‘Ban this or that type of gun’ reactions are just the very beginning and the tip of the iceberg of the problem.

Absolutely, and no one is saying it will solve all the problems, but it will be a start.

As I have said: Semi and fully automatic weapons (both handguns and assault rifles) have no place in civilian life. Get rid of them.

You also have to factor in the lobbying power of the NRA: Trying to ban all guns to begin with will get you nowhere. You need to do it bit by bit.

The answer is to go right back to the 2nd Amendment – and allow anyone to have a flintlock.

Simple.

As I have said: Semi and fully automatic weapons (both handguns and assault rifles) have no place in civilian life. Get rid of them.

Agreed

“Tell that to the 24 people who are still alive, and their families.”

I’m saying that it’s an unthinkable tragedy if even one person is killed.

“The problem is that the US has got itself in a right mess with guns and there is little political will to address it. Some weapons make mass killings easier than others, therefore it makes sense to ban these types of weapons first. They have no justifiable need for them and it may be something that is actually achievable to deliver without having to amend their constitution”

Agreed. But thats still papering over the cracks, and not actually addressing the cause of the problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249781/Connecticut-store-Sandy-Hook-gunman-Adam-Lanza-tried-buy-rifle-huge-sale-ammunition.html

Good job Daily Mail don’t know their arse from their elbow…

So what, there’s a sale on relatively small bore shotgun ammo 🙄

I liked this comment : THe USA needs to move in to 21st century. The right to carry arms was in an age of their civil war, the wild west truly wild but now the are a civilised country. With the biggest army in the the world to defend them, who do they need to shoot with their guns?

For some of them, the army is who they plan to fight.

who do they need to shoot with their guns

They need guns because other people have guns.

Why not replace every hand gun with an assault rifle on the grounds of safety/ gun crime reduction?

Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it’s much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.

We can argue all we want about the gun control but it is a diversion. The killings of random innocents, the disaffected or people with mental health issues and the general level of violence are all symptomatic of something else in society that we are not addressing. I don’t see that the UK is that far removed from the US in some ways we just don’t have the accessible means to kill that many people (in one go) on a regular basis (if the law is applied correctly). It seems to me that Mr Obama has to opportunities now, yes a degree of gun control may now be possible and he should go for it in his last term. Far more importantly he needs to try and get a national debate started on why the US and some other countries (China for example as well as the UK) has a small number of people who believe that extreme violence is their only solution to what ails them (or us for that mater). Just my take.

Just so you know, I have read Catcher in the Rye twice and have yet to shot a President or a musician. 🙂

Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it’s much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.

I thought that too but whilst technically probably correct I don’t think it would make very good political suggestion.

Good job Daily Mail don’t know their arse from their elbow…

So what, there’s a sale on relatively small bore shotgun ammo 🙄

Come on – give them some credit – there wasn’t just shotgun ammo on sale

A box of 2000 Winchester M-22 bullets was reduced by $20 so they cost $109.99, or 5 cents a shot

Don’t know what use they would be on their own mind 😀

“Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it’s much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.”

Interesting and probably made as a throw-away comment, however I can’t help saying the Connecticut shooter managed okay, as well carrying Glock and Sig handguns

Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it’s much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.

You’ve never been to the Apple store in Switzerland I take it?

The shoot-em-up video game argument is an interesting one

No, it’s a retarded one.

Games don’t make people go on mass murdering sprees before blowing their own brains out; being wrong in the head does that. And if you’re a swivel-eyed socio/psychopath, you’re eventually going to do something loopy irrespective of what computer games (video nasties, rock & roll music, energy drinks, pornography) you’ve been exposed to.

The logic bomb that always gets overlooked by the Professionally Outraged is that the causal link here isn’t games, it’s mental illness. The fact that a gunman happened to be playing Grand Theft Auto a month ago just means that it’s the sort of title which would appeal to a nutcase (as well as to large numbers of normal, well-adjusted people, of course, all of whom strangely fail to go on murder rampages).

Shades of Gray has resulted in an increase in the sales of BDSM gear

Skipping the obvious question (which is “so what?”), what does this actually prove? That 50SoG has turned mild mannered librarians across the country into rampant screaming perverts, or that it’s made BDSM more mainstream and acceptable so people are less inhibited about buying toys?

