Mass shooting in my state

[Terramirabilis]

Another mass shooting in the US and this one is close to home. Local media are saying 13 students dead and 20+ injured. When are people going to see sense on gun control. I just don't understand this.

twitter.com/hashtag/UCCShooting?src=hash

No, with a gun in the house - it's far more likely that a) our kids will get hold of it and cause some family tragedy, b) you will kill someone, like your spouse, in a crime of passion, or c) you will kill yourself in a tragic moment of depression or despair, and you have the means of instant dispatch right there on your bedside cabinet.

House invasions are rare - and if you follow gun safety rules (particularly if you have children in the house) - you will likely not get to your gun to protect yourself in your moment of need.

Donthaveausername, your sources seem to be your gun-toting friends. So not that objective or reliable.

Does that mean everyone who is anti gun can be dismissed on the same understanding that they can't possible be objective or reliable?

Greenwood I'm sorry but I disagree with you. My view is that personal safety is a personal choice, what works best for one person in one set of circumstances might be completely unworkable for another person in a different set of circumstances. It can't have a one size fits all approach. If people want to own a weapon for protection then as long as they can pass a background check then I think they should have that right. That's pretty much the only criticism I have of the American system I think background checks should be mandatory.

So are you holstered up at all times, donthave ? If not, why not? Or are you in the UK, where you have to live with our gun control? I actually think it's devastatingly sad that there is a group of human beings on this earth, in a civilised democratic country that thinks it's necessary to be so paranoid.

It's exhausting, yes. It makes me scared to be raising DS here. All kids get trained on what to do in event of a shooting from kindergarten up.

I find this a really scary and depressing statement. I would love to visit America one day, but if this is the way it is there I sure as hell am glad I don't live there.
I just can't comprehend it. Why the obsession with guns? Why can't they just be banned like in the UK?

I'm in the UK so no I don't carry. I don't think it's paranoid to acknowledge that threats exist in the world and take measures to protect yourself against them. You may think that it's unlikely you would ever need a gun and it probably is, but are you willing to bet your life on it? People made the same mistake with the Titanic. The only possible way it could sink is if more than 4 compartments were flooding, and that had never happened before and it was assumed that ships would be able to navigate around anything that could cause that damage. All those fire safety notices and fire extinguishers dotted around your workplace may be considered paranoid by someone who has never needed to use them. It's all paranoia, until you find yourself in a situation where you need them and then it isn't.

You're in the Uk so you can't carry a gun. And isn't it great that way? No guns in general circulation.

Titanic analogy is meaningless. Guns and general Health & Safety are not the same things. Guns are to kill, nothing else. Barring a few farming/sports pursuits - in which case we're not talking about personal safety/self defence - we're talking shooting/sports pursuits - and guns here in the UK are not available for 'personal defence'.

I don't think that it's great, it means that I have a lesser chance of being able to defend myself if I should ever need to. Guns are not simply to kill, they can also be used as a deterrent. The analogy is not meaningless, you were saying that it's paranoid to want to protect yourself from potential threats, and I referenced two situations: One where over a thousand lives were lost because they thought it was paranoid to take steps to protect themselves from a threat, and one where "paranoia" sometimes saves people in a workplace from dying an unnecessary death.

You say that it's paranoia, but the threat actually is out there. We've all heard about it, we all hear about people being killed or stabbed or shot, so why is it paranoid to want to protect yourself from that please?

Killed or stabbed - the risk is there. As is being beaten over the head with a table lamp. Or being stabbed with a pencil. Because all those things have a use in our society. Yo can't outlaw pencils, or knives. We use them to write, or cut up our food.

Guns are a whole different thing - and the guns in circulation today are nothing that the writers of the second amendment could have even thought of. Right to bear semi automatics weapons that can shoot-up kids in school. No, it's just not there.

Guns also have a use in society, as a weapon for protection. We don't use them in this society but others do. The argument about modern weapons is a pretty common anti gun argument with no real substance, as the guns of the 1700's could still be used to kill people, maybe a bit slower but the ability was still there. And also you could say that if the amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons, then freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet as the writers couldn't have thought of that. So you're free to criticize your Senator as long as you write on parchment :D

And I'd make the same argument that you can't outlaw guns in America, people use them to protect themselves and their loved ones. Try telling a mother or father that you want to take away their ability to safeguard their children.

Right to buy bullets for semi automatic weapons in K-Mart to shoot up your class-mates? I don't see that in the second amendment.

Do you think all conceivable "arms" should be available to the average American? He has the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment so...? Should Americans have the right to own tanks, nuclear / chemical weapons?

Tell a mother and father in an average UK county that they can't have a gun for "family protection". 'Meh, wouldn't want one anyway, they're damn dangerous' would be the general response.

