Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Mass shooting in my state

421 replies

Terramirabilis · 01/10/2015 21:27

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

OP posts:
UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 09/10/2015 02:46

Ah. No comment on Oscar Pistorius, I notice. Just the "law abiding citizens owning guns being ok" story. Do you think, whatever his motives that night, that he is pleased with his actions that night, and what he's been through since? Without a gun - he may have spent a few minutes being shit scared - but you know, Reeva Steenkamp would still be alive.

That's to say, a perfectly innocent woman lost her life that night because of one man's stupid paranoia, obsession with guns, and self defence. And that's if we believe his story - which I don't.

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 02:52

"Ah. No comment on Oscar Pistorius, I notice. Just the "law abiding citizens owning guns being ok" story. Do you think, whatever his motives that night, that he is pleased with his actions that night, and what he's been through since?

No I don't think he's pleased with his actions.

"Without a gun - he may have spent a few minutes being shit scared - but you know, Reeva Steenkamp would still be alive."

Yes, may have, so in other words may not have. And just like we can speculate whether or not she would still be alive if he hadn't had a gun, we can also speculate on whether he could be dead if he didn't have a gun and there was an attacker.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 09/10/2015 02:54

There was no intruder. It's the ultimate paranoia of a white man in a safe place - but armed with a gun - and his paranoia. How much collateral damage can be justified just so that white men can own guns?

Aussiemum78 · 09/10/2015 03:12

There is one very effective way to reduce mass shootings and accidental shootings and that's to make sure all gun owners have secured weapons in a proper gun safe, and no access given to children.

In a country where you can't legally drink until 21, it amazes me that so many disgruntled teenagers can get their hands on multiple, high powered weapons (outside of an environment such as a gun range or hunting under parental supervision). And toddlers can accidentally shoot parents?!

I really can't see how the NRA wouldn't support enforcement of this one very simple measure. It would reduce killings.

Aussiemum78 · 09/10/2015 03:14

Oscar prestorious knew there was no intruder. His story was absolute bullshit.

sakura · 09/10/2015 04:37

Give women and children a chance fgs

BAN GUNS

worldgonecrazy · 09/10/2015 09:45

There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 last week. There is massive paranoia amongst the gun lobby. The guns are not to protect themselves from some non-existent house intruder. They are there to protect themselves from the Federal Government. A couple of interviewees, when pushed, also said that they would use their guns to defend themselves from the UN. (I'm not convinced the interviewee knew what the UN was.)

squidzin · 09/10/2015 10:25

Some Americans believe the UN is "Communists" but I don't think they have even a base understanding of what "communist" is.
(My brother hears all kinds if weird shit, editing documentaries). Take my word, racism is alive and well in the USA.

It's safe to say the attitude towards guns there is wholly irrational.

Roussette · 09/10/2015 10:41

I don't like Piers Morgan but my god how I agree with him on this. I watched it more or less when the debate took place. The gun toting rednecks wanted him to be deported for questioning US gun laws, saying background checks should take place, and weapons should be locked up. Seems reasonable to me.

Alex Jones (pro guns in a big way) sums up everything that I dislike about the pro gun lobby. Not paranoid? His reason for wanting every single person in the US to carry a gun is because of the threat of a tyrannical regime taking over, meaning his own government.

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 10:46

"There was no intruder."

No but as long as we were speculating on possible different outcomes, such as she might be alive if there was no gun, it makes sense to consider other possibilities. Maybe there was no gun, and maybe there was an intruder, now he's dead because he wasn't able to protect himself.

"Give women and children a chance fgs"

It would give some a chance but it would deny others the same chance, you're just trading deaths. You prevent a shooting spree at the cost of several lives because people were not allowed a weapon to protect themselves, is it worth it?

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 10:50

Isn't Piers Morgan the one living in a community with armed guards/patrols?

maybebabybee · 09/10/2015 11:03

are you seriously suggesting, DontHaveAUsername, that if there were gun control laws then all of a sudden everyone would start having their homes invaded by intruders?

myotherusernameisbetter · 09/10/2015 11:11

If people don't have guns in their homes, then intruders don't need guns either. They already have the element of surprise on their side so any lesser weapon would do in terms of them protecting themselves.

I would think the vast majority of potential/actual intruders would prefer to be in and out without being detected at all.

It's an alarm system you need surely, not a gun?

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 11:19

Armed robbery happens in both countries with gun control, and without it. Is it right to protect one person from a possible future attack by depriving another of the ability to protect themselves from a possible future attack? I think it is not. These shootings are tragic but they are not a reason to ban law abiding people from having a weapon for protection. Putting one person in danger to safeguard another isn't worth it imo.

