Shooting at small town elementry school in Conneticut

[Captain Seafort]

Self preservation is a lot easier for me if my house is the one that people know better then to break into.

I'd rather be a few steps ahead of the game and have the cops doing their jobs properly.

I'll admit I'm not even a little sure what a pillock is, maybe the British version of nigger or such.

Roughly translates as "idiot".

As to being John McClane, I don't recall ever saying it was the plan to race up against as many people as I could find as start out a gun fight.

If you're getting burgled and decide to confront said burglars with a firearm, that counts as such in my book.

[Deepcrush]

I'd rather be a few steps ahead of the game and have the cops doing their jobs properly.

Being unable or unwilling to defend yourself isn't being ahead of the game. As to the cops doing their job properly, even with perfect response time here, you are still on your own for up to ten minutes. Having a defense while getting out of the house is always better then having no defense while getting out of the house.

To be fair, my experience with how problems work in larger cities/urban areas is limited. But from a rural stand point, when the police could be up to an hour away. Hoping that the people breaking in aren't looking to commit a crime just doesn't work.

Roughly translates as "idiot".

Close enough to the same thing. The terms are exchangeable here.

If you're getting burgled and decide to confront said burglars with a firearm, that counts as such in my book.

This however is subjective to the area and persons and populations involved. If the area is a warehouse or store that are empty the it would be. On the reverse, if the area is a home with persons unable to escape for any reason. Then the idea that only criminals should be armed and able to defend themselves just doesn't work.

[McAvoy]

Just two notes:

Westboro Baptist Church are fucktards.

As for as banning guns one only has to look up the stats on Australia and see what happens when you ban guns.

[Deepcrush]

Westboro Baptist Church are fucktards.

Amen

As for as banning guns one only has to look up the stats on Australia and see what happens when you ban guns.

You mean how everyone still carries?

[stitch626]

Westboro Baptist Church are fucktards.

Yeah...

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Just two notes:

Westboro Baptist Church are fucktards.

Do NOT fucking tell me those assholes are planning on marching at the funeral.

[Deepcrush]

Well I won't tell you that they have already planned that. But I will tell you that they are already "giving thanks" for the shooting.

[Teaos]

What rational are they using this time?

[Reliant121]

They claim the killings are "God's punishment" for the growing liberalization of many states toward the LGBT community.

All I can suggest is that numbers speak volumes in the gun control debate. The only numbers I can find that list a variety of different countries is a 2002 survey done by the UN and posted on another website (I can link of needed). 9,000 people in the entirety of the US dead by firearms, less than 500 or so throughout all of Europe. 1/18th of the scale; there has to be a reason for that. The argument I'm hearing is "I have my gun so I can defend my home". Around here, burglaries are so statistically unlikely that you'd be one among thousands who happened to be unlucky; the proportion of violent crime that occurs during a burglary is even less. I am asking out of genuine curiosity because I still can't get me head round it; is armed burglary, and therefore armed confrontation, really common place in the US?

[Vic]

It is a cultural difference, we do not have the trust of gov that Europeans, and Canadians for that matter, do. Government paternalism is , generally, frowned upon here. Not so in Europe, or so it seems to us across the pond. Does this help?

[Tsukiyumi]

Vic - in fact, we have a healthy distrust of our government built in at the ground floor in this country.

is armed burglary, and therefore armed confrontation, really common place in the US?

Yes.

We need more police spread out, but instead, the ones we have are concentrated in certain areas. They don't even go into high-crime areas unless dispatched.

Also, home invasions aren't always burglaries. A lot of times, they break in with the intent to rape, assault or murder people.

Here's a 'good' example. These people are not interested in taking your dvd player and leaving. Good luck hiding in the bathroom.

[Praeothmin]

Quick question here:
How many gunnings in the last ten years in the US were perpetrated using those objects?
Was Columbine?
Were the Dark Knight movie house killings?
Was this one?

You asked a very poorly worded (or stupid if wording was intentional) question. No "gunnings" we done with such objects because you can't use explosives to gun people down.


The better question would be how many significant crimes have been committed using such objects. Don't know the answer to that one, though we did have 2 pretty significant ones in the 90s.

Ok, poorly worded question, I'll give you that...
Of the mass killings in the US in the last 10 years, how many were done by firearms, legally owned at that?
I'm not saying "ban all the fuckers", but a better control about what type of weapons you can own would help...
Imagine the guy having only one 6 shot revolver, instead of a couple of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons...
Ok, you want the right to protect yourself from armed robbers...
Why would anyone need more than a 6 shot?
Why would anyone need a Bushmaster .223 Semi-Auto rifle?
The second you shoot at the guy, I doubt many will stay to engage in a firefight with an armed homeowner...