As for gun control,

Banning guns in the US isn’t going to work. There are several factors at work here, some of which have already been discussed here. There’s too many in circulation for a ban to be practical; it’d be like banning tomato soup over here. If the US announced a crackdown, the first thing everyone would do is stock up. Plus, we’ve already seen how well prohibition works in the US.

Then there’s legislation. The Constitution is a battleship of a thing, and effecting any sort of amendment to it can take decades.

In any case, assuming there was a ban, either partially (‘no automatic weapons’ say) or fully, people who wanted guns badly enough would still get them. And there’d be a lot; guns are ‘normal’ in US culture. Just google “every day carry” for a scary demonstration of that. The fundamental problem, one of mentality, would persist.

It’s like the knife ban here. I’m speculating here but, you ban knives, “attacks with knives” might go down (or not), but I doubt that attacks generally will. Thugs will still be thugs, they’ll either just carry knives illegally or carry something else. The people most affected by the knife ban are regular citizens who carried a knife for fishing or camping or because generally it’s a useful thing to have.

You want to tackle crime, you need to tackle the causes of crime. And that’s poverty, education, drugs, employment… good luck with that.

Then there’s legislation. The constitution is a battleship of a thing, and effecting any sort of amendment to it can take decades.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting the ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons, and therefore wouldn’t require amending.

The fundamental problem, one of mentality, would persist.

Maybe for the current generations, but further down the line?…

You want to tackle crime, you need to tackle the causes of crime. And that’s poverty, education, drugs, employment… good luck with that.

Agreed. However, it doesn’t mean you should not assist the process in other ways.

You’ve never been to the Apple store in Switzerland I take it?

Nope, but I know that that rifle does not have a mag fitted so that, at most, it’s got one up the spout before he/she has to load it and make ready.

Missing the point maybe, but seeing a magazine off would make me feel slightly more safe than not.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting the ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons, and therefore wouldn’t require amending

No?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Semi and automatic weapons would come under ‘arms’ would they not?

Cougar I get your point but extreme positions on either side are unhelpful

For example plenty of folk drink responsibly plenty of folk dont and become angry or alchies. Its a bit of both the question is how much of each is casual.As for professionally outraged – WTF does that ad hominem mean in general and in particular on a thread related to the recent gun deaths in the US? you are better than this 😕
The 50 shades thing shows that exposure to things – new stimuli alters behaviour but I assume you got that but ignored it as it does not help your argument so you were jokey about what it meant

Some folk read some BDSM some folk had some BDSM- its not going to be as clear cut with murder though and only an idiot would argue that playing violent computer games makes you go on a killing spree. However [ to repeat again] research shows that those exposed to violence act more violently in studies
how real this is and what effect it has who knows in terms of what we are discussing

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

So lets carry on arguing about an inanimate metal object that does nothing. it’s the human with their hand on it that’s the problem, try and solve the cause not the symptom. I am not against restricted access to guns by the way just want to get the discussion further.

A sticking plaster is not going to cure a severed limb.

Games don’t make people go on mass murdering sprees before blowing their own brains out; being wrong in the head does that. And if you’re a swivel-eyed socio/psychopath, you’re eventually going to do something loopy irrespective of what computer games (video nasties, rock & roll music, energy drinks, pornography) you’ve been exposed to.

No, you’re right they don’t. However games like COD do have an effect on a child’s behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows. I’d rather it didn’t have that effect on my child, regardless of the outcome. I’m not saying this chap sat there on a three hour COD session before going on the rampage, but I’m saying that potentially it could skew a childs perspective on what is right and wrong

As for access to guns and it being the person doing the shooting – I’d rather take my chances with a bloke swinging a baseball bat or brandishing a knife than I would a nutter holding a semi-automatic gun

So lets carry on arguing about an inanimate metal object that does nothing. it’s the human with their hand on it that’s the problem

The two things are not isolated.

If I am unarmed, get drunk, get into a fight with someone, what am I going to do? Punch them, get punched back, end up in a scuffle. If I am armed, I am a lot more likely to shoot the other guy aren’t I?

