why humanity

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

The problem is that the media is a for profit corporation. They exist to make money, not to benefit society. Everyone knows the worst thing to do is to publicize the attackers name and face. It makes them infamous, gives them attention, and encourages it more. But it makes the media more money, so they do it anyway.

[BLiNDBoi 930]

This explains the conversation that I walked into a hour ago but it was on the subject of a what if every adult was armed with a gun.

[Dojima 7619]

does anybody know why he got so mad?

ahahah, ffs...

[Necrophenia 435]

Wow, Obama's speech really got to me. This whole event is inconceivable.

[Pebbz. 953]

JARED AND SAMMY, ARE YOU GUYS OKAY? OH NOOOO!!!!!!!!

[Goldentongue 3616]

I swear to god, if anyone cries about how they should make guns illegal...

They should certainly pose stricter regulations on assault weapons and handguns.

[Guest Lord Sandwich]

I swear to god, if anyone cries about how they should make guns illegal...

They should certainly pose stricter regulations on assault weapons and handguns.

No, they shouldn't. And it wouldn't be much harder to do the same thing with a semi-automatic rifle or pump-action shotgun.

[Wintergreen 1603]

does anybody know why he got so mad? something had to have happened..

Nothing that would excuse this. Nothing. Edited December 15, 2012 by Wintergreen

[Dyscivist 5686]

Gun bans or major regulations are historically unsuccessful at stopping violent crime.

In fact, the time at which there was the most gun violence in the US was the time at which there was the strictest gun regulations in place. You could argue they had to impose more gun regulations because of the violent crime, but either way, it's apparent that government regulations on firearms are at the very most virtually useless at stopping violent offenders.

This is disregarding the whole, you know, liberty aspect of it.

Just to preempt the inevitable erroneous comparisons between the entirely different circumstances of the United States and the UK, the UK didn't decrease in gun violence with its increased gun regulation either.

I can also point out countries like Finland with extremely liberal gun laws and virtually no violent crime involving firearms.

[JFK 546]

And of course, we can't have shootings without a mob mentality pinning the blame on something entirely irrelevant.

http://imageshack.us/a/img850/6883/xmogz.png

[Goldentongue 3616]

Gun bans or major regulations are historically unsuccessful at stopping violent crime.

America's current poorly regulated gun laws are historically unsuccessful at stopping violent crime.

In fact, the time at which there was the most gun violence in the US was the time at which there was the strictest gun regulations in place. You could argue they had to impose more gun regulations because of the violent crime

Assuming what you're saying is accurate, your later reasoning is probably the right answer

it's apparent that government regulations on firearms are at the very most virtually useless at stopping violent offenders.

Ever considered that's because the government regulations were never strict enough?

This is disregarding the whole, you know, liberty aspect of it..

The idea that owning a semi-automatic assault weapon is some sort of inalienable right is fucking ridiculous.

Not allowing me to stockpile RPGs infringes on my liberties.

Just to preempt the inevitable erroneous comparisons between the entirely different circumstances of the United States and the UK, the UK didn't decrease in gun violence with its increased gun regulation either.

I can also point out countries like Finland with extremely liberal gun laws and virtually no violent crime involving firearms.

>Says it's not ok to compare the US with Britain

>Compares the US with Finland.

What.

Not only is that poor logic, you're completely wrong. Out of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years, the US is in first place with 11. Your beloved Finland is in 2nd place with 2.

If you want to compare global trends in economically developed countries, it's not that hard to understand that more guns equals more gun related deaths.

In the case of the tragedy today, people seem to think that armed law abiding citizens will prevent these sort of atrocities. They haven't. Not a single citizen with a concealed weapon fired upon Seung-Hui Cho in Virginia, Jiverly Voong in New York, Jared Lee Loughner in Arizona, Robert Hawkins in Nebraska, James Holmes in Colorado, Wade Michael Page in Wisconsin, or even Nathan Wilkins, the man who shot up a bar on a busy street corner in my city in Alabama with an AK-47, wounding 17 people. Concealed carry is already well established in this country, and if there was any place where you would hope it would protect anyone, it would be here. How can you expect it to protect a room full of school children in Connecticut? I agree that law abiding citizens should have carefully regulated access to certain firearms suitable for sport or personal defense, and I do support concealed carry, but public safety shouldn't be dependent on people walking around with sidearms. There is no damned reason for how ridiculously easy it is to purchase a firearm in this country, or for a military style assault rifle to be sold as a semi-automatic civilian model, as if a controlled and efficient firing speed is any less deadly against unarmed targets.

[Dojima 7619]

And of course, we can't have shootings without a mob mentality pinning the blame on something entirely irrelevant.

http://imageshack.us.../6883/xmogz.png

AHAH.

Not only is that poor logic, you're completely wrong. Out of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years, the US is in first place with 11. Your beloved Finland is in 2nd place with 2.