Guns are not self defense - they are an offensive weapon. One that kills with little effort, and from a distance.

"Right to buy bullets for semi automatic weapons in K-Mart to shoot up your class-mates? I don't see that in the second amendment."

It's not in the second amendment. It's illegal, that's why people who do it are jailed if they are caught.

"Do you think all conceivable "arms" should be available to the average American? He has the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment so...? Should Americans have the right to own tanks, nuclear / chemical weapons?"

I don't think everything should be available, there has to be a balance. Almost everyone agrees that there should be a balance of some kind, but it varies from person to person what that balance should be. My personal belief is that an American civilian should not be allowed to own the things you describe, a nuclear or chemical weapon etcetera. I don't see any feasible situation where it could be used defensively. But I am for that civilian being able to own a firearm for protection, I consider that reasonable, and there are many times a civilian has used a gun defensively and it saved either their lives or someone elses.

"Tell a mother and father in an average UK county that they can't have a gun for "family protection". 'Meh, wouldn't want one anyway, they're damn dangerous' would be the general response. "

And that would be a completely reasonable response from people who have never had the need for a gun. If they ever found themselves in a situation where they needed one, their reaction may be a bit different next time you asked, assuming they were still alive to be asked.

What's illegal? Buying bullets for semi automatic weapons?

It wasn't illegal when the Columbine shooters went and bought them before shooting up their class mates. It's still not asfaik - Michael Moore led a protest to K-Mart Head Office with the children who suffered life limiting injuries from those very bullets sold by K-Mart, to ask that they no longer sell them.

"They're has to a balance" - the best overall 'balance' is that nobody has guns at all - not in holsters, not on their bedside tables, not on their person at all. The UK has a pretty good balance that way - armed police when you need them - the rest, No. Ciivlians in a democratic society not at war - no guns - is good.

And that would be a completely reasonable response from people who have never had the need for a gun. If they ever found themselves in a situation where they needed one, their reaction may be a bit different next time you asked, assuming they were still alive to be asked.

And that's the paranoia. It's nasty, you wanna get some help with that.

"What's illegal? Buying bullets for semi automatic weapons?"

Not by itself but if you're buying them with the intention "to shoot up your class-mates" then it becomes illegal, and that's what your post was referring to, not just a random person buying some ammo.

"They're has to a balance" - the best overall 'balance' is that nobody has guns at all"

I respect that we have different beliefs on this, and actually if you can think of a way to ensure that nobody has any guns at all and can guarantee it I would support your stance on guns.

"armed police when you need them - the rest, No. Ciivlians in a democratic society not at war - no guns - is good.

And if you need armed police to be here within seconds, but they won't make it to your location for 4 minutes?

"And that's the paranoia. It's nasty, you wanna get some help with that."

So you must disagree then, you must believe that their reaction wouldn't be different. Why is that?

And I disagree that it's paranoia, for the simple fact that it actually happens, it goes on, there's real examples of it happening. People find themselves in a situation where they need a weapon to get out safely. So if it happens, it isn't paranoia is it? It's like saying you're paranoid because you're worrying about people going on sprees if they have access to guns. It's not paranoid, because it has a solid basis in fact.

Because a gun is dangerous thing. You keep it with you, loaded, all the time - well, the statistics speak for themselves. You're more likely to suffer some gun-based tragedy to your loved ones than need to use it against an intruder.

The more people are known to be 'defended' by guns, the more perpetrators will be armed with them.The more perpetrators are thought to carry guns, the more people will want to own them in their own home. It's called the proliferation of gun ownership.

Guns in homes held safely (locked away, without bullets) are likely to not be at hand when the homeowner really needs them. The more guns that are around, loaded and ready for use, the more accidents will happen.

Lots of things are dangerous things, the answer is not to ban them and treat society like toddlers needing to be shielded, but to teach responsibility.

"The more people are known to be 'defended' by guns, the more perpetrators will be armed with them."

If that's what you chose to believe then we are at an impasse, I'm sorry we can't reach any agreement here.

There's no impasse with decent gun control. The proliferation of gun ownership causes all the problems with gun deaths. There is no comparison ti having a gun - you can kill easily, or by accident, from a distance, with a moment's passion.

Ask Oscar Pistorius. Whatever his story/motive - I'm pretty sure he regrets it now.

"There's no impasse with decent gun control. The proliferation of gun ownership causes all the problems with gun deaths. There is no comparison ti having a gun - you can kill easily, or by accident, from a distance, with a moment's passion. "

Well there is, because I don't agree with you. To me, decent gun control means allowing law abiding people to have a weapon for protection but obviously you feel decent gun control means something different. Sorry, I just can't share your views.