Then you’ve got the false courage aspect. If I see something I don’t like and I have a gun, I might be more inclined to intervene and start shooting than if I am unarmed.

Then there’s the possibility that simply having guns affects people’s psychology and possibly their behaviour.

Bearing in mind the above, do you think Trayvon Martin would still be alive if George Zimmerman had never owned a gun?

However games like COD do have an effect on a child’s behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows.

Yes. They make them excitable and possibly aggressive. But it does not follow that they lose sight of right and wrong, or are more inclined to hurt real people.

But it does not follow that they lose sight of right and wrong, or are more inclined to hurt real people.

You don’t think it desensitises them at all then?

its an extreme position to claim a gun does nothing and its only an innamate object . It is a weapon and it has only one primary function- it takes two but remove one and you have a lesser issue

Its obviously easier to prevent access to the gun than to prevent mental illness.

WTF does that ad hominem mean in general and in particular on a thread related to the recent gun deaths in the US?

Sorry, you misunderstand me.

I was talking specifically about the “outraged” people who start blaming computer games (or the other things I listed) when there’s a tragedy like this. You know, the sort of thing the Daily Mail likes to crow about. I wasn’t having a pop at those outraged about the shooting; that’s something one can genuinely be outraged about!

The 50 shades thing shows that exposure to things – new stimuli alters behaviour but I assume you got that but ignored it as it does not help your argument so you were jokey about what it meant

I’m always jokey. My point was really that it’s not particularly clear what the poster – Edukator? Probably – was getting at, or how the analogy was appropriate. Has “new stimuli altered behaviour” here, or has it just raised awareness and made something more acceptable within society? Or maybe it’s helped raise it as a talking point in relationships where people were too shy to suggest something a little different? I don’t actually know, probably a little from column a and a little from column b. In either case though it might have given a few people ideas, but I doubt it’d convince them to do something they didn’t want to do.

You don’t think it desensitises them at all then?

Honestly – no.

Because there’s such a gulf between a bunch of pixels and a real person deep down in our brains.

I’m saying that potentially it could skew a childs perspective on what is right and wrong

Weasel-word alert. “Potentially”? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

However games like COD do have an effect on a child’s behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows.

…

You don’t think it desensitises them at all then?

Going from “excitable” to “killing spree” is a leap of tabloid proportions. By comparison, how would they react to an extended Tom & Jerry marathon, I wonder?

Kids are impressionable, but they’re not stupid. Well, most of them.

Because there’s such a gulf between a bunch of pixels and a real person deep down in our brains.

As an aside, I wonder how this discussion will go in a few years time, when games are photorealistic? We’re getting there.

Weasel-word alert. “Potentially”? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

Is it really your view that playing violent computer games is as likely to skew your view or desensitise you to violence as is eating a packet of crisps.

I dont know why we have to debate in such extremes. 😕
Its clear that playing violent computer games will have some affect on you so lets debate what if that is where the debate is going.

FWIW locally someone dug up a corpse froma graveyard, took the head and scrawled 666 on the head and dropped it on his mates door rang the doorbell and ran off. he did this after he saw Omen.

Now the guy was a nutter[like that needed saying], and he was off his head on glue but it was an interaction between all three.

Thank god he could not get his hands on guns is all I think tbh

I dont think banning them[ games or films] will stop events like this but i dont think they generally help either.

Weasel-word alert. “Potentially”? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

You’re a bit aggressive aren’t you, been on the xbox this afternoon?

Going from “excitable” to “killing spree” is a leap of tabloid proportions. By comparison, how would they react to an extended Tom & Jerry marathon, I wonder?

Kids are impressionable, but they’re not stupid. Well, most of them.

Kids ARE impressionable, which means they need to be taught the difference between right and wrong. If they see constant images of shootings, blood, gore and all the rest then it desensitises them to the extent that it becomes the norm. Was this killing the result of the perp playing Medal of Honour – probably not (I don’t know the kids background, what he did in his spare time and so on). Does playing similar games have an effect on children. Yes, it does – I’ve witnessed it first hand.

