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

[Abomination]

It is not the only constant difference. Our justice systems and the way we treat criminals differ. What rights we have spelt out is different. You cannot treat those other countries as a control in a 'does gun control work' experiment, because they have lots of other differences between them.

The way criminals are treated has no baring on first time offenders who go on shooting sprees. The different 'rights' in the US are not even half as different as other nations, beyond issues such as sexuality. The laws of nations that directly impact upon firearm availability are collectively united in their difference to the Untied States.

It's easier to use a gun than explosives so of course more people will use guns. Once you make guns harder to get they'll switch to explosives. Saying less people die from explosives when they're used less often is meaningless.

Better they use explosives which are far more difficult to acquire, far less likely to be used with the same frequency, require far longer to prepare and are far more difficult to use effectively than the readily available firearm. There would be considerable reductions in lethal crime and the body count.

People have cash reserves, and people who already know other criminals/have connections probably won't take long to find someone selling them. It won't be instantaneous but you can't act like it will never happen.

Of course it WILL happen but nowhere near the sheer frequency and incredible availability (compared to other nations) as the United States has presently.

It's a simple case of supply and demand, the supply is decreased, the price increases and the amount of people who can afford the firearms decreases.

Would you kindly stop being so smug about it. People disagree with you, it doesn't make them insane.

Considering how most of the civilized world looks at US gun culture and can see the obvious potential ramifications of a constantly armed population it hard to view the United States as anything other than crazy.

So you're saying that anyone who commits a crime already has a gun? Sure.

Of course not, don't be absurd. The issue is that realizing if someone is a criminal or not is determined by them actually committing a crime. The availability of firearms does the exact opposite of helping reduce the amount of violent crime. It makes crazy people that much more dangerous, it almost makes it a requirement for -everyone- to be armed in order to protect themselves just to "level the playing field". Ease of access to guns allows potential aggressive malcontents to realize their desires in a far more destructive manner than they would otherwise had available.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

If it's a tragedy that can be prevented, but isn't though various reasons like LACK OF GUN CONTROL then it doesnt hit me as hard.

You know people have killed lots of other people in America without guns.

The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 and if you want to limit it to just schools one guy killed around 50 people with explosives decades ago.


Edit: and if there was a ban on guns there'd be a black market on guns too so who knows if this particular tragedy would've been avoided.

Oh wow thankyou, I didnt know objects other than guns could ever harm people. /sarcasm

The point is that even with a total absence of guns (which probably won't happen with a gun ban), there will still be massacres. They may even be just as deadly.

It's a little more difficult to build a bomb rather than go to the store and buy an assault rifle. Bombs also take planning.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm all for people caught being "edgy in not caring about tragedy" being brutally assaulted by a cardboard tube every time they bring it up. Catharsis and just desserts for being an unempathetic tool, and no one really gets hurt!

 

[nexus]

We don't need apathy, but that is actually a normal reaction given the size of the human population.

A tragedy happened miles and miles away, and the only effect it will have on the population is law & order. We're going to start turning schools into a United States prison system. I watched the news this evening (a rare event for me) and they had a school representative using terms like, putting schools in "lockdown".

It doesn't really bother me when people say they "don't care so much". As long as they're not dicks about it. On the other hand, it does bother me when people overreact and get "emotional". I'm talking specifically not of the victims, but basically the "Facebook crowd". Feigning empathy because in reality they completely lack it.

Also, people are easily manipulated when emotional or irrational. 9/11, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT anyone? Really just the irrational "Drone Crowd" seeking out "Non-Drones" to piss all over anyone that's not "irrational". "You're not supposed to be rational in a time like this! How dare you!?"

 

[Ryotknife]

If it's a tragedy that can be prevented, but isn't though various reasons like LACK OF GUN CONTROL then it doesnt hit me as hard.

You know people have killed lots of other people in America without guns.

The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 and if you want to limit it to just schools one guy killed around 50 people with explosives decades ago.


Edit: and if there was a ban on guns there'd be a black market on guns too so who knows if this particular tragedy would've been avoided.

Oh wow thankyou, I didnt know objects other than guns could ever harm people. /sarcasm

The point is that even with a total absence of guns (which probably won't happen with a gun ban), there will still be massacres. They may even be just as deadly.

