What happens first, the last blood oozes out of the victims or the gun nuts shouting “NOW ISN’T THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL!” ?
Guns don’t kill children. Maniacs do…with guns…
And you’d be shocked and horrified at how lethal a muzzle-loader can be in the hands of someone who’s experienced in using one. No doubt you’d soon be calling for their ban as well.
And then we have bombs, crossbows, long bows, swords, and knives (the preferred weapon of Japanese men who go on spree killings) to worry about…
The problem isn’t a gun problem; it’s a violence problem. We’ll reduce it by learning what drives men (notice how it’s almost always MEN who engage in these sorts of killings, never women? Time for testicle control, perhaps?) to pick up a weapon and attack total strangers, and by learning how to more accurately predict who is likely to do this and intervene before they have the chance to go on their rampage.
Meanwhile, does anyone want to tell the survivors at that school that they didn’t need any guns around, since statistically it was so very unlikely they’d ever have need for one?
Knowing the odds are one in a million against something happening is no comfort if you happen to be that one millionth person. Crap like this is one reason why some people choose to legally carry. (Yes, I shop at Von Maur occasionally).
High powered? That’s a joke, isn’t it? Try shooting a bear of a moose with an AR-15.
Hunting rifles and shotguns that are common in Canada are more than powerful enough to kill people. Canadians aren’t less well-armed than Americans; they own long guns in similar numbers. tThey are, however, less violent.
Not really. Killing people actually isn’t that hard. Fortunately, most of us have no desire to do it. That, not restrictive laws, is what keeps us safe (usually).
I agree that this is more of a people problem than a gun problem. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to me to solve it by making sure more people have guns.
Yeah, he would have been able to strangle 20 kids just as easily as shoot them.
I always find this line of argumentation from gun lovers strange. They like to pretend that guns don’t make it easier to kill. So why does anyone need guns then?
Not whooshed. That info wasn’t in the NYT article. I’ll stand by my point, though: many of these spree killings (as opposed to the usual forms of gun violence in this country - gang killings, drug-associated killings, and domestic violence killings) involve long guns. And long guns aren’t what people are usually freaking out about.
And 35,000 deaths per year is the acceptable loss we’re comfy with so we can keep our cars. If people want perfect safety, we’re going to have to become a police state. I don’t think we want that.
Strangle them, no. Stab them, yes. Or bomb the school.
Strawman, nobody said anything about perfect safety.
Stab them just as easily as shoot them, really?
Dude must be a ninja.
You’re right. We should totally outlaw the sale of bombs.
If guns don’t make it easier to kill people, why do armed forces spend so much money buying them? Why not save money by issuing knives or bats?
For that matter, why do people purchase guns for self defense in their homes, when their kitchen is full of perfectly good knives?
Why don’t cops carry knives instead of guns?
Gun lovers struggle to understand the denominator problem when puzzling through this.
Let me try another way: how many cars being used have you seen today? How many guns being used have you seen today?
Get it yet?
Hentor’s post is implying it, by suggesting that the only acceptable level of death from guns is zero. Since we accept a non-zero death rate for pretty much every other activity and object in our society, why should firearms deaths be seen any differently?
(Frankly, I think if we want to reduce these sorts of spree killings we need to make it a lot easier to commit people to a mental institution against their will. In retrospect most of these perpetrators turn out to have a history that shows them to be non-too-stable before their attacks. But that approach opens up another big can of worms. We liberalized our commitment laws for a reason.)
It’s a little too soon to be “Colberting” a story like this, don’t you think? I’m sure reasonable gun rights advocates won’t be using silly arguments like that.
Maybe we can find a compromise between “zero” and “a number that includes 18 elementary school children sitting in their classroom.”
You need to learn the difference between imply and infer.
I didnt see on the news that the shooter had a CCW permit. Did I miss that part?
I think he shot the victims. I don’t think he bludgoened them with a permit.
I didn’t see on the news what his hair color was. Can we now assume he was bald?