27 Dead in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Mr. Ambien]

Then how do you use a gun correctly? Is it protection? If that is correct then let me ask you this:

How many lives are saved by gun owners vs how many are lost because of the availability of arms?

[Pouria]

if you think banning guns will end all violence you're in for an unpleasant surprise, not that they're ever going to ban guns in the U.S

[Primus099]

What is the difference between Canada and US?

[Hockey!?]

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/DearShirley/status/279953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.

[Pouria]

Zero steps forward, two steps back.. and this is where I point out that it isn't the gun's fault a lunatic decided to use it for the wrong purpose any more than it's a word's fault someone uses it wrongly. Amazing in the 21st century that logic still takes a back seat to reactionary.

[rampage]

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/...953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.

[Pouria]

Isreal and Switzerland have easy access to guns for civilians and the rate of guns in homes is the same as the US, and their murder rates are not anywhere near as high as the U.S. So strict gun laws don't automatically = less violence because both those countries don't have strict laws, yet don't have high gun violence

[Mr. Ambien]

The difference is that words aren't capable of killing people but guns are capable of killing people. By your logic, then all countries should have nuclear technology. Kids should have access to bombs etc. After all, all of these things are inanimate objects and it isn't these inanimate object's fault for someone using it wrongly. Its not the nuclear weapon's fault if North Korea might plan on using it. Amazing in the 21's century that logic still takes a back seat to stupidity.

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

These questions have already been answered in the topic.

But I wonder why it would matter in the end.. the second amendment doesn't require more lives to be saved than lost any more than first amendment require more civilians to compliment than insult others by their usage of the first amendment.

If the suggestion is merely to do better background checks and require more thorough courses for a permit, as well as more frequent registration, I don't think there'd be much opposition.

Instead, gun is being blamed for the decision of a person to massacre others. So, still in the process of crawling before one can walk.

[Columbo]

Yes we have rules to prevent crashes. They prevent some, but not all. We still have thousands of deaths a year from crashes. So again, if stopping unnecessary deaths is the objective, clearly we need to work on more rules/more enforcement/something else. To focus our money/energy on stopping something else that kills far fewer people a year, how is that an efficient use of resources/time/etc?

[Mr. Ambien]

Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and Britain have either strict control on guns or complete ban on guns. Now do any of these have high incidents of gun violence like US??

How do you know banning guns in US won't work when they never even tried it yet? Trying is better than sitting on your hand and doing nothing. If it works, it works and if it doesn't then at least they tried. US wastes so much money on military and other things that don't even benefit their people yet its so hard for them to invest in something that might actually be a benefit to their citizens. But of course, its the same old rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

[Shift-4]

the meme's have begun as well, some real winners out there

[Pouria]

By your logic, we shouldn't have knives, or anything potentially dangerous because it's the "inanimate object's" fault for the way people use it. Blaming objects for the way people use them is the smart thing to do, people are just so dumb aren't they?

[nuckin_futz]

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/...953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.

[Electro Rock]

Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and Britain have either strict control on guns or complete ban on guns. Now do any of these have high incidents of gun violence like US??

How do you know banning guns in US won't work when they never even tried it yet? Trying is better than sitting on your hand and doing nothing. If it works, it works and if it doesn't then at least they tried. US wastes so much money on military and other things that don't even benefit their people yet its so hard for them to invest in something that might actually be a benefit to their citizens. But of course, its the same old rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

[Pouria]

Yes we have rules to prevent crashes. They prevent some, but not all. We still have thousands of deaths a year from crashes. So again, if stopping unnecessary deaths is the objective, clearly we need to work on more rules/more enforcement/something else. To focus our money/energy on stopping something else that kills far fewer people a year, how is that an efficient use of resources/time/etc?

[Pouria]

You're talking countries where there were far fewer guns to begin with, and especially in the case of Singapore and Malaysia are a lot more authoritarian, and in the case of Japan, Australian and Britain, are island nations, which makes controlling smuggling a lot easier.

Japan also has the Yakuza, who wouldn't allow some random crazy to get their hands on an illegal gun.

[Pouria]

[Wetcoaster]

They HAVE tried banning guns in the US. Washington DC was one of the best examples, a long standing ban on the most common type of gun, shootings were still highly rampant because, surprise.. criminals can easily attain guns and they don't care about gun ban laws.

The next thing which makes this a non starter is that a gun ban = overturned in court. A complete gun ban will not happen without removal of the second amendment.

Can't compare the US to other countries to this degree because the US is unique in several ways on the subject -- a very strong second amendment, and more prevalence in murders in general than most other first world nations. Americans do not think like the Swiss, or like Canadians.. apples and oranges.

Killing someone with a knife is easy, which is why it is still one of the most preferred ways to murder someone.

[Mr. Ambien]

The point am making is some object are weapons of mass destruction. Other objects might only be capable of killing a bird. I want to know why is the US foreign policy so different than their internal policy? If Iran wants nuclear weapons, why shouldn't they have it? If North Korea is testing their missiles, then why is US crying about it?