Another school shooting in the US

Errol · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:45

NeilFawcett said:
You're logic of course is flawed.

Ask yourself why the individuals carrying out these mass killings primarily use guns? Is it because they're the best tool for the job?

Frankly you're starting to sound a little silly IMHO.

If they don't have guns the mad people just use something else and kill just as many (if not more people). The evidence backs my case:

For example:

The Happy Land fire was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" (at 1959 Southern Boulevard) in the West Farms section of The Bronx, New York, on March 25, 1990.

González returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline which he found on the ground and had filled at a gas station. He spread the fuel on the only staircase into the club. Two matches were then used to ignite the gasoline.

The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people escaped by breaking a metal gate over one door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

- Should we also ban access to fuel and matches?

The killer at sandy hook could just as easily have blocked the exits and set fire to the building.

Dis86 · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:46

Errol said:
No it wasn't. I was refering to no change in the current situation i.e. the Firearms rights. That would be a good thing.

Yes, and this current situation has led to the massacre of twenty children in this latest incident alone.

Thus logic extends that by saying things shouldn't/don't need to change that you are saying this is acceptable.

Errol · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:47

Dis86 said:
Yes, and this current situation has led to the massacre of twenty children in this latest incident alone.
.

I would dispute this. He could have obtained a weapon in any number of ways - just as criminals in the UK obtain them (very easily I might add).

I don't think there is a chain of causation here at all.

NeilF · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:48

kwerk said:
Even better: let's put RFID chips in cars that limit the maximum speed to whatever road sign they have last passed. That would save THOUSANDS of people's lives.

Not sure what your point is, but I'd be 100% up for such a suggestion.

I see no reason why every car on the road should not be made to obey the speed limits 100%. It would absolutely save lives and not be much of an infringement for people.

I'm happy to forgo my personal freedom to speed to save lives in that fashion.

It's exactly the same with guns in this country. I'm happy to forgo my freedom to own one if it means most nutters can't easily get hold of one.

Anyway, we're in risk of moving away from the topic at hand. Guns in the US...

Errol · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:48

NeilFawcett said:
I'm happy to forgo my personal freedom to speed to save lives in that fashion.

Yes but I wouldn't and there's no reason why a few people like you should dictate policy!

estebanrey · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:52

Errol said:
No. Not at the expense of personal freedom. The rules should not be changed just because a few idiots cause trouble.

And yet they have a law against crossing the road (jay walking).

I'll never understand why owning firearms is seen as the pinnacle of freedom in America when they have some very barmy laws that remove what are quite basic rights in the rest of the world.

* Jay walking - No right to cross the road on foot
* Obscenity Laws - Woman can't go topless on the beach
* Kinder Eggs are banned - You can be stopped ast customs for trying to bring them into the country
* Collecting rain water - A federal offence, although only Colorado enforce it.
* Not revealing your real name on the internet - Seriously

Most of these are perfectly legal in the rest of the Western world (notice I said most before someone posts 'But Germany has jay walking laws too').

So where was the talk about 'freedom' when the above things were outlawed?

Mark A · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:53

Errol said:
If they don't have guns the mad people just use something else and kill just as many (if not more people). The evidence backs my case:

For example:

The Happy Land fire was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" (at 1959 Southern Boulevard) in the West Farms section of The Bronx, New York, on March 25, 1990.

González returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline which he found on the ground and had filled at a gas station. He spread the fuel on the only staircase into the club. Two matches were then used to ignite the gasoline.

The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people escaped by breaking a metal gate over one door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

- Should we also ban access to fuel and matches?

The killer at sandy hook could just as easily have blocked the exits and set fire to the building.

González was charged with 174 counts of murder—two for each victim—and was found guilty on 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder on August 19, 1991. For each count he received the sentence maximum of 25 years to life (a total of 4,350 years). It was the most substantial prison term ever imposed in the state of New York. He will be eligible for parole in March 2015 because New York law states that multiple murders occurring during one act will be served concurrently, rather than consecutively

Maybe they should change this for a start.

NeilF · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:53

Errol said:
Yes but I wouldn't and there's no reason why a few people like you should dictate policy!

Have I just read your response correctly regarding my analogy to speeding?

You believe you have the right to speed on UK roads? And you think people aren't allow to dictate such laws to you?

So you think, even though laws have been passed regarding speed limits, entirely aimed at saving lives, you have the right to ignore these laws?

Dis86 · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:53

Errol said:
I would dispute this. He could have obtained a weapon in any number of ways - just as criminals in the UK obtain them (very easily I might add).

I don't think there is a chain of causation here at all.

He used legally owned weapons. It's not a question of could have. It's a question of what did happen.

Dispute it all you want but the facts speak otherwise.

And look at it this way, did the automatic weapons owned by his mother save her life? No. They were the things that took it.

Cleeecooo · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:55

kwerk said:
Even better: let's put RFID chips in cars that limit the maximum speed to whatever road sign they have last passed. That would save THOUSANDS of people's lives.

I'd be 100% in favour of this in built up areas.

Errol, the fire example you picked isn't really relevant considering new building and safety standard in this modern day that makes killing people with fire pretty damn difficult.

Guns are one of the most efficient ways of killing people, hence their popularity. No civilian needs a semi auto rifle, that's just OTT.

Yes, the lunatics may always find guns, but by making it harder for the to do so, we can at least put some of them off. If tightening gun control laws is what is required to stop one of these shootings a year, then I'd certainly say it's worth it.

Fr0dders · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:55

kwerk said:
Even better: let's put RFID chips in cars that limit the maximum speed to whatever road sign they have last passed. That would save THOUSANDS of people's lives.

Semi Automatic assault rifles are designed one one purpose only.

Killing people. lots of them, quickly and efficiently.

Matches, petrol, and cars are not. Huge difference.

If you want a gun for self defense. Get a pistol. If you want to go hunting, go use a hunting rifle.

Nobody can state a legitimate reason for NEEDING to own a semi automatic assault rilfe like the AR-15.

Blue160 · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:56

Errol said:
I don't think there is a chain of causation here at all.

What is the causation then? The US has hugely more of this type of event than other countries, even taking into account the relative size of population.

I find it difficult to believe that the easy availability of semi automatic weapons isn't part of the problem.

Dis86 · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:56

MrLOL said:
Semi Automatic assault rifles are designed one one purpose only.

Killing people. lots of them, quickly and efficiently.

Matches, petrol, and cars are not. Huge difference.

If you want a gun for self defense. Get a pistol. If you want to go hunting, go use a hunting rifle.

Nobody can state a legitimate reason for NEEDING to own a semi automatic assault rilfe like the AR-15.

Exactly!! It is designed to kill as many people in as short a period as possible.

OhEsEcks · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:57

MrLOL said:
Nobody can state a legitimate reason for NEEDING to own a semi automatic assault rilfe like the AR-15.

Zombies.

Edrof · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:59

Errol said:
The killer could have killed probably almost as many of the kids with a machete/large knife.

Clearly we should ban all knives.

Equally he could have used a scythe or large club with nails in it. Therefore we must ban farm tools and large bits of wood/nails.

When you think that is a valid argument it is time to reassess your ability to rationally analyse this problem.

Errol · 21 Dec 2012 at 16:59

MrLOL said:
Nobody can state a legitimate reason for NEEDING to own a semi automatic assault rilfe like the AR-15.

Utter nonsense. You could same the same about loads of things - Sports Cars, Road legal tanks, Large dogs, dangerous snakes, etc

A legitimate reason to own an AR-15 would be because you want to own one. In American plenty of people have 10s of acres of land on which to shoot or access to such land.

I would rather say that no Government should have the right to question why someone would want to own one. It's none of the Government's business!

Jokester · 21 Dec 2012 at 17:00

Errol said:
Hardly a long list. More people get killed by cars.

And certainly not any sort of reason to curtail firearms or constitutional rights.

Well this society deems the economic and social benefits of driving to outweigh the risks of the deaths they cause. The US on the other hand feel that the deaths of 2 to 3 dozen kids on average per year is a price worth paying for the "freedom" to own assault rifles.

OhEsEcks · 21 Dec 2012 at 17:01

Errol said:
It's none of the Government's business!

It starts to be when people keep going into schools and murdering people.

Moothead2 · 21 Dec 2012 at 17:01

Errol said:
The killer could have killed probably almost as many of the kids with a machete/large knife.

Clearly we should ban all knives.

Equally he could have used a scythe or large club with nails in it. Therefore we must ban farm tools and large bits of wood/nails.

Well that just isn't true. Multiple knife incidents in China resulted in 20 injured and ZERO deaths. Not to mention the fact that a gun has a single purpose and your examples clearly do not.

Fr0dders · 21 Dec 2012 at 17:02

Errol said:
I would rather say that no Government should have the right to question why someone would want to own one. It's none of the Government's business!

Question then.

Should every US citizen have the right to own nuclear weapons ? Large bombs that could taken out entire states ? is that none of the governments business either ?