Here is a list of all the mass shootings since Columbine in the US...
I'm pretty not many were done using only a six-shooter...
Control over semi or fully automatic guns and rifles would have helped alleviate the death toll on many of those incidents, don't you think?

So using this a your basis for gun control laws is like crafting your traffic laws around super cars.

Cars are highly regulated, specifically because they can be so dangerous...
A shitload of laws regulate them because of this...
But their primary purpose is transport, and most deaths are accidental, and do not result in someone actively trying to kill another person using the car as a weapon...
When was the last time someone voluntarily killed 22 people with a car in the last 10 years?
Guns, on the other hand, have one purpose: to seriously injure, if not kill outright...

What about knives?
Yes, knives are dangerous as well, but you see a knife wielding maniac to at you, if you have a baseball bat, a chair, anything with range, you have a chance to defend your self, or even to simply run away...
Which won't help you much when dealing with someone armed with an automatic gun...
The range issue becomes the main death dealing factor...
The man in China killed 1 child, not 23, because most of his victims survived the wounds...
A knife attacker can attack at most a couple of targets at once, not open a door and spray a room with led like a gunman wielding an automatic weapon can...

As for Coloumbine and the Dark Knight guy, both of those actually included IEDs. In the case of Columbine they were too low tech to work and the DK guy didn't bring them with him just leaving them at his house.

In both incidents, what caused the most deaths?

I don't really agree with Seafort on the hiding solution if only because most house break-ins where the occupants were clearly there resulted in severe beatings, and some times deaths, because the assholes breaking in are intent on taking everything, and don't care that they hurt you to do it...
Hearing the cocking of a weapon, or the warning of an armed person inside the house, might be enough of a deterrent, and if not, then shooting them surely will...

Again, I'm not for a ban, but for better control on the type and number of firearms one can own...

[Tyyr]

Around here, burglaries are so statistically unlikely that you'd be one among thousands who happened to be unlucky; the proportion of violent crime that occurs during a burglary is even less. I am asking out of genuine curiosity because I still can't get me head round it; is armed burglary, and therefore armed confrontation, really common place in the US?

Is your house burning down common place? Do you have insurance on it anyways? I value my family far more than my house. So if I'm going to insure my house against something as unlikely as a catostrophic fire wouldn't I also take steps against something as unlikely as armed burglary or worse? Besides, preparing before hand is easy, once it happens you're pretty much stuck with what's on hand. Of course, going by the numbers living in the UK you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime than I am living in the US.

All I can suggest is that numbers speak volumes in the gun control debate. The only numbers I can find that list a variety of different countries is a 2002 survey done by the UN and posted on another website (I can link of needed). 9,000 people in the entirety of the US dead by firearms, less than 500 or so throughout all of Europe. 1/18th of the scale; there has to be a reason for that.

I would like to see the link. Mostly I'd like to see what's being counted. I've seen more than a few gun death statistics that included suicides to just inflate the numbers. However that's focused on just gun deaths. For kicks, lets look at something a bit more telling the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people as compiled by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In 2012 the intentional homicide rate of Europe was 3.5 and the US was 4.2. So go 'MURICA! We win, we win! Seriously though, inspite of pretty much outlawing firearms the good people of Europe still seem to be able to find ways to murder one another almost to the level we do here in the good old U.S. of A. But we still win, so ha!

But what the hell, lets look at a few European states that do allow gun ownership. Norway, where a few extremely high powered handguns and all automatic weapons are outlawed has as murder rate of 0.6. Switzerland where you're not only allowed to own an automatic weapon but required to by law has a rate of 0.7. Finland has a system not unlike what I've seen proposed by many in the gun control lobby but it's murder rate is 2.2. The UK were the enlightened people live has a murder rate of... hmm, that's odd, 1.2. Twice that of Norway and 70% higher than gun crazy Switzerland. Could it be that guns aren't the problem? Murderous assholes are?

Guns are a thing, a tool. They do not create murderers or crime. Even with access to firearms restricted people still find ways to kill one another. Gun control won't magically stop people from killing one another, it just changes how they go about it. There is no obvious correlation between gun ownership and intentional homicides given that we have countries with gun ownership roughly comparable to the US with vastly lower homicide rates than even countries where fire arms are outlawed and a country with universal gun ownership that has a lower homicide rate than most first world countries including the UK. So as far as I see it there is no real correlation between guns and homicides. So instead of just trying to pretend that guns are the root of all evil the questions that should be asked are why do some nations have such low homicide rates? What are they doing that we can copy? What can we learn from them? Instead of wasting time piling even more gun control laws on top of the ones we already have (which actually work spectacularly well since the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally acquired guns by people who never would be allowed to own them in the first place) the focus should be on addressing the underlying societal issues that result in elevated crime rates.

Control over semi or fully automatic guns and rifles would have helped alleviate the death toll on many of those incidents, don't you think?

