[Closed] 26killed in america. sky news now.

🙁
2nd amendment....Why?

It's their choice and the price they pay to have firearms in the country which is unlikely to change seeing as guns will always be available illegally and the right to keep and bear arms is part of the constitution. There will be the usual emotional knee jerk reaction but the status quo will return once the fuss dies down.
Didnt see much in the news today about the 100people killed on the roads in America on the same day.

The victims choice?

I wonder if obama will feel secure enough fresh into his second term to grab the issue by the nuts and do something about it. The 2nd amendment should be viewed as americas embarrassment.

What a tragedy.

Somebody on STW watches Sky News, amazing.

I once heard some American on the radio (presumably after the last school shooting) saying that the 2nd amendment was written to allow 'the people' to prevent an authoritarian government forming (democracy being sacred to them, and all that) and had no relevance to 'allowing people to protect themselves'

Ban guns and psychos will disappear? Even Goldie Lookin Chain know this is bullshit.

Sounds like a similar theme to the war on drugs where nobody looks at the buyer in a society that's made most of us addicted to something.

Fair to say that guns allow a certain cowardice in such tragedies. Some disconnected being may not take such measures if they had to stand toe to toe.

No single, simple answer.

Another very, very sad story.

awful day

[img] http://www.estergoldberg.com/.a/6a0105349ca980970c016768b3250c970b-500wi [/img]

It's their choice

20 children chose that, did they?

There will always be an individual of a species who feels they aren't and never will be where they want to be, connected in a certain heirachy.

In this case the individual may, for want of a better expression, turn rogue. I don't believe this can ever be changed. It's animal nature and we as a species can't monitor the mental health of every individual all the time.

Some people can't get their head around this. The world will never be perfect.

Didnt see much in the news today about the 100people killed on the roads in America on the same day.

One person did all that deliberately mowing folk down and it did not make the news

Sky news really is shit then or its a very slow troll day

You are neither subtle enough nor stupid enough for here

Ban guns and psychos will disappear? Even Goldie Lookin Chain know this is bullshit.

When I was a teenager, I sometimes got mad at my parents. What I could do is go upstairs, slam my bedroom door, and play music very loud. What I couldn't do is go to school with an assault rifle and take it out on the rest of my class.

Guns don't make people go psycho, but they make it a hell of a lot easier for them to succeed.

First page and we're already into personal abuse.....

I know we only get news from English speaking nations or close neighbours but is this type of shooting happening else where?

You don't need a Gun.

[url= http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-attacks-22-kids-knife-china-school-article-1.1220230 ]Clicky :([/url]

Yes, and tragic as the event in China was, notice that none of the kids died.

[quote=zippykona ]I know we only get news from English speaking nations or close neighbours but is this type of shooting happening else where?

Breivik in Norway.
The Swedish guy that was shooting immigrants.

It happens elsewhere, but is even more newsworthy when it does as it is so infrequent.

It does happen other places, and other places also have lots of guns without this kind of thing. Everyone in Switzerland is armed to the teeth.

There's a toxic combination in the States of ready availability of weapons and a culture of violence.

Where as here we have alcohol and a culture of violence so much less deaths

That's a good question and I have no idea. Seem to recall it in France (I think). In countries where girls are shot for going to school and people are blowing themselves up to kill others, I'd guess it is though.

I get the 'their choice' comment, as in USA has to put up with things like this if weapons are that available, but on a personal, individual level, it's truly devestating.

I've also just remembered Norway...

Edit: and I'm a slow typer on the phone!!

Dear NRA

How many childrens' lives is the right to own an assault rifle worth?

Yours

Confused.

what is absolutely amazing is that the school was designated a 'Gun Free Zone'

that right there shows how ridiculous the levels of gun ownership must be when you have to create a special zone around a school where you're not supposed to have weapons

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut [/i]

And fully automatic machine guns are legal..., kinda puts the intended (from the lady who's son was killed, said on radio she's been promised this) Scottish Airgun ban into perspective 🙄

what is absolutely amazing is that the school was designated a 'Gun Free Zone'

Indeed - if the teachers had been carrying, then they could have stopped him in his tracks!

maybe the debate on gun control should come later , lets just spare a thought for the people that have died.

