the same day there was attack in China. Im sure it has gotten quickly forgotten because "hey white kids dieing are more important right?". the difference is, the chinese guy didnt have acess to a gun, so he used a knife. result? 0 dead, 22 kids wounded.

free access to firearms make mass murder easy. it should not be made easy.

Mass murder can and has been committed in America with explosives and non-guns.

You want to talk about one knifing where no one died I can point to a lot of them where have died, and instance of people using a gun to stop an attack.

But like I said this is assuming they couldn't just get guns from the black market.

the point is about making mass murder hard, not about "one guy managed to do it so its impossible to prevent"

And yet your whole post rests on 'one guy managed to not kill anyone therefore it's impossible to kill a bunch of people with knives'.

And explosives aren't impossible to make. Guns are easier but if you take away their access to guns (big IF since black markets etc.) they may just stick to explosives.

In this particular case the shooter wouldn't have been able to just take his mother's guns that she had for whatever ineffective reason and go murder teachers and children.

Explosives are not as easy to make as Hollywood or Breaking Bad would have you believe, especially those with sufficient yield to level buildings. It is far easier to acquire a gun in the States than it is explosives, I also imagine a 'killer' feels a lot more satisfaction with watching direct consequence of his own directed actions via a gunshot against an individual than the more passive effect and less-reactionary-capable method of bomb placement.

Gun are easier to use than explosives so killers use guns. You take away guns, they may turn to explosives even though they're harder to use. There are probably instructions to make them on the internet (those instructions are covered under the first).

Spoiler: -snip-

The Black Market guns argument holds no water - other developed nations have essentially only black market guns to turn to for crime and the statistics are a literal fraction of those in the United States.

Correlation is not causation, and gun control isn't the only thing in the world that can effect the crime rate.

The U.S. crime rate has been dropping for years now despite there being looser and looser gun control.

And I'm pretty sure sharing a border with Mexico would make the gun black market be much bigger in the U.S.

I am not seeing any argument that more strict gun control laws wouldn't at least REDUCE the number of gun related crimes in the United States. So far we have seen that explosives are far more difficult to effectively implement than guns, that non-gun related weapons have a far lesser fatality rate and that nations where criminals only have access to Black Market firearms there is only a fraction of the amount of gun related crime per capita.

All you have is a correlation. You need to prove gun control causes these things, not just guess.

edit: and what makes you act like you've proven that guns have less fatalities than everything else. The Oklahoma city bombing and the bath school massacre used explosives and had way higher body counts.

Prove? The incredible statistical anomaly between the United States and other developed nations when the one constant difference between the nations is the gun control laws can not be brushed off as circumstance.

As for bombings, consider frequency in your argument. There are far more mass-shootings or shootings in general and the body count is far, far higher than deaths by malicious explosives.

Spoiler: snip

It is a delusional stance to believe that reducing the number of guns in circulation wouldn't reduce the amount of violent crime and/or the severity of said violent crime.

Criminals will have better access to the black market than most citizens.

There is no sudden "Black Market: Access Granted" popup for malcontents. There is also no sudden instant cash reserves to purchase suddenly more expensive firearms for malcontents either.

A significant portion of mass-shootings have been performed by law-abiding citizens up to the point they starting using their legally obtained or easily accessed firearms against other people.

Spoiler: -snip

People wanting or needing firearms to feel safe is a failure in the standard of living in a nation, and in the United States it is pointlessly self-perpetuating. People "need" guns to protect themselves because other people have guns because they're allowed to have guns.

People who aren't allowed to have guns still get guns and sometimes you need to protect yourself against someone with a knife, or hell just someone way more tougher than you because you're in a wheelchair or just weak in general.

The first step to reducing the number of people who shouldn't have guns getting guns is to reduce the number of guns outright. A sane nation should introduce as many barriers as possible to preventing civilians from acquiring firearms, it is an incredible failure of a nation if they feel the need to have one to stay safe. Criminals are simply civilians who have broken the law, every criminal is a civilian and they only become a criminal once they have committed a crime - a point in time when they will already have a gun on account of being a civilian.