It's a little more difficult to build a bomb rather than go to the store and buy an assault rifle. Bombs also take planning.

actually its easier to make a bomb than get an assault rifle specifically. I am assuming you mean rifles and shotguns.

Even then depending on the state, it might be easier to make a bomb than to get a rifle or shotgun.

or are you talking about "assault weapons" which is...pretty much anything semi-automatic.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

If it's a tragedy that can be prevented, but isn't though various reasons like LACK OF GUN CONTROL then it doesnt hit me as hard.

You know people have killed lots of other people in America without guns.

The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 and if you want to limit it to just schools one guy killed around 50 people with explosives decades ago.


Edit: and if there was a ban on guns there'd be a black market on guns too so who knows if this particular tragedy would've been avoided.

Oh wow thankyou, I didnt know objects other than guns could ever harm people. /sarcasm

The point is that even with a total absence of guns (which probably won't happen with a gun ban), there will still be massacres. They may even be just as deadly.

It's a little more difficult to build a bomb rather than go to the store and buy an assault rifle. Bombs also take planning.

actually its easier to make a bomb than get an assault rifle specifically. I am assuming you mean rifles and shotguns.

Even then depending on the state, it might be easier to make a bomb than to get a rifle or shotgun.

or are you talking about "assault weapons" which is...pretty much anything semi-automatic.

You have to learn how to make a bomb and a timer and sneak it in somewhere to set it so that it wont be found but still cause lots of casualties.
You don't need to know much about guns besides pointing it a things you want to die. And you can still simply buy them. And the guy who did the theatre shooting had more than one automatic weapon on him.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

If it's a tragedy that can be prevented, but isn't though various reasons like LACK OF GUN CONTROL then it doesnt hit me as hard.

You know people have killed lots of other people in America without guns.

The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 and if you want to limit it to just schools one guy killed around 50 people with explosives decades ago.


Edit: and if there was a ban on guns there'd be a black market on guns too so who knows if this particular tragedy would've been avoided.

Oh wow thankyou, I didnt know objects other than guns could ever harm people. /sarcasm

The point is that even with a total absence of guns (which probably won't happen with a gun ban), there will still be massacres. They may even be just as deadly.

It's a little more difficult to build a bomb rather than go to the store and buy an assault rifle. Bombs also take planning.

And sometimes people plan their massacres.

Columbine, the theater massacre, this shooting were all planned to some degree. They were not spur of the moment.

Gun rampages take less planning than bombings.

 

[Abomination]

Not all people who go on shooting sprees are first time offenders. The way we treat mental health, and education is vastly different here. Our cultures are also different. You have to actively prove this difference in crime is caused by gun control you can't just say "there's a difference and I can't think of any other explanation therefore it's gun control"

Yet the majority of those who have gone on shooting sprees were first time offenders. Again actively prove it how? The sheer number of firearms in circulation in the United States dwarves that of other nations. The collation between the number of guns, gun owners and violent gun crime is not just circumstantial. Mentally walk through how one could perform gun crime in the United States compared to other nations. The lack of barriers in regard to firearms by comparison is staggering.

Considering that the deadliest school killing spree used explosives... I don't know about that. You know step by step instructions on how to make explosives are covered by the first.

And preparing said explosives takes far more time, picking up a gun and shooting someone takes far less time. The frequency of gun related violence to explosive device violence in the United States is incredibly slanted towards firearms. One hopes the objective of the nation is to reduce the absurd frequency of public violence and shootings, introducing more barriers to troubled individuals having access to firearms is the most logical step.

And then they make/smuggle more guns so the price decreases. It's still a problem that most guns are in the hands of criminals either way.

You make it sound like a simple procedure. The price does anything but decrease in such a scenario as the risks and costs of importing illegal firearms is incredibly restrictive.

Again crazy is not simply "does something differently then you". Nor is it "deviating from what's popular in other countries".

It is not about being different, it is about the clear ramifications of an always armed civilian population. The negatives far, far outweigh the benefits.

How many more schools or movie theatres need to be ground zero of a massacre caused by a disturbed individual wielding easily and legally obtained firearms before the nation admits to itself how crazy that situation is?

