
Quite aside from the dearth of evidence that an armed bystander would make any difference at all, the idea that having more confused, scared people with guns would make anyone safer is... um... perplexing.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:23, Reply)

if a crazed gunman is stood in a shopping centre, shooting randomly at screaming buystanders, simply walking up to him with a gun is enough to make him put the gun down, apologise for what he has done and ask Jebas for forgiveness.
Science fact from Page 36 of the NRA bible
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:27, Reply)

I thought you might have been serious. Then I saw the final line...
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:29, Reply)

is when I posted that^ exact comment somewhere on Facebook last night, some stranger messaged me questioning whether or not I was being serious
You couldn't make it up
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:37, Reply)

This is impossible, they need to come at the from a different angle because millions of guns are never going to just "dissapear".
what about prevention, what causes people to go on a killing spree?
Is it the glamour of going out with a bang?
Is it the kill count?
Why so much hate? Why innocent people?
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:30, Reply)

it's very quick and remarkably easy to do it, as the media keeps advertising
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:34, Reply)

Put a law in so that any killing sprees have to be reported in the minimal way. Put down some really speific guidleines, get phychaitrists involved and sort it out.
If it stops even 1 spree its worth it.
Plus it'll get a lot more shit off tv.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:40, Reply)

Right minded people have been demanding this for decades, but it doesn't work because the not right minded people want to hear this shit.
Shock and Horror sells papers/airtime/online advertising better than pictures of kittens.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:43, Reply)

Surely its less "Commie" than banning all guns, ZOMG!
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:48, Reply)

you have to change what the consumers want first
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:51, Reply)

i will start putting things in order then. twas nice knowing ya'll.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 16:19, Reply)

it is probably more a desire to show that you have some power over a society you feel rejected by and powerless in, rather than just wanting to be famous (which seems a more trivial thing to someone's mental well-being).
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 15:07, Reply)

If America wants fewer of these incidents it has a choice. Either try to reduce the number of mentally ill people or the number of automatic weapons.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 16:04, Reply)

real fuck the poor / mentally ill attitude, presumably the flip side of the american dream where people deny that luck plays any part in someone's social situation.
I'd put most of the blame on that.
Removing guns may remove ability to do a crime, but it doesn't remove the desire (or, in some cases, need to do crime to survive).
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 14:55, Reply)

Just so I can sit back and sob "I told you so" when it all goes tits up.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:41, Reply)

What is interesting, is that over-armed population living in practically war zone, still yields less school killings.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:44, Reply)

when your daily routine involves fighting for survival you value those bullets and know how best to use them compared to a comfortably rich nobody who has no understanding of their place in the world who is bombarded by some really shit media that his slightly broken brain can't process.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:46, Reply)

agreed that all Americans should be cornered to work in labour
camps for master race, didn't we?
Alternatively, you just have said that guns are not really
root of a problem.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:59, Reply)

(although I'm pretty sure these will be completely automated factories to undercut their overseas manufacture costs)
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 14:03, Reply)

If the problem's "guns", then the solution is never going to be "more guns".
That I've seen that suggested (a couple of times) here on /links in the last few days depresses me...
[edit] As you've got him on ignore, you'll have missed Coxxy's take on this. Consider yourself extremely lucky.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:53, Reply)

the killer hadn't been armed. Didn't have easy access to guns. What then? Ah! A knife! - A day or so before this atrocity some guy attacked a school in China. Stabbed/slashed 22 kids. Deaths? - Zero.
Guns don't kill people - people do. Guns just make it a hell of a lot easier.
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:27, Reply)

it's win-win
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:28, Reply)

From Jezebel a couple of days ago:
"Fuck you, people who say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Sorry, assholes, this isn't the time for semantics. Guns are the tools that enable people who kill people to kill lots and lots of people with ease. And they're fucking efficient."
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:30, Reply)

On the same day 27 people were killed in CT, some 30.000 people starved in Africa.
I don't hear anyone arguing we should ban Africans.
/coat
( , Sun 16 Dec 2012, 13:32, Reply)