No particularly. Since you can carry more than one gun at a time and speed loaders exist that allow you to quickly reload a revolver. Also, the current investigation would indicate that he didn't even use the AR-15 or the shotgun, it was done entirely with handguns.

Why would anyone need a Bushmaster .223 Semi-Auto rifle?

Do you know how many crimes are commited with rifles every year? Almost none. Do you know why? Ever tried to hide one? Use it in a car? For criminal purposes rifles of any kind are pointless. There's a reason the assault weapon ban didn't do shit to the crime rate in the US, criminals don't use assualt weapons. They're expensive as all hell, large, difficult to conceal, and way, way more gun than you need when committing a crime.

Cars are highly regulated, specifically because they can be so dangerous...

And you've missed the point entirely. This is not a case of me arguing, "Cars kill more people than guns..." and seriously, if you think cars are highly regulated from a purchasing or operating standpoint I can only assume you've never done anything but ride in the back seat of one. No, my point is that crafting any kind of laws off something like this shooting is pointless. It's so rare in the overall scope of crime that you're wasting valuable time and resources to deal with something that is a statistical anomaly. Besides, the problem in this case wasn't the guns, it was a completely unhinged person intent on killing as many people as he could. Instead of trying to mitigate the body count to just a couple dead kids we should instead be asking what we can do for people like that before they get to the point where they think that killing a bunch of 1st graders sounds like a great idea.

[Praeothmin]

Snip

Thanks, this was enlightening...
Although how many of these actual crimes happened against law-abiding citizens compared to say, gang/drug related violence?
How many of those deaths could have been prevented with stricter gun control?
You will notice that many countries with an average around or below 2, like Australia (1.0), China (1.0), Japan (0.4), Norway (0.6), the UK (1.2), Canada (1.6), Germany (0. 8), Italy (0.9) have strict gun ownership laws, with the exceptions of Switzerland...
It tends to show that, in the majority of the countries, having more restrictive gun laws do help...
And I agree, gun control won't magically stop people from killing each other, but it will make it more difficult, and will most certainly help lower the amount of mass killings like we've seen happen...
But will it stop them entirely?
Of course not, but it will help in reducing the number of casualties in those events...

And you've missed the point entirely. This is not a case of me arguing, "Cars kill more people than guns..." and seriously, if you think cars are highly regulated from a purchasing or operating standpoint I can only assume you've never done anything but ride in the back seat of one.

I did misunderstand your point, sorry...

Although, in the case of regulations, here, to own and drive a car, you MUST have a drivers licence...
Sure, you can buy one without a Driver's licence, but then you'll have to store the car somewhere since you won't be able to put a plate on it without a Driver's licence...
To obtain a Driver's licence, you MUST pass all your Drivers Ed classes, and comply with all physical requirements important for driving (like corrective lenses or glasses if you need them, which is written on your Driver's licence)...
We have a shitload of road rules and regulations we must follow, which we've learned about in our driving classes...
So yes, it is highly regulated, at least here...

No, my point is that crafting any kind of laws off something like this shooting is pointless. It's so rare in the overall scope of crime that you're wasting valuable time and resources to deal with something that is a statistical anomaly. Besides, the problem in this case wasn't the guns, it was a completely unhinged person intent on killing as many people as he could. Instead of trying to mitigate the body count to just a couple dead kids we should instead be asking what we can do for people like that before they get to the point where they think that killing a bunch of 1st graders sounds like a great idea.

I agree with the part about needed better mental health services, as I stated earlier...
But the problem is these killings happen, and happen most often with legally obtained weapons by people who had no prior criminal history...
People who, had they not had guns in their houses, would most likely not have known where to get one illegally, and thus might have simply killed themselves...
While that is also sad and tragic, one death is better than 23...

[stitch626]

And you've missed the point entirely. This is not a case of me arguing, "Cars kill more people than guns..." and seriously, if you think cars are highly regulated from a purchasing or operating standpoint I can only assume you've never done anything but ride in the back seat of one.

I did misunderstand your point, sorry...

Although, in the case of regulations, here, to own and drive a car, you MUST have a drivers licence...
Sure, you can buy one without a Driver's licence, but then you'll have to store the car somewhere since you won't be able to put a plate on it without a Driver's licence...
To obtain a Driver's licence, you MUST pass all your Drivers Ed classes, and comply with all physical requirements important for driving (like corrective lenses or glasses if you need them, which is written on your Driver's licence)...
We have a shitload of road rules and regulations we must follow, which we've learned about in our driving classes...
So yes, it is highly regulated, at least here...

Those are the rules here too (give or take a few snipits), yet it is still easy to get one while bypassing those laws. Just as easy as it is to drink, then drive, then kill someone (which IMO should be counted as a homicide).