Is there no subject you wont troll 😕

I know we only get news from English speaking nations or close neighbours but is this type of shooting happening else where?

You forgot about this one then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

It does unfortunately happen in this country, but it is thankfully very rare. Gun crime is far less of a problem.

tails - Member

Think they have some crap in the constitution thing bout right to bare(sic) arms!

It's been interpreted that way, but was actually intended to allow for a 'militia' to defend the local population at time very different to now. ie. a de facto Police/National Guard raised in time of need, not for disgruntled young lads to go on the rampage at a school, cinema, shopping mall etc. if they felt the urge. The modern spin on it is based on a fallacy. The Police and National Guard are now formally organised. The general population need not concern themselves with it.

There appears to be a sort of paranoia about "bad guys with guns" (and, therefore, guns being comfort blankets for some people, whether it would help or not) and a fear of the government removing "freedoms" (at what cost?).

The only winners are the gun industry.

The 'tradition' of almost anybody having access to fairly serious weaponry that makes mass murder relatively easy/straight-forward for anybody who wishes to carry it out seems nonsensical to me.

The fairly similar Europeans and Australasians manage to function reasonably well without assault rifles stashed in the car/bedroom or the legally permitted concealed carrying of handguns by large numbers of people on a trip down to Sainsburys.

I'm not opposed to hunting or sport shooting, and I even took part in it when I was over there, but as far as I'm concerned, the mass possession of firearms in the USA is not a good thing.

Interestingly, gun laws in the UK were changed after the dunblane shooting, from same wiki article I linked above.

The Gun Control Network was founded in the aftermath of the shootings and was supported by some parents of victims at Dunblane and of the Hungerford Massacre.[12] Bereaved families and their friends also initiated a campaign to ban private gun ownership, named the Snowdrop Petition (because March is snowdrop time in Scotland), which gained 705,000 signatures in support and was supported by some newspapers, including the Sunday Mail, a Scottish newspaper whose own petition to ban handguns had raised 428,279 signatures within five weeks of the massacre.

The Cullen Inquiry into the massacre recommended that the government introduce tighter controls on handgun ownership[13] and consider whether an outright ban would be in the public interest.[14] The report also recommended changes in school security[15] and vetting of people working with children under 18.[16] The Home Affairs Select Committee agreed with the need for restrictions on gun ownership but stated that a handgun ban was not appropriate.

In response to this public debate, the then-current Conservative government introduced a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons in England, Scotland and Wales. Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns in England, Scotland and Wales, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "Handgun" due to their dimensions. The ban does not affect Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands.

Security in schools, particularly primary schools, was improved in response to the Dunblane massacre and two other violent incidents which occurred at around the same time: the murder of Philip Lawrence, a head teacher in London, and the wounding of six children and Lisa Potts, a nursery teacher, at a Wolverhampton nursery school.

It makes me so angry that they have these stupid gun ownership laws in The U.S. Does anybody need to own assault rifles and hugely powerful handguns? It's ****in ridiculous. It's not like it's the first time this terrible sort of thing has happened is it? If the guy didn't have access to the firepower, it wouldn't have happened. Ohh, but it's in the constitution. Well, rip up the f****** constitution, it's ancient and out of date. or just arm everyone with pitchforks instead. Imagine how sick the parents of children killed in columbine are feeling, knowing that nothing has changed.

Ohh, but it's in the constitution. Well, rip up the f****** constitution, it's ancient and out of date.

[img] [/img]

Gun advocates say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The truth, though, is that people with guns kill people, often too efficiently.

Circa 80 people die per day and 120 are seriously injured from guns in America.

America needs to remove guns from the public domain but it will never happen, there is too much political support for the gun lobby and its antiquated mistaken support for the right to bear arms. The country must live with this or change, they won't change.

But it still has some great biking and some great people! 😉

Indeed - if the teachers had been carrying, then they could have stopped him in his tracks!

Wow.
Just.
Wow.

