Oh, look! Another US mass shooting.

[ibanezmonster]

+ about 100 people in 2001-2012.

Looks like 20 people died in the two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, whereas the US should proportionally have 1256 deaths.
It's not that important of a stat, but I don't think the US is untouchable when it comes to school shootings. Statistically, Finland shouldn't have had any school shootings at all during that decade.

If it's purely a matter of population, China and, perhaps in a few decades, India, each with currently four times as many people as in the US, ought to be topping the charts or at least be giving some European countries a stiff competition. Each has enough poverty, sub-standard levels of living and authoritarian/extremely corrupt governments to drive anyone insane and go on a killing spree.

That's the big mystery to me.
With the given population of China, there should be mass stabbings almost every day. Do they not have people with schizophrenia over there (or in India)? I doubt many of them get medicine for it if they do. And how many of these acts of violence are reported in countries like these?

[North Star]

Looks like 20 people died in the two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, whereas the US should proportionally have 1256 deaths.
It's not that important of a stat, but I don't think the US is untouchable when it comes to school shootings. Statistically, Finland shouldn't have had any school shootings at all during that decade.

Yeah, but those are the only real school shootings in Finland, ever.

[Opus106]

That's the big mystery to me.
With the given population of China, there should be mass stabbings almost every day. Do they not have people with schizophrenia over there (or in India)? I doubt many of them get medicine for it if they do. And how many of these acts of violence are reported in countries like these?

The last I remember of an instance of shooting at school in the recent past, is from 2007. Two boys shot down a third after school hours.

[Karl Henning]

There should be gun ownership regulation, for sure - but I support that based on the behavior of the potential gun owner and not based on a type of gun denied to everyone.

. . . Has anyone on this thread made the case that sportsmen need semi-automatic weapons to pursue their hobby? I ask only for information.

Do I read you as expressing the opinion that there is no need to restrict assault rifles?

[ibanezmonster]

If it's purely a matter of population, China and, perhaps in a few decades, India, each with currently four times as many people as in the US, ought to be topping the charts or at least be giving some European countries a stiff competition. Each has enough poverty, sub-standard levels of living and authoritarian/extremely corrupt governments to drive anyone insane and go on a killing spree.

One thing I just realized: most of the major shootings you hear about in the US are done by people whose families have money. Money is required to afford the weapons and ammo for such massacres in the first place. If guns were legal in India and China, I have a feeling school massacres would still be relatively uncommon, due to the amount of poverty.

It seems like these rich families are more interested in making money and are detached from whatever mental illness their children are going through. I think these kids from rich families tend to be more disconnected from society in general, because often, they don't have to work, and it's easy to avoid being social at school. Then, their target becomes society in general (in the practical world, random people). Ghetto crime, or poverty crime, is different, because for one, they usually can't afford the massive amount of guns and ammo for massacres, and their targets tend to be specific.

So I think these may be two different styles of crime, depending on lifestyle due to money.

[Mirror Image]

There's more to it, certainly; I believe most of us on this thread acknowledge so.

But gun control is part of the problem, and an important part.  Acting as if it somehow is not, is criminal.

So let me understand something here, Karl, you're saying that if we have stricter gun laws, there will be less likely mass killings? My view is that guns are apart of the problem, but our society is to blame as well. The stupidity and general lack of concern of this kid's mother is quite appalling. Did she not know her son was mentally ill? Did she not know that leaving guns around the house is dangerous with a mentally disturbed individual? Again, a sociological issue that's not being discussed on this thread. The American society, in general, is a violent one. There's no rhyme or reason to these psychos' tirades. You give somebody who's at the end of their rope access to a gun, half of the faculty is taken out. You give the psycho a knife, they may kill five or six random people, but the end result is the same: innocent people died. We can skip and dance around this issue all we want. Only a select group of people should own guns: those who hunt, but guns can be used for protection against criminals or the clinically insane. I'm definitely against the ownership of military grade assault rifles. There's something about the American psyche that thinks the whole world is out to get them --- paranoia, fear, etc. these are things that permeate our society today.

[Opus106]

One thing I just realized: most of the major shootings you hear about in the US are done by people whose families have money. Money is required to afford the weapons and ammo for such massacres in the first place. If guns were legal in India and China, I have a feeling school massacres would still be relatively uncommon, due to the amount of poverty.

But the so-called middle class, by various estimates, outnumber the populations of the other countries you list by many times. The the two largest populations still aren't near the top... not yet, anyway.

[Opus106]

If someone can own a shotgun and use it responsibly, why can't they also own a "assault" rifle?  Are they suddenly going to go out and shoot their co-workers because it can fire more bullets before reloading?

They may not. One of their sons might.

[Karl Henning]

It is not responsible gun ownership (my caveat) to make it possible for a minor child to gain access to this kind of gun without the parent's knowledge or supervision.  Any parent who does this should be held accountable.