Roussette · 09/10/2015 11:25

You are very flippant about these mass shootings that take place in the US Donthave. A shrug of shoulders and "these things happen" seems to be your view. A necessary fallout to everyone being allowed guns. Why aren't we beset with this on a regular basis? Because guns aren't rife in our country, that's why. We aren't allowed weapons in our home to protect ourselves and we manage.

I imagine Piers Morgan lives in the US and feels the need to be protected from the proliferation of weapons over there.

PigletJohn · 09/10/2015 11:28

Username appears to have the belief that guns reduce the number of gunshot victims.

maybebabybee · 09/10/2015 11:30

Donthave are you saying there is no link whatsoever between gun control laws and mass shootings?

Because in Britain we have gun control laws and shock horror we have no mass shootings. We also don't have many incidents of random intruders breaking into people's houses and killing them, BTW.

IfNotNowThenWhenever · 09/10/2015 11:48

The fact is, if you have a gun in your bedside table , in the event of a break in, that is the gun that will kill you.
Not the armed robbers gun. Yours.
This is the case very and over again, and yet bizarrely Americans continue to believe in this talisman of the gun protecting their home and families.
It's a fallacy. It's the very definition of insanity-doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
No good can ever come of more guns, armed teachers etc. America needs a massive change in gun laws.

LurkingHusband · 09/10/2015 11:52

No one is "tolerating" school shootings, no one wants them to happen. Both sides of the gun debate agree on the fact that they don't want people to be murdered, they just have different opinions on how to try keeping people safe.

Sorry, as I suggested earlier, Charles Whitman to now - 49 years (how old is Obama, out of interest). What significant changes have been made to prevent these tragedies, and what measure of success have they enjoyed.

None, and none seems to be the answer.

However, in the preceding 49 years, the US has tightened up car emissions (!), driven through several equality initiatives, put a man on the moon. Carried out several significant military engagements, and passed laws which are still in debate with regard to their constitutionality. Smoking has been reduced, and even with the frankly staggering reduction to now, is still talked of in terms of elimination. The US has pushed for and been open to reducing the worlds nuclear arsenal - more than twice (SALT 1/2). The US has been instrumental in helping police the internet, and locate paedophiles and bring them to justice across the globe.

To someone who would like to consider themselves an educated observer, it seems a fair conclusion that, when the hand-wringing is over, and there's another story, the US returns to tolerating spree killings.

I appreciate the gun-ownership debate has a different tone in the US. A lot of non-USians (especially the UK) simply don't appreciate the revolutionary crucible which forged the culture which emerged. For better or worse, the UK just doesn't "do" revolutions.

I find that figure - 49 - curious, as it's close to my age. And one thing ages gives you, is a literal sense of history, because I was there. Someone 20 - even 30 - years old, may be taken in by politicians who try to give the impression that something has "been important for years". Yeah, right. Important enough to talk about, but not quite important enough to do anything about.

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 11:55

I challenge that this is a "fact". How do you explain away times when a home owner has defended themselves against a robber with a weapon, either by killing them, shooting them, or just using it to scare them away?

We can't say that gun control will stop shootings happen, sprees in the UK on the odd time they happen prove this. At best you lower the amount of sprees, but also put others in danger from being unarmed.

maybebabybee · 09/10/2015 11:56

sprees in the UK on the odd time they happen prove this

Shooting sprees in the UK happen once in a blue moon. In the US they seem to happen every other week.

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 12:00

Yes, but they still happen, so gun control doesn't stop shootings. At best it reduces their frequency. Surely that would make gun control insanity too - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results ie preventing shootings.

LurkingHusband · 09/10/2015 12:01

There have been 3 significant spree killings in the UK. Every one triggered a debate which resulted in tougher gun laws. This is despite the fact that the weapons involved were already banned.

That's what happens when people really care.

By the same token, in the late 80s and early 90s there were a series of individual attacks by dangerous dogs. Public pressure led to a law - the Dangerous Dogs Act.

That's what happens when people really care.

maybebabybee · 09/10/2015 12:03

Yes, but they still happen, so gun control doesn't stop shootings. At best it reduces their frequency.

You are bats. The frequency of the shootings in the states prove they need tighter gun control laws. You literally cannot argue with that. All the evidence proves it.

DontHaveAUsername · 09/10/2015 12:09

I disagree. It proves that they need to try and stop shootings from happening, and I don't think gun control will do it. It won't really make it much harder to access a gun and it will deprive millions of their right to defend themselves. If they are ever in need of protection that instant, and the police are a good 5-10 minutes away on a good day, who do they rely on?

We have strict gun control and sprees still happen. They have liberal gun control and sprees still happen. At what point do we accept that sprees will happen no matter what, and try to address the root cause of the problem, which is sickos who vent their anger by mowing down innocents?