Yes. They make them excitable and possibly aggressive

So you agree it makes them aggressive but don’t agree that it desensitises them to violence?

bwaarp – Member

Educator, the shrinks in germany are talking bollocks. You need a sample size of 30 to make any significant conclusion, have they had 30 mass killers in germany to make such a conclusion? No. A big **** off resounding no. What were their methodologies for supporting such a conclusion because I bet statistically I can destroy their argument.

A gem Bwaarp, until there are at least thirty such killings you don’t accept the validity of anything a psychologist has to say. Now what were Freud’s sample sizes again? Profilers use a sample size of one successfully.

Copycat killings happen, if you accept that then you accept people can be inspired to commit crimes simply by reading. An engrossing, hands-on, sound and vision experience is likely to inspire.

One of the reasons I gave up display driving was that leaving one venue I saw someone trying to imitate what we’d been doing in the car park with people walking past. I realised I was inspiring dangerous driving.

Junkyard, it’s not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are. If you read my two post I think you may get what I’m trying to get at. The issue is not the gun (yes I know they make killing easier), it’s the why are people doing this? We could get fixated on all sorts of things that hurt or kill people but solve the problem we need start looking at the cause. What is happening to people to make them behave in this way? What can we do that stops someone turning into a killer. I still believe the debate is stalled, even trapped in the gun argument. Again I am not against gun control, let’s get past it and into what this guy and other the way they are. What’s you view on the cause?

I’d say it was extreme not to look past the gun issue.

To many mistakes to edit, sorry.

Another post to make it clear I’m anti-killerspiel rather than anti-gun. I’m quite happy for people to own and use guns under British/French legislation. Hunting, sport shooting, biathlon seem valid reasons for owning guns. Keep them under lock and key at home, and when being transported to places they can be safely used. Keep a register of ownership as for cars. No problem. When I asked a sport shooting mate what he owned he said “Clint’s 44 and the Lethal Weapon Beretta”. People are influenced by what they read, see, hear and play on the computer.

I does help if the police that deal with permits aren’t being pressured/influenced though.

That’s interesting I thought both those pistols would be illegal to own at home, wonder what reason for ownership he gave to FAO. Oh bug..r I’m talking about guns now.
Things is could the posser of such hardware become disafected with society enough to do something really stupid. Is anyone checking his mental well being.
Perhaps it’s to big an issue to solve so we only try and ban this or that but where do we stop.

Banning guns in the US isn’t going to work. There are several factors at work here, some of which have already been discussed here. There’s too many in circulation for a ban to be practical; it’d be like banning tomato soup over here

If you ban tomato soup, eventually all of the cans in existence would be eaten or go out of date. It would take a while but it would happen.

Banning guns or stopping the sale would not remove the problem now. But it might start making a dent in things for 50 or 100 years down the line. That seems a good enough reason to me to make a start.

If you can’t ban them, tax them so heavily that they become too expensive for the vast majority. Paint them pink, make licenses expensive. Lots they can do if there is the will. But what Obama is saying now was also said by Bush, and Clinton. Nothing changed then

Well, looks like Obama reads STW!

Obama backs ban on assault weapons

Junkyard, it’s not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are.

It is because it is a weapon
A bike in inanimate as is a table but I eat at one and ride the other. The inanimate object is designed to perform a function and it will be used for that function to suggest otherwise is “extreme”.

I dont disagree with the rest of your post

My view –

Many factors are at work here and none should be overlooked of which the main one is obviously what drives individuals to do this.

Access to lots of guns does not help an dis harmful as probably is not causal but it makes it easier and the death number higher but it is probably not casual – Perhaps a few nutters would not have killed had they had to use a bat or knife who knows?

Access to computer games and violent films does not help but it does not turn anyone into a killer either.

I am sure that most gun owners are reasonable folk but with 300 million guns you are going to have gun related issues more so than if you have 300.

Being where the uk is with strict gun controls and no real culture or gun lore is the best place to be.
How you get America to that? – or more likely a Canadian type level of ownership for hunting and less personal hand guns I have no idea.

How we stop mad folk no idea but I would prefer them to not be able to get hold of guns as easily as they can in the USA

Clinton banned some categories of gun but Bush didn’t renew the law or cancelled it or something – Google it. Anyhow Clinton tried to do something but Bush did not.