Hardly possible in this case, since the irresponsible parent was the first victim.

Or (one might gruesomely observe) that was indeed an act of holding the parent accountable.

[Karl Henning]

I think you can argue that a government of, by and for the people exercises poor judgement in permitting such weapons in private residences.

[Karl Henning]

I reject that as a dismissal.  We all trust the government with powers which it is impractical for the individual to claim unto himself.

[Karl Henning]

I do not think there is anything impractical about an individual's right to own weapons for the purpose of self-defense and/or recreational shooting.   But I do think it very unwise to leave it up to the State your options for self-defense.

Well, we're discovering one of the ways in which this conversation turns on itself.

I agree with the first statement.  I've not seen anyone make the case that the individual requires automatic rifles for self-defense or recreation.  Your second statement is an opinion, and as such is irrefutable.

[Mirror Image]

I think you can argue that a government of, by and for the people exercises poor judgement in permitting such weapons in private residences.

Assault rifles in households SHOULD be outlawed. No question about it. Those don't belong in anyone's house. For me, there's no debate about this point. A person doesn't need this type of weaponry unless he/she are in the military or are on a battlefield. I think the fact that the government hasn't done anything about this does, no doubt, show poor judgement. I'm with on this point, Karl.

[Daverz]

Recreational shooting can take on many forms.  I see no reason to tell someone that they cannot use an automatic rifle in that manner, as long as they have been vetted and have no history of criminal violence or other behavior which would render them unfit for gun ownership.  As far as self-defense, I fear we will not see eye to eye on this since you seem to discount the possibility that citizens of this country might need to defend themselves against their government.  However, I am enough of a student of history to know that prior to totalitarian actions a State has first confiscated the weapons in private hands.  And I do not believe it cannot happen here.

Before I'd support a broad-based ban on automatic weapons I'd first want to see behavior-based regulation enacted so that any kind of gun would be kept out of the wrong hands as much as possible.

I don't think having the occasional grade-school classroom wiped out is a fair trade-off for indulging the gun-play fantasies of little boys.

[Florestan]

As far as self-defense, I fear we will not see eye to eye on this since you seem to discount the possibility that citizens of this country might need to defend themselves against their government.  However, I am enough of a student of history to know that prior to totalitarian actions a State has first confiscated the weapons in private hands. 

By this argument you shot yourself in the foot (pun intended): why did not the citizens use their privately owned guns to oppose their confiscation? 

I might be wrong but your reasoning seems to imply that the Far West was a paradise of self-defense. Yet, I don't think that "be quick or be dead" is a norm to live by in a civilized society. 

[Karl Henning]

Oh, and that thing that the NRA is exercising? I should call that tyranny.

[PaulSC]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

And we all know "speak out" is code for "gun up"!

[Brahmsian]

I hope nobody is going to claim that Lanza could have killed just as many with a bow and arrow:

I'm not against gun control, however....the point is:  Lanza, or any criminal or lunatic that has a mass-murder suicide plan will act on the plan, regardless of whether guns are 'controlled' or not.  Criminals or lunatics do not care about laws.

Perhaps, instead of the USA wasting billions of dollars on gun control laws and gun registry (like Canada wasted millions on), these millions/bilions can be spent on having thoroughly trained security guards at all the schools/colleges/universities, and metal detectors for each entry area?  A huge undertaking, no doubt, but this is already done at airports.

Gun control and gun laws only keep law abiding citizens in check (which essentially they'd be in check regardless of law).  Criminals and the crazies won't be stopped by these.

I used to be a huge supporter that the US should have gun control laws, but now I'm no longer convinced it would make a difference.

[Leo K.]

Lanza, or any criminal or lunatic that has a mass-murder suicide plan will act on the plan, regardless of whether guns are 'controlled' or not.  Criminals or lunatics do not care about laws.

I agree. A killer will find a way. There is no law that can be enacted that will stop mass killings. There really is no hope. So it goes.

[North Star]

But what is still not addressed sufficiently is the over medication of children with psychotropic drugs.  The facts are coming out that Adam Lanza had been medicated since he was ten years old.

I agree, that is the more important problem. I'm not saying that the drugs made him do it, it might be that they kept him from doing this for this long. A person taking these drugs has problems with or without the drugs, and saying that because he took the drugs, they must have caused it, is wrong. But psychotropic medication shouldn't last long - certainly its effect will be stronger than if taken for a shorter time.

I guess having guns banned in households where someone is on psychotropic drugs is an obvious action.


Regarding killers finding other ways - how come most of these killings do happen with guns taken from the parents, then? Surely there are depressed kids whose parents don't have guns? (and, please, don't use that bow & arrow guy here). And please, don't try to claim that you can kill just as many with a knife - some people can, but you'd have to be really good at it, in order to have tens of people let you stab them one by one.