That's not really the best metric to get the whole picture of violent crime involving guns. I will say that Finland's gun laws aren't particularly liberal, however.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Dojima

[Goldentongue 3616]

Not only is that poor logic, you're completely wrong. Out of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years, the US is in first place with 11. Your beloved Finland is in 2nd place with 2.

That's not really the best metric to get the whole picture of violent crime involving guns. I will say that Finland's gun laws aren't particularly liberal, however.

The best metric for violent crime in general? Perhaps not, but it's enough to give support to the claim that looser gun laws allow for more mass shootings, and to prove that claiming Finland has "virtually no violent crime involving firearms" is a downright lie.

[Guest Lord Sandwich]

@Goldentongue

If someone is determined to commit a violent crime, less easy access to certain kinds of firearms isn't going to stop them.

Liberal rights aren't ridiculous. People should be able to do pretty much anything they want assuming all parties affected are consenting to the activity. This includes stockpiling RPGs for recreation or defense. Guns and explosions are fucking cool and I should be able to explode bombs and bullets without having to jump through a bunch of retarded hoops intended to try (and fail) to inhibit violent criminals.

This whole gun-control debate will become void in about 15 years once 3D printing materials become stable enough to withstand automatic gunfire.

[Windmill 1521]

If there's a demand there's a supply. criminalization won't work. regulation may

[Windmill 1521]

If there's a demand there's a supply. criminalization won't work. regulation may

[JFK 546]

@Goldentongue

Guns and explosions are fucking cool and I should be able to explode bombs and bullets without having to jump through a bunch of retarded hoops intended to try (and fail) to inhibit violent criminals.

This whole gun-control debate will become void in about 15 years once 3D printing materials become stable enough to withstand automatic gunfire.

...No offense but what exactly do you need explosives for?

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

Lol. Banning or regulating guns will only mean violent crimes will happen with other weapons. (EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html) Are we going to start banning all the pointy things?

Any 10 year old with the internet can go to walmart and make a bomb. Explosives are an entirely different subject.

Edited December 15, 2012 by ElectronicDrug

[BlackStone 66]

Gun control debates are moronic. Yes, it will lower the amount of people who will have weapons. However, do you honestly believe criminals are going to give a shit about the weapon they have being illegal? If you do, you must be a special kind of stupid.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Im sorry, it happened before with prohibition. Its happening now with the war on drugs and it will definitely explode the black market for weapons in the US if stricter gun laws come in to place. The solution isnt restricting more guns (the weapons used here were stolen btw) or arming more people with guns, its better to view and search for a solution into the mental healthcare side of things. Prevent these people from REACHING this point of mental instability, guns are about as much of a scapegoat as blaming the vehicle he used for bringing him there or the vest he used for protecting himself while killing kids or even his shoes for helping him walk around the school.

As it stands a majority of crimes committed with weapons are stolen or purchased illegally. In fact, why dont we just ban all types of vehicles? About like 30000 people die each year from car wrecks, a number that towers over gun related deaths. I mean forget educating people about driving, reinforcing our infrastructure, or even putting in more measures to prevent drunk driving... lets just BAN all the cars. Sounds silly doesnt it?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Fohacidal

[Dyscivist 5686]

America's current poorly regulated gun laws are historically unsuccessful at stopping violent crime.

America isn't the only country in which gun regulation isn't effective. This is true in pretty much every country.

Assuming what you're saying is accurate, your later reasoning is probably the right answer

Taking the allowance I gave you while ignoring the larger point that it was completely ineffective.

Ever considered that's because the government regulations were never strict enough?

Gun regulation is quite strict in the UK, and gun crime hasn't decreased there since its inception, like I've already said. It's also interesting to note that countries with complete gun bans tend to have some of the highest rates of gun crime anywhere in the world.

It might have something to do with the fact that criminals with guns know that they will go completely unopposed.

The idea that owning a semi-automatic assault weapon is some sort of inalienable right is fucking ridiculous.

Not allowing me to stockpile RPGs infringes on my liberties.

And the government having a monopoly on RPGs is a whole lot better. But hey, at least the innocent people they're killing aren't American, right?

>Says it's not ok to compare the US with Britain

>Compares the US with Finland.

What.

When I mentioned Finland I wasn't making a positive argument for guns being legal. My point was that the correlation isn't there.

Not only is that poor logic, you're completely wrong. Out of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years, the US is in first place with 11. Your beloved Finland is in 2nd place with 2.

Mass shootings account for such a paltry amount of gun deaths that they're basically completely negligible anywhere besides the US.

That article also points out many countries with extreme gun regulation (Germany, Australia, England) in which mass shootings took place.

The most notable example is the mass murder in Norway, with the mass shooter killing 77 people. Norway has a complete ban on all automatic weapons, and virtually never allows gun ownership for self-defense, or any reasons other than hunting or sport, really, yet he still managed to kill 77 people with a gun.

Gun bans or gun regulations are not going to stop insane people from committing insane murderous acts. Even if you theoretically made it impossible for people to get automatic weapons in the United States (which would never happen), people would resort to the even more disastrous act of explosives for their killing sprees.

We could ban everything that could ever be used in a home-made explosive, though. I'm sure that'd solve the issue.

If you want to compare global trends in economically developed countries, it's not that hard to understand that more guns equals more gun related deaths.

The "gun-related deaths" statistic is nefarious because it includes people who've taken their own lives with firearms, which accounts for more than 50% of gun deaths.

Regulating guns will not get rid of the huge surplus of underground guns on the US market anyways, and the increased demand for black market weapons will increase criminal activity just as prohibition did, so effectively all you're doing is disallowing responsible citizens from having weapons and increasing the amount of criminals.

public safety shouldn't be dependent on people walking around with sidearms

I don't care about what you think should or shouldn't happen. I'm interested in dealing with realities.

The reality is, if you're in a situation in which you will die if you don't have an armed person defending your life, you'd better either have a gun or be around someone who does, because the police won't be there to save you in time, nor should you expect them to be.

The best metric for violent crime in general? Perhaps not, but it's enough to give support to the claim that looser gun laws allow for more mass shootings, and to prove that claiming Finland has "virtually no violent crime involving firearms" is a downright lie.

It isn't a lie at all. If you look at the gun crime statistics, Finland has very little in respect to other countries, and that's including the deaths of those killed by the mass shootings.

2 shootings in a 50 year time span frankly isn't enough of a sample size to say definitively that looser gun laws allow for more mass shootings.

Oh, and by the way, it was Switzerland I was originally thinking of that has loads of guns, easy access to guns and next to no gun crime deaths. It definitely better serves my point, though Finland is an okay example. Israel is another example of this phenomenon.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Dyscivist

[Guest Lord Sandwich]

@Goldentongue

Guns and explosions are fucking cool and I should be able to explode bombs and bullets without having to jump through a bunch of retarded hoops intended to try (and fail) to inhibit violent criminals.

This whole gun-control debate will become void in about 15 years once 3D printing materials become stable enough to withstand automatic gunfire.

...No offense but what exactly do you need explosives for?

Explosions are kicking rad, that's why. What kind of question is that?

[Goldentongue 3616]

ITT:

People think knife attacks are just as deadly as guns (btw, that attacker in China yesterday, stabbed 22 people, not a single one died.) I shouldn't even have to explain this one.

People think they can draw any sort of connection between the prohibition of firearms and drugs. This is a terrible strawman fallacy. Firearms are not drugs. The supply isn't being constantly consumed, driving the demand. They are not physically addictive. Guns can not be infinitely reduced into smaller and smaller quantities to allow for easy smuggling, and they can't be divided up and sold by middlemen in the same manner.

The "gun-related deaths" statistic is nefarious because it includes people who've taken their own lives with firearms, which accounts for more than 50% of gun deaths.

Did you even click the article I provided? What do you think the word "homicide" means? You keep making false claims about the failure of gun control worldwide, when this just isn't true. The US ranks far above other developed nations when it comes to gun fatalities per population, and that's ignoring suicide numbers.

As for Switzerland, comparing gun ownership there to gun ownership in the United States is absolutely foolish:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

[Guest Fohacidal]

ITT:

People think knife attacks are just as deadly as guns (btw, that attacker in China yesterday, stabbed 22 people, not a single one died.) I shouldn't even have to explain this one.

People think they can draw any sort of connection between the prohibition of firearms and drugs. This is a terrible strawman fallacy. Firearms are not drugs. The supply isn't being constantly consumed, driving the demand. They are not physically addictive. Guns can not be infinitely reduced into smaller and smaller quantities to allow for easy smuggling, and they can't be divided up and sold by middlemen in the same manner.

The "gun-related deaths" statistic is nefarious because it includes people who've taken their own lives with firearms, which accounts for more than 50% of gun deaths.

Did you even click the article I provided? What do you think the word "homicide" means? You keep making false claims about the failure of gun control worldwide, when this just isn't true. The US ranks far above other developed nations when it comes to gun fatalities per population, and that's ignoring suicide numbers.

As for Switzerland, comparing gun ownership there to gun ownership in the United States is absolutely foolish:

http://www.washingto...toting-utopias/

Again, the biggest fallacy here is believing that by enforcing gun laws everywhere we somehow manage to overcome the lack of mental healthcare support to avoid people becoming broken enough to do this in the first place. You are wasting time and resources that figuratively speaking will only cut a leaf off of the plant that is the larger issue at hand.

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

People think knife attacks are just as deadly as guns (btw, that attacker in China yesterday, stabbed 22 people, not a single one died.) I shouldn't even have to explain this one.

Hahahaha what? You're completely missing the point. I only linked that incident because it was the most recent. Here's one where children died: http://en.wikipedia....school_massacre

Here's the real problem:

EDIT: I know you're just going to skew this comic and say: See? if guns were harder to get, we'd be better. The point is mental health care is what's needed, the weapon used doesn't matter. Ban guns, knives will be used, explosives will be used, baseball bats will be used.

Edited December 15, 2012 by ElectronicDrug