[Closed] Guns don't kill people

Lots of arguments here. I think the one thing that (hopefully) everybody can agree on is that there is no possible reason for any american civilian to own a an assault rifle. If automatic weapons were banned, it would make the act of killing lots of children harder.

It must be difficult for anybody to construct a viable argument against that...

bwaarp + 1
I wonder what happened to that kid at that school when he was little.

As to the desensitised argument - I'd like to see how these "desensitised" kids react to killing & butchering a rabbit.

I heard that most parenting that affects behaviour is done before 5. Might be wrong.

It must be difficult for anybody to construct a viable argument against that.

Well the argument goes that criminals will always have the guns, so you need 'good guys' with guns to prevent them shooting people.

Which does have merit as an argument, in theory. However it also has major holes in it as outlined above.

I heard that most parenting that affects behaviour is done before 5. Might be wrong.

I would say that's wrong.

Banning firearms from schools, cinemas hospitals has just turned them into hunting (Killing)grounds for nutters.

Are you seriously suggesting that teachers be armed when teaching? Because if that's the case, if I had kids I wouldn't be sending them to school. I hate guns with a passion, it might be quite simplistic but guns are for killing things and there is absolutely no reason what so ever to have them. At all. I don't even get the 'pest control' argument - there are other ways to control vermin. In my opinion of course.

On another note, as mentioned above about one size fits all not working - maybe the US is too big to govern as one nation.

The US is not meant to be governed as one nation though. That's why states are called "states", they are meant to be like nation states with a federal government having some power over all of them.

Banning firearms from schools, cinemas hospitals has just turned them into hunting (Killing)grounds for nutters.

You'd just end up with a gunman in every single classroom every day instead of just very occasionally. What if one of the teachers went nuts? It happens.

If automatic weapons were banned, it would make the act of killing lots of children harder.

It must be difficult for anybody to construct a viable argument against that...

When was a legally held automatic weapon (or even a legally manufactured automatic weapon) last used in a killing in the US?

you ****ing know that they'll be pro armed police in schools as appossed to strict gun laws.

the people off america believe that by owning firearms 'the people' have the power to overturn government if needs be. that's what one chap on a recent documentary said.

When was a legally held automatic weapon last used in a killing in the US?

er, last week?

who cares if its legal or not? this is happening and will continue.

er, last week?

Er, no!

who cares if its legal or not? this is happening and will continue.

so you think the answer to gun crime is the US, is to outlaw guns that are already illegal?

I thought the gun was legally held by his mother, happy to be corrected...

When was a legally held automatic weapon last used in a killing in the US?

Wasn't the gun used in this tragedy legally held by the killers mother? Claiming it wasn't legally held by the killer is just a technicality.

Most of the illegal guns in the states have gone to market legally and them moved on.

When was a legally held automatic weapon last used in a killing in the US?

Put it another way: What place do fully automatic weapons have in civilian society?

The guns laws in the US are not going to change over night, and therefore banning semi and fully automatic weapons is a good start. If they went straight for hand guns, or all guns, then it would get nowhere, leaving them back at square one.

Also, if the nutters can't get hold of semi-automatics, then they are going to reach for the fullys, so just ban them both.

Semi automatics were used in Columbine.

Everything I've read on the subject suggests that being aggressive and being capable of wantonly murdering innocent people are unrelated traits.

Research consistently shows that those who watch aggressive games/films/cartoons are more aggressive in their play afterwards. How causal this I dont know but it seems that it is more likely to be unhelpful than helpful in reducing violence.

Zulu that research is rubbish - really rubbish

Firstly he selects what data to study - come on you know how bad that is for data analysis- he cherry picked it so its meaningless.

Even after this his murder spree data includes this gem

David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.

therefore if you have a gun dont use it as its safest - well the evidence is there 😕
Of course I dont think that its just another rubbish conclusion drawn from that data that is equally "valid"

When was a legally held automatic weapon last used in a killing in the US?

Okay, so his weapon was semi-automatic rather than fully automatic. I doubt that offers much comfort to anybody and not really a a useful contribution

Okay, so his weapon was semi-automatic rather than fully automatic. I doubt that offers much comfort to anybody and not really a a useful contribution

So, you think that a bunch of kids would have had a better chance against someone armed with a bolt action rifle with a ten round clip and a pump action shotgun that can both be reloaded in seconds

Because I think the type of weapon used bears little or no significance.

Most of the illegal guns in the states have gone to market legally and them moved on.

any figures on that? From what I've read, theft of a legally held full auto is extraordinarily rare, and there are about 240k registered legal ones (about half of them in the hands of law enforcement)

at some point these illegal guns where purchased legally (probably with a driving licence).

some mentally ill kid probably knows a handfull of places to get a gun (his dads, older brothers, the old one at the back of the garage etc etc)

bullshit - how can anyone expect anything different, its like ****ing groundhog day.

I heard that most parenting that affects behaviour is done before 5. Might be wrong.

But, even if so, