For one, this. Another thing is, I'm not against allowing people to buy firearms per se, buuut I think even to own a simple shotgun or pistol, you should go trough a process, that you will pay for yourself by the way, of troughout psychological analysation and proper weapon training. Seriously, there was a car to guns comparison: You can't drive without a driver's license!

Not mention... US has got one of the highest criminality rates in the world. The entire argument that 'I need weapons to defend myself!' is kind of funny in that light, because people apparently fail horribly at said defense.

+1

Although it may sound "weak", most people would be better of if they just "handed the wallet" or whatever and let the police do the actual culprit catching part...

May I urge this discussion back to that of mental health? Guns are sexy and all, but this is largely political opportunism and a refusal to acknowledge the real causal factors here.

That's because most people don't conceal carry (have a gun with them when a crime is committed against them). You act like it's the wild west out here -- it isn't. Most states have gun control laws, and obtaining a license to conceal carry goes has additional requirements in almost every state. I actually live in the last remaining state in the US that DOESN'T allow conceal carry, so there's that.

Good try, though.

Mass killings can only we stopped by changing people and the society itself - its not something that can be prevented by any technological or legal "fix".

And about Mexico, well they are in a class of their own with all those cartels. Its going to be long time before they can clean up that country...

Very flawed. For one, the guy who's aiming the gun at you has probably legally bought it without any restraint (or stole it from someone who has.) Gun control -> less guns in the circulation -> less people have gun, for whatever use. And the another point: When someone aims a gun at you and tells you to hand your money, you hand your money. If he means it, the moment you pull a gun at him you're most probably dead. If he doesn't, well... You don't really need a gun anyway.

If he wanted to, he would anyway. You can't have a weapon on you at all times, and even if you had, again, you're on the 'surprised' side. When he shoots you, you can't shoot back.

a) You don't need to hunt to eat meat, I mean ... wow, how did you even come up with that. I've never been hunting in my life and - surprise - I eat meat every day!
b) Yes, you can own a gun for hunting, but after, and only after, you go trough proper channels. You should do tests to check your mental health above all, then you should be required to learn to use the gun properly, and get a lisence. Then, and only then, will you get a very specific weapon you have been trained for availible for you. It doesn't restrict your rights and it protects others.

edit:
Well in that case you do have gun control laws and I don't see the point of this argument.

I agree. That brings into play a different set of unique and equally terrible options. How do you prevent those with unstable mental health from committing acts like this for certain? I mean, short of creating some kind of mental screening process where every individual is monitored from birth to death, and immediately locking up any person who's deemed to be 'different' than normal, what do we do? Sometimes people just snap.

People just seem to think that we can find a way to control every aspect of life and make it perfectly safe for us and our children. I think it's a pipe dream. Being born has risks. There will always be risky situations in life. My grandma was neurotic. She used to freak out when one of the grandkids would get a skinned knee. "If only you weren't running this would never have happened!" She literally didn't ever want to see a child run because of the possibility of a scraped knee. You just gotta' live. Shit happens. And death is inevitable regardless of how safe you make life.

Maybe there just isn't a solution to every problem in life.

I think this is too much black and white. Sure the problems are within society or people but also there you cannot control everything without taking away the freedom. It never works. The technological or legal "fix" might in the end be the thing that help on a practical level a lot.

Or what do you propose to reduce the number of mass killings?

Stop printing money and actually begin to solve the financial crisis would be a good start to be fair :D

For sure there isn't a solution to every problem. But still your life can be shorter or real long and it would make a difference. We have different areas in the world with different levels of homocide casualties. With millions of people in each of these areas I think that random unstable mental health is just not the issue there, then there shouldn't be any difference.

There must be more factors and they might very well be adjustable. I don't know what they are exactly but I would say that it is too early to give up the fight against such things. It would mean selling these lives for a too low price.

Ofcourse you cant prevent anything "for certain" - but what you can do, is ask yourself why these people snap and what could have been done to prevent it?

I dont believe people "just snap" and start massacring, maybe some psychologist could list us mental disorders that could make people act randomly and possibly commit sudden violent deeds....except for example these school massacres are more or less planned and not result of "just snapping" -like you just mentioned.

Ok alcohol and drugs can make certain people "just snap" even regularly -> but is there strong connection to these massacres? As far as I know, not.

So, what could warp young (men) over time to start them making plans about committing mass murder? I stated my own ideas already in earlier post.

Heh yeah, they got a real mess down there.

Fenixp, I don't really know how to respond to your posts, but I'll do my best.

You understand nothing about forensics, apparently. No, criminals do not use legally purchased guns to commit crimes. That's like leaving a bloody glove at the crime scene. And for your second point, all I can say is: That's what I call the pussy point of view. Not trying to be a jerk, but as a man, I'd rather have a chance to fight then just assume that I won't be able to fight back.

Again, I'd rather have a chance. I'm not a pussy. I'm not just going to assume that the criminals will win and I will lose no matter what. I will decide my own fate, thank you very much. That is and should always be my right as an American.



A) Wow, how did you ever come up with that? You do realize that the animal still has to be killed, correct? This isn't StarTrek; We do not have replicators (yet). So what happens if the day comes that you can no longer just buy meat from a butcher? It sounds to me like you have a carefree worldview resembling that of a child. How old are you? I'm not saying that to be a jerk, I just mean that it sounds like you still have some growing up to do.
B) I don't disagree that proper training and licensing is a good idea.

I don't even understand what you're trying to state here.

Like I stated earlier, by simple kindness and politeness + putting much much more money and attention on mental health care.

This people go on killing spree, because they feel like they are not part of the society, they feel society hates them and they start to hate the society as well. They crave for attention, for recognizion. I AM ALIVE - SEE ME DAMMIT!! Why do you think they kill themselves in the end?

---

Dangerous person is dangerous person whether he has in his hand pistol, shotgun, knife, hammer, spoon, car keys, belt or even empty hands.

Like I mentioned earlier, I have no love for guns - but the speak gun banners are going about is doing no favor for actually solving the original problem - meaning making people part of society.

Many may not consider it, but in many ways the killers themselves are victims - certainly it doesnt give them right to kill anyone, but the reasons are there.

An online shooter cease fire would prove nothing. It does nothing for the children who were attacked in China just 5 days ago. I guess most of us Americans didn't see that, however, because we were focused on Connecticut and the media wishing to focus only on Connecticut. A mentally ill man in China attacked a group of elementary kids and injured over 20, critically injuring several. Sure, none were killed but he didn't use a gun. He used a knife. Yes, a knife. Should the United States and China start banning knives as well? Maybe we can start cutting meat with sharpened sporks.

While I don't know if the man in China was treated for being mentally ill, the attacker here in the United States was. He was treated and after his insurance stopped paying for him to stay in the hospital he was released. Insurance pays for a maximum of 30 days of mental health care usually and then they force you to leave to go home or will make you go to a half-way house. Either way, you're forced to interact with the public whether you're better or not. If anyone should truly be blamed it should be the insurance companies and the policies that allow these things to happen.