The Zulu (your words, not mine...that's how you're referring to yourself these days isn't it?) stoops to a new low in his STW trolling career. The meltdown I foresaw yesterday continues into one of your most inappropriate posts recently. Gold...even for your type. Take a look at yourself.

You are neither subtle enough nor stupid enough for here

Not interested in personal attacks on people (forums not weapons) especially tit for tat with moronic posters but I was merely commenting on the reactions to an emotional event and offering a view as to why the gun law will not change in the U.S despite the tragic loss of life.
A car culture that see's 100 people die every day but any tightening of laws is seen as a threat to civil liberties and not a vote winner, the same with firearms.
There were plenty more homicides involving firearms in the us that day (over 9000 per anum) it's just that they are not all grouped together or vulnerable children so not really newsworthy or likely to elicit such strong emotions.
40,000 killed in Syria yet the western world ponders it navel and I don't see many posts/tweets about that.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Indeed - if the teachers had been carrying, then they could have stopped him in his tracks!

That's actually a relatively common (albeit wrong, in my opinion) viewpoint on US internet forums when this sort of school/college/cinema/mall shooting occurs ie. every few months.

The concept of escalation seems not to occur to some people.

Ohh, but it's in the constitution. Well, rip up the f****** constitution, it's ancient and out of date.

Have you thought of writing to the president or local member of congress?

[img] [/img]

Not interested in personal attacks on people (forums not weapons) especially tit for tat with moronic posters

You might need to try harder then 🙄

Not sure saying you lack subtly is a personal attack- is it really?
Pretty sure that saying you are not stupid is not one either.

When they drew up the US constitution it was a new country and people wanted to protect their new found land and property from outlaws or whathaveyou I guess. But I suspect when they drew it up they didn't quite forsee the actual firepower a person could have at their disposal 200 years later. Probably a bolt action rifle would be as far as it'd go. No one except the miltary should have access to some of the weapons that ordinary Americans have at their disposal. It's really ****** up IMO.This shouldn't be able to happen in the first place 🙁

Seems to me there are far more pressing issues to be reviewed before they get to the gun laws in the US. First thing we hear when someone shoots up a school/cinema/mall is "ban guns", never "more care, understanding and help for those with mental health issues" - while the easy access to guns doesn't help the situation there needs to be a strong change in how the country treats its citizens and the fear they ram down their throat on a daily basis.

The US does seem to do a bloody good job of creating these disturbed individuals like no other country can

The US does seem to do a bloody good job of creating these disturbed individuals like no other country can

They have The American Dream. Most people can't live it. Some people can't accept it. Be it socially or financially.

I'm no gun advocate and would agree that a ban would reduce the 'efficiency' as was pointed out but whenever there is a ban called for it's easy to focus on this and ignore underlying problems which cannot be got rid of by such a simple single action.

Oh definitely, people with mental health probs should have access to the treatment they need. But In my limited experience, people come on the mental health issues radar after something has happened for the worse in one way or the other. How often to you hear about someone going at someone with a kitchen knife? it happens. No one has a perfect life, and people lose the plot all the time. Usually best if no automatic rifles were available though eh?

As sad a reflection of modern western politics as it is, the only time such a decision will be made is not for the safety of a country's children but whether more votes will be gained from the ban than those lost.

The question remains just what is it with the states that causes these things to happen?

Gun ownership is broadly similar in Canada (ie. number of households with guns) but mass shootings are very rare.

As for Aristotles's point on the interpretation of the US Constitution, I would suggest you read the US Supreme court judgement on District of Columbia Vs Heller, that lays out in great care the intentions of those who drafted the law,

The US does seem to do a bloody good job of creating these disturbed individuals like no other country can
They have The American Dream. Most people can't live it. Some people can't accept it. Be it socially or financially.

hmm.. I'm not sure but I think this is a little naive..
I've spent time in UK psychiatric units, we're just as capable of producing an army of fresh faced and eager disturbed folk, week in week out..
It seems though, that embarking on a brutal rampage with the contents of the cutlery drawer and the garden shed is always going to be a lot less appealing than the clean, swift physical and emotional detachment that only powerful guns can offer..