 

[Ryotknife]

If it's a tragedy that can be prevented, but isn't though various reasons like LACK OF GUN CONTROL then it doesnt hit me as hard.

You know people have killed lots of other people in America without guns.

The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 and if you want to limit it to just schools one guy killed around 50 people with explosives decades ago.


Edit: and if there was a ban on guns there'd be a black market on guns too so who knows if this particular tragedy would've been avoided.

Oh wow thankyou, I didnt know objects other than guns could ever harm people. /sarcasm

The point is that even with a total absence of guns (which probably won't happen with a gun ban), there will still be massacres. They may even be just as deadly.

It's a little more difficult to build a bomb rather than go to the store and buy an assault rifle. Bombs also take planning.

actually its easier to make a bomb than get an assault rifle specifically. I am assuming you mean rifles and shotguns.

Even then depending on the state, it might be easier to make a bomb than to get a rifle or shotgun.

or are you talking about "assault weapons" which is...pretty much anything semi-automatic.

You have to learn how to make a bomb and a timer and sneak it in somewhere to set it so that it wont be found but still cause lots of casualties.
You don't need to know much about guns besides pointing it a things you want to die. And you can still simply buy them. And the guy who did the theatre shooting had more than one automatic weapon on him.

the guy in the theater shooting also made a bomb.....

you are kinda negating your point. Not to mention the theater shooting was planned down to the last detail. Even Columbine was planned.

 

[Strazdas]

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...

you are correct, i have misread the post he made. my mistake.

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)

and you completely fail at reading, twice.

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

its funny, how mexico black market consists mostly of guns imported from USA.

Hunting, sport (target shooting is actually in the Olympics), recreation, self defense against people who do not have guns etc.

Hunting should not exist with an exception of hunting for your own food. Sport weapons remain in weapon range. Recreation? how do you recreat with guns? rape at gunpoint?

Doesn't work that way. There will still be guns only now criminals are more likely to have them because they have better access to the black market and don't care about breaking the law.

acess to black market does not increase. it remains the same, it jut gets used more. the fraction of population thathas such acess is very low. if it is not, then your country is doomed to be mexico 2 regardless, good journey and good night.

And then they make/smuggle more guns so the price decreases. It's still a problem that most guns are in the hands of criminals either way.

smuggle from where? US is the SOURCE for majority of middle america countries black market.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

If it's a tragedy that can be prevented, but isn't though various reasons like LACK OF GUN CONTROL then it doesnt hit me as hard.

You know people have killed lots of other people in America without guns.

The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 and if you want to limit it to just schools one guy killed around 50 people with explosives decades ago.


Edit: and if there was a ban on guns there'd be a black market on guns too so who knows if this particular tragedy would've been avoided.

Oh wow thankyou, I didnt know objects other than guns could ever harm people. /sarcasm

The point is that even with a total absence of guns (which probably won't happen with a gun ban), there will still be massacres. They may even be just as deadly.

It's a little more difficult to build a bomb rather than go to the store and buy an assault rifle. Bombs also take planning.

actually its easier to make a bomb than get an assault rifle specifically. I am assuming you mean rifles and shotguns.

Even then depending on the state, it might be easier to make a bomb than to get a rifle or shotgun.

or are you talking about "assault weapons" which is...pretty much anything semi-automatic.

You have to learn how to make a bomb and a timer and sneak it in somewhere to set it so that it wont be found but still cause lots of casualties.
You don't need to know much about guns besides pointing it a things you want to die. And you can still simply buy them. And the guy who did the theatre shooting had more than one automatic weapon on him.

the guy in the theater shooting also made a bomb.....

you are kinda negating your point. Not to mention the theater shooting was planned down to the last detail. Even Columbine was planned.

The Aurora shooter had the bomb in his apartment.

Yeah I know they were planned, but it would have been waaaaay more difficult if he did have drum magazines on his bloody assault rifles.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Well, I guess you mark mark me down as one of those guys. But I'm not going into this with a flame shield because this is how I feel about it:

Tragedies happen everyday, even some truly psychotic ones that don't get on the news, like a man eating his girlfriend's face and raping the body as a hypothetical example. Do I care? No. Why? Because if I started getting emotionally invested and care and what not about every little tragedy that happened in the world, I'd be more of a mess than I already am. Some people can manage that without going and hanging themselves in a closet, and all the power to them. But me? I'm a guy driven to heavy alcoholism and the point of suicide from a girl who was obviously bad for me cheating on me once more.

