MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead

[SmoothieX]

^So by that token, we should also ban Bud and Chevy because a drunk driver t-boned another car and killed someone? Perhaps we should also take knives out of the kitchen since someone got stabbed to death.

[siskokid888]

^20 dead children

[Finn]

^ "20 dead children" isn't an argument. It's more of a remark. If you want to make an argument for a gun ban, write more than "20 dead children".

[Rhaven]

This whole situation is just so sad. My heart goes out to all the families.

[JarodRussell]

Finngle Bells wrote:

---

^ "20 dead children" isn't an argument. It's more of a remark. If you want to make an argument for a gun ban, write more than "20 dead children".

20 children killed with guns/weapons that should never make it into the hands of civilians.

SmoothieX wrote:

---

^So by that token, we should also ban Bud and Chevy because a drunk driver t-boned another car and killed someone? Perhaps we should also take knives out of the kitchen since someone got stabbed to death.

What reason to own a gun is like "having to drive to work/transport things" or "having to cut my food"?
And what reason is to own more than one gun, and even rifles, automatic weapons, and tons of ammunition?
A gun isn't a tool, it's a weapon with the sole purpose to harm and to kill. It has no place amongst civilians.

[SmoothieX]

Just as legal to own, just as irresponsible to abuse.

[Tora Ziyal]

^ Yes. (Oops, I meant JarodRussell's post.)

And to those who keep making poor analogies about getting rid of all cars, knives, etc. because they kill people: Yes, they do kill people, but they also all have an intended purpose other than killing. Any killing that occurs with them is either misuse or accidental. Guns have only one purpose, killing.

[teya]

^ The sole purpose of a gun is not just to kill people. Farmers use them to kill the predators that attack their livestock. Hunters use them to kill deer in areas that have no natural predators. Ever seen a deer herd starving to death?

Now, assault weapons have no purpose other than to kill people--and lots of them, quickly. There is no need for any civilian to own one. None.

And I would like to see stricter regulation of who gets to go hunting in this country. It gets tiresome wearing blaze orange simply to walk from your house to your car during hunting season. There are too many idiots drunk on testosterone out in the woods blasting away at anything that moves.

[JarodRussell]

teya wrote:

---

^ The sole purpose of a gun is not just to kill people. Farmers use them to kill the predators that attack their livestock. Hunters use them to kill deer in areas that have no natural predators. Ever seen a deer herd starving to death?

Are you a farmer or a hunter?

[teya]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Are you a farmer or a hunter?

Was. I moved to the city

Will be again in a few years.

ETA: And I worked in 3 rural hospitals that saw the yearly carnage of damn fools in the woods shooting each other & themselves.

[JarodRussell]

teya wrote:

---

Was. I moved to the city

Will be again in a few years.

So in the meantime, do you need to kill any predators or deer?

[teya]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

So in the meantime, do you need to kill any predators or deer?

No. And I don't own any guns in the city.

Any other questions?

ETA: Fascinating how you totally ignored the parts of my post calling for increased regulation of hunters & a ban on assault weapons.

[gturner]

MacLeod wrote:

---

A better comparrison is homicides using a gun per capita.

And whilst it is true that the US doesn't have the highest homicide (using a gun) rate per capitia in the world, it has the highest rate per capitia amongest the develeoped world.

So if we use one of the stats posted above about gun deaths. UK 8, US 10 728 now as the UK population is roughly a fifth of the US comparring them directly is meaningless you have to muliple or divide one by 5 to get a more accurate comparrison accounting for population. So that would be around 40 vs 10 728 when population is factored in.

The UK has very tight guns laws, the US doesn't. Conclusion tight gun laws lead to few homicides by guns.

Before the UK had tight gun laws, or really any gun laws, their gun homocide rate was lower, hitting zero one year. Their rate of violent assault is about four times higher than the US. Most of Europe, such as Austria, Sweden, Belgium, and France, also have higher violent assault rates than the US.

[JarodRussell]

teya wrote:

---

ETA: Fascinating how you totally ignored the parts of my post calling for increased regulation of hunters & a ban on assault weapons.

Do you mean the ETA part that you added after I quoted your post?

gturner wrote:

---

Before the UK had tight gun laws, or really any gun laws, their gun homocide rate was lower, hitting zero one year. Their rate of violent assault is about four times higher than the US. Most of Europe, such as Austria, Sweden, Belgium, and France, also have higher violent assault rates than the US.

That screams for a source.

[gturner]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

The UK came in at 2,O34 violent crimes per hundred thousand people.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-
social behaviour