EDIT: well I guess the Canada point kinda messes with my theory a little bit.. I couldn't say why..

But it's all about "FREEDOM" (....as well as having the biggest collection of guns as a sign of virility or, vaguely, in case the "bad guys" or even the goverment come around)

We folk from pinko-socialist-liberal countries with our state-provided healthcare just can't begin to understand it.

Look on almost any US web forum and there'll be a thread showing posters' gun collections, some of which are very extensive, accompanied by some quite disturbing, and some extremely gung-ho, points of view.

It doesn't matter how clever you are Zulu11, or the psychology of US society or whatever you want to pull out the bag. Fact is, if the bloke had no access to those powerful guns, he wouldn't have been able to kill loads of people so swiftly and easily. There is no reasoning it.
and anyway, if a country/society displays a propensity for gun violence isn't that more reason to take them away from them? I dunno how like 😕

Re "it's in the constitution". It's a lynchpin of many US pro-gun arguments, they have an inalienable constitutional right to bear arms which cannot be taken away. You can't change that, not the 2nd... amendment... hmm.

I don't have a strong opinion, it's not my country and as observed, it's not just about availability as availability alone in other countries doesn't have the same impact. And frankly the genie's out anyway. I just like picking holes in arguments 😉

I do think having done a bit of shooting that a firearm's a very empowering thing- it's action at a distance, and doing things that you couldn't possibly do without it. And also, it's remote and clean feeling- you point and something falls down, essentially. (butchering an animal you've killed generally causes more squeamishness than shooting the animal)

So I find the argument that people would find another way to go on murder sprees probably isn't right. Not everyone who can point and have someone fall down, would be able to walk up to someone with a knife, or hit them with a car, or similiar.

As for Aristotles's point on the interpretation of the US Constitution, I would suggest you read the US Supreme court judgement on District of Columbia Vs Heller, that lays out in great care the intentions of those who drafted the law,

Despite this, there is no real requirement for a citizen's militia in the USA. We are not talking about groups of peasant farmers arming themselves in case they are required to form a militia for protection from the French, the British or Native Americans, we're talking about suburban people living in a fairly orderly society, pretending/believing that guns are an important part of their existence. In 2012, there are organised Police departments and the National Guard.

Citizens' militia have arguably been irrelevant for the past one and a half centuries.

A lot of people like having guns. That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, the love of guns *and the enthusiasm for using them* has had some negative results on the USA.

If all non-hunting guns were removed from the USA ("goodies" and "baddies"), the country would not collapse.

I'd tend to agree with Zulu on one point, why doesn't this happen in anywhere near the same level in Canada.

US society and culture has been described by many shrinks as psychopathic.

This guy wants to tell me we're living in a community? Don't make me laugh! I'm livin in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country, it's just a buisness... now ****in pay me!

Aristotle

However, with respect, the nature and existence of the citizens militia was also seen, from the beginning, as a limitation on the power of government to subjugate 'the people' - so your argument that there is an organised, armed police and national guard is actually a justification for the right to bear arms, and the supreme court ruled categorically that that right was an individual one, not tied to military service.

But, you know, its not unusual for a country to be hung up on its constitution.

Theres shed loads of really practical reasons why our own constitution is outdated and anachronistic, with things like a right to trial by jury, freedom of speech, etc. all having perfectly lucid and realistic arguments against them - but I think most of us feel that they have to be protected even if there is a cost to society (like known terrorists walking free)

Wikipedia suggests Canadian gun ownership is significantly lower than USA.

Country Guns per 100
residents (2007) Rank
(2007) Comments
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2 [5]
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32 8 [6]
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13

England and Wales 6.2 88

Scotland 5.5 93

Thats guns per capita - one person owning a hundred plus guns in the US skews the figures heavily - most agree that the more reliable figure is number of households with a firearm, as that indicates how easy it is for most people to actually access a gun.

Survey data from the US shows about thirty to thirty five percent of households owning at least one firearm - Canada shows somewhere around 28%. broadly similar.

