[ Long ] Bath, Michigan Bomber Kills 45, Then Self.

Post Reply New Topic

Wait why haven't crossbows been mentioned yet they are silent and can be used to kill people.

they just want to make aspergers look bad. this event benefits their political objectives, the TV doesn't show real news, it's emotional programming. the point is to put us into groups. the majority will attack the minority and vote their rights away. eventually we all lose our rights. if he used explosives, this would not get as much media spotlight because they want you to turn your guns in. explosives would've killed more.

Last edited by henry14488 on 18 Dec 2012, 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Comparing car accidents and house fires with shootings is a big fat whopper of a red herring - car accidents and house fires tend not to be murders, and are the sort of thing that can occur in the most peaceful of societies.
"My neighbour crashed his car, therefore I am allowed to have an AK-47".

It's comparing the risk of death from various sources, and demonstrating that while sensational, shootings like this are so statistically rare as to be non-factors when assessing threats to ones personal safety. More importantly, major laws should not be based on emotional upset and rare but spectacular misuse. 9/11 killed more people than have died in mass shootings in the past 30 years by several thousand, and look at what over reacting to that got us; the PATRIOT act, the DHS and TSA, and a never ending war on everyone. In a country of 300 million, mass shootings causing 10s of deaths a year are not a "crisis", the numbers are just not statistically significant. The argument is more like "you've failed to prove that my owning an AK variant is an unacceptable risk to society" when the big picture is viewed.

Mass shootings are not the whole reason why some people want gun control, but when an event like this takes place and is all over the news it brings the issue to the fore. It is a catalyst more than anything.

May I just point out that I am making no comment for or against gun control. My interest here is the dialogue that comes from those on both sides of the argument.

ok, this question hasn't been directly asked, so here goes- what if mr. lanza hadn't have had his mother's arsenal available to him, what do you think he would've done in place of shooting his mother's weapons? would he have carted a bunch of molotov cocktails into the school and let fly? bow and arrow [like in a recent movie]? if assault weapons [catch-all term for high-powered semi-auto with large magazine] were a lot harder for the average person of average wherwithal to get, what would be the practical alternatives requiring no more ingenuity/energy than shooting a gun, with which to commit mass murder?

Last edited by auntblabby on 19 Dec 2012, 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

No idea.

Though, a hunting level bow with a quiver of hunting arrows (you can carry quite a few, though obviously not as many as several mags full of ammunition) would work all the same. You can get a pretty decent rate of fire if you know what you're doing; I used* to get 1 off every other second from a back quiver with a little practice, hitting a 2 liter soda bottle at 15 meters each time, and I wasn't all that good.

Hunting bows (40 pounds+) work all the same in regards to terminal effects; they provide sufficient penetration to inflict a lethal injury in one shot.

*Interest too

Interesting information, Fnord. I don't like guns, but I think all the emphasis on gun control is masking the real issue, which is mental health - not Asperger's, but whatever else was going on in Adam Lanza's life - which there's no perfect solution for either. Even if mental health care were readily available to all at no cost, that doesn't mean everyone who needs it will seek it, or that professionals are any better at predicting who will turn violent than the rest of us are.

It's a horrible tragedy, and I'd much rather the focus be on helping the survivors and victims' families find some comfort somehow.

I'm mostly ashamed of the utter nonsense spewed by American news media. I think many of the news sources should be ashamed of themselves for irresponsible, inaccurate and sensationalized reporting.

any truth to the rumor that his mother was about to have him committed, and that made mr. lanza "snap"?

The Koch brothers have killed a lot of people too. Why aren't they in prison?

I do think Japan has the best gun laws

as for the first point, the high muckety-mucks that can do megadirt with the stroke of a pen have long been a protected class, "too big to fail." as for how effective their gun laws are, they have an overall crime rate that is a fraction of western nations such as USA. whether that is due to the relative absense of guns versus their national ethics/homogenous society, is up to debate. when my late japanese mother grew up there decades back, she told me it was drilled into their heads as soon as they could understand, that their job#1 as children and japanese citizens, was to behave.

Japan has a fairly low overall murder rate at under 1 (0.4) per 100,000 people per year, compared to 5 per 100,000 for the US. Though its suicide rate is 34 per 100,000 compared to 19 for the US.

I find the differences interesting, as many say easier access to firearms will equate to a higher suicide rate; though by all admissions, Japan has a low rate of firearm ownership but one of the highest suicide rates. The US has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership, but its murder rate isn't among the highest (yep, firearms are used often in murders and suicides, but looking at the means doesn't give you an accurate view on the chance of being murdered or killing yourself, and this chance is the most important thing).

Does the increase in firearm ownership in the US equate to 4.6 more murders per 100,000 people a year? Does the decrease in firearms actually cause 13 more suicides a year in Japan (that's the same logic)?

I can't logically say firearms actually have any effect on either of these.

Well, the suicide rate might having something to do with the culture, I have know idea. And, I'm not for sure if the decrease in firearms causes more suicides. In fact, I don't think it would, but as you know they have less gun violence. It's such an interesting topic.

Might? Take that reasoning just a bit further vis a vis the US and Japan concerning our homicide rates as well, and you'll nearly be there. Even if you threw out all of our gun crime and assumed no weapon substitution, we'd still have a murder rate at least 3 times that of Japan; we don't need guns to kill each other, and clearly we're going to whether we have access to them or not, it's a cultural thing.

Citation?

I'll remind you that the Koch brothers gave the ACLU $20,000,000 to fight the PATRIOT act, have poured millions into legalizing marijuana, and put more than $100,000,000 into cancer research, not to mention further millions in other philanthropic donations. Perhaps you should Google before you post in the future.

Well Japan has fewer guns, and I'm just saying they have a fewer homicides. You can't stop crazy people from killing, I'm very aware of that, but with stricter gun laws certainly it would help. Definitely no country is perfect.

The Koch brothers are scary. People have died from cancer because of the toxic waste from their factories. They have put a lot of money into cancer research, which is rather hypocritical and evil. They want you to believe in them, that's why they have their ideologies taught in hundreds of universities across America, and have hundreds of think tanks trying to dismantle our wonderful Social Security. They've also funded for school segregation, and they're linked to the Tea Party Movement and Americans for Prosperity. Oh, and they are the 1%. There is over 300 million people in America, and only about 403 billionaires in this country. Trickle down? It's more like a leaking tap, and it's certainly not a gushing waterfall. We are the 99%. I suggest you Google.

Last edited by tveye on 21 Dec 2012, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.