Maybe people will see me as an asshole because I don't show my support, because sometimes I laugh at the jokes made hours or even minutes after it happened. In the end, some people are so fragile, so weak willed from things happening in their life, something which seems so pitiful and shit from a larger perspective, that they need to laugh and come off as a cynical jerk. I'm not saying that there aren't people who do it to be assholes, there definitely are. But in my case, and a few others, if I didn't laugh at tragedies, and keep making jokes about the bad things over the 20 years I've been alive, I probably wouldn't be here talking to you right now.

 

[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.

Who actually wants a warship that can afford one? This is such a stupid comparison.

So, if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns. There is no justification for possessing them. At all.

Hunting, sport (target shooting is actually in the Olympics), recreation, self defense against people who do not have guns etc.

And if you think gun bans will just eliminate all guns from existence in the U.S. you're living in denial. It didn't work for booze and weed, it's not working for ivory, it won't work for guns. Not to mention that if you do put in a gun ban you have to contend with all the people who own guns now.

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?

You really want to claim that nobody gets mugged in the U.K.?

1 - People who want to protect themselves from other warships.
2 - Hunting, sport, recreation = unnecessary. Self defence against people who don't have guns = Shooting people. So your argument is that Americans should be allowed to possess guns so that they can shoot people. And what constitutes self defence? OH NO, THIS MAN IS SHOUTING AT ME! I FEEL THREATENED! -bang-. For every legitimate protective shot, there's five people dead after a fight goes sour. People should not have that kind of control over each other. You're all so quick to cry 'playing god' on life support and abortion debates, yet you'll agree as a damn nation that it's okay to possess the means to end someone's life in an instant.
3- You're apparently not the most oiled pistol in the drawer, so let me clarify. The apparent belief in the United States is that the second you pass a law banning guns, a wave of criminals will just descend upon civilisation, and people will be too scared to leave their homes. As a UK citizen, I have never seen a gun. Oh wait. Yeah I have. The police in London carry submachine guns. London is the centre of gun crime in the UK, because yeah, you can't keep 100% of guns out. However, what this allows is police to react properly to a report of a gun. If guns are legal, someone claiming someone has a gun at home is not a serious report. When they're illegal, it means that the gun has to be removed.

London is the only place where police officers carry weapons. It's also got the highest gun crime rate in the country. People in Stoke-on-Trent don't carry guns. One guy bragged at me about his 9mm but I don't think he's quite telling the truth. Knife crime happens a lot here. Occasionally a teenager gets stabbed or an old person beaten to death - but there are no mass murders. You'll never hear about the Middleport Massacre or the Stoke Shootout.

The other argument is that "People who want guns will be able to get them."

Will they? If I wanted to get a gun right now, I wouldn't even know where to start. People seem convinced that the moment you commit a crime, a man in a hood shows up at your house and gives you the keys to the Black Market, some kind of ethereal dimension accessible only by hardened criminals. The people who have access to black market guns are not the sort of people who would waste time and ammo shooting children. Ban guns and the gun crime will be limited to gangland executions and fights, and maybe the odd armed robbery. Nothing a properly equipped police special squad couldn't handle.

 

[Strazdas]

Shooting inanimate objects. There are some places rural enough that this can done without the noise bothering your neighbors. And there's shooting ranges.

so shooting tin cans (example) is recreational? no, thats not enough to justify free ownership of weapons.

Not sure what you're trying to say. The black market would get bigger if you ban it. Now people with no criminal record will have to use the black market so it'll grow.

edit: and I thought U.S. wasn't the only one with loose gun control so maybe smuggle them out of there.

What im saying is that black market cant get bigger if you remove the supply that black market gets its guns from. sure they will find a way and wont disappear, but that certainly wont make it bigger. a person with no criminal record will now have criminal record for obtaining illegal gun he should not have. i see no problem with this.
US may not be the only country with loose gun control, but smuggling them from Russia to Africa and then to America is certainly going to be much harder than buying them from a local mall.