The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

Also, lets remember that the real figure people are bothered about is the firearm homicide rates, rather than overall gun related deaths - again they can skew the figures unrealistically.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

However, with respect, the nature and existence of the citizens militia was also seen, from the beginning, as a limitation on the power of government to subjugate 'the people' - so your argument that there is an organised, armed police and national guard is actually a justification for the right to bear arms,

It's a circular argument, though. The people vote for their representatives and are governed by their elected representatives (albeit with flaws). At some point this needs to be accepted, rather than continuing with the somewhat ridiculous Wild West/Rambo fantasy.

"Expressions of freedom" through the medium of the possession of and the concealed carrying of assault weapons that provide the potential for the extremely efficient, mechanised murdering of school children really is an anachronistic nonsense.

That Michael Moore film Bowling For Columbine adressed the Canadian thing, where citizens had guns but also lived with their front doors unlocked and little gun crime. I don't remember what conclusion he came to though other than the US population is pretty paranoid and fearful. is it a leftover from the cold war? did they really have it drummed into them so much that the guy on the end of the street could be your enemy? I know I'm going off on a tangent..

The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

Indeed. I was just illustrating that the US and Canada weren't necessarily that similar in their gun ownership profiles.

Also worth remembering that each state in the USA has it's own gun laws.

Generally, states with strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice versa). That doesn't mean that "gun control" leads to murder and crime, but it doesn't seem to have ever lowered rates, either!

Also worth remembering that each state in the USA has it's own laws.
Generally, states with strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice versa). That doesn't mean that "gun control" leads to murder and crime, but it doesn't seem to have ever lowered rates, either!

Gun control in small pockets of the nation doesn't cause crime or necessarily reduce it.

The weapons are in circulation, there is a 'tradition' of gun ownership and use and the 'culture' is one of individuals looking out for themselves, possibly encouraged by the supposed 'right' to bear arms.

[quote=Kevevs ]That Michael Moore film Bowling For Columbine adressed the Canadian thing, where citizens had guns but also lived with their front doors unlocked and little gun crime. I don't remember what conclusion he came to though other than the US population is pretty paranoid and fearful. is it a leftover from the cold war? did they really have it drummed into them so much that the guy on the end of the street could be your enemy? I know I'm going off on a tangent..
I don't think it's anything to do with the Ruskies. The USA is a divided society with a history of racial intolerance. The fear that makes people want to hold guns isn't of some external force, it's of their "neighbours".

Country Guns per 100
residents (2007) Rank
(2007) Comments
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2 [5]
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32 8 [6]
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13

England and Wales 6.2 88

Scotland 5.5 93

Stats fail.

It's interesting eh DruidH. The US has such a short history and it's mostly a history of US and THEM! Of division. We like to think we live in enlightened, liberal and tolerant societies in modern developed countries but you only have to look at The US and incidents like this to see it's still a pretty screwed up human race we have here and it is time to EVOLVE!

It's honestly very simple. Most reasonable people agree that these mass killings are carried out by other people who are demented. Take away the availability of firearms and the scale of their wrath is diminished.

How hard was that Mr. President? It may very well take 50 years to take guns out of society, you may very well be in your grave by the time it happens, but get the ball rolling.

How hard was that Mr. President?

Very hard!

First, the president does not have to authority to change the constitution. Amending the constitution for any reason is a difficult process; it was set up that way on purpose. In fact, it has only happened 27 times since the constitution went into effect in 1789. And 10 of those (the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment) were all adopted at one time during the first session of Congress in 1789.

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once—in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment—has the convention method of ratification been employed.

So it is very difficult to change the US Constitution! In fact, the 27th amendment was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789, but was not adopted until 1992. Over 200 years!!! 😯

There is a lot of pretty good info on Wikipedia, and I believe that the crowdsourced nature of it means that the entries on things like the US Constitution are pretty factual.

Scotland 5.5 93

Guns for show, knives for a pro.

The 2nd Ammendment people always miss out the first bit -about a "well regulated militia". It's a historical artifact, like that law about being able to shoot a Welshman with a longbow.

Quite. A well regulated militia doesn't really describe quiet, introverted, angry young lads with a collection of automatic weapons or even paranoid, red-blooded rednecks in the backwoods of Michigan (despite what they might think) who are scared of the government in 2012.

It may more accurately describe a criminal gang fighting a turf war to some extent, although the aims of such gangs are more financial than philanthropic.

There are 2 facets to this:

1 The legal, whereby learned people (with political leanings) will pore over the ambiguities of a constitutional amendment written to suit a situation very different to that of today and arguably unfit-for-purpose. The [i]mythology[/i] that has grown up around it being a hindrance.

2 The real world, in which the generally accepted human rights and freedoms do not actually require the possession of automatic assault weapons, and every few months somebody goes mad and shoots lots of people.

The large proportion of US citizens who don't support the "Gun lobby" should make themselves heard. The ridiculous "culture" needs to be changed and a move made toward a less heavily armed society.

The constitutional experts can then talk about it at great length for the subsequent century, whilst everybody just gets on with it.

The large proportion of US citizens who don't support the "Gun lobby" should make themselves heard

It's hard to know how to get there from here. I've got lots of family in the States - none of them own guns, but the gun culture is even ingrained for them - my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn't have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn't have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

Think about this:

The military moved away from relying so heavily on sharpened blades when firearms became more readily available.

The military moved away from relying so heavily on sharpened blades when firearms became more readily available.

Unfortunately the gun isn't the problem here as the knife attacks in China have demonstrated.

The gun is precisely the problem, and the example in China proves it. You're always going to have disturbed people - when all they have access to is a knife, then (while distressing), no-one gets killed or seriously injured and the attacker can be overpowered. When they have access to guns, they're unstoppable and able to kill easily.

bencooper - Member

It's hard to know how to get there from here. I've got lots of family in the States - none of them own guns, but the gun culture is even ingrained for them - my aunt was astonished when she found out that we didn't have drive-by shootings, even in the most violent city in Europe.

Some of the "Pro-Gun" people I've spoken to appear to have a fear of not being armed. They must be terrified when/if they travel to a foreign land.

Having personally travelled to countries in which guns are widely owned, and carried visibly in some cases, I've so far managed to survive without the need to carry one.

When these US college/school/mall/cinema shootings happen ....every few months or so..., it makes me pleased to have been born in Europe, where the response to such things is different.

davidjones15 - Member
And now they use bombs.

Yes, because firearms are a more efficient means of neutralising an enemy, both at range and close in*. It is not surprising that militaries all over the world try** to use as much new technology as possible when it comes to fighting.

* Depending on how close and the type of firearm. Pistols may be better at really close rage than rifles, but a knife may still have the edge (pardon the pun) at arms length.

** Despite what people think about our army being slow to adopt new technology, in general, people do use a lot of cutting edge stuff if it means they can kill other people more effectively and with fewer of your own side getting hit.

willard - Member

Yes, because firearms are a more efficient means of neutralising an enemy, both at range and close in*. It is not surprising that militaries all over the world try** to use as much new technology as possible when it comes to fighting.

* Depending on how close and the type of firearm. Pistols may be better at really close rage than rifles, but a knife may still have the edge (pardon the pun) at arms length.

** Despite what people think about our army being slow to adopt new technology, in general, people do use a lot of cutting edge stuff if it means they can kill other people more effectively and with fewer of your own side getting hit.

the point well and truly missed.

🙄

You're always going to have disturbed people - when all they have access to is a knife, then (while distressing), [b]no-one gets killed or seriously injured[/b] and the attacker can be overpowered.

I would ask you to have a read of this and a little think for the families of the 21 dead and 90 injured.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29 ]

A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some 90 injured. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]

Hypothesis:

The USA could function perfectly well without members of the public possessing automatic weapons as a [i]constitutional right[/i].

This is all a bit pathetic, a thread about an awful act of violence descends into arguments about guns and personal attacks if an opinion differs.

Aristotle - Member

the point well and truly missed.

How so ancient philosopher?

I'm just catching up on this thread and may have missed out on a few posts typing that last, so do please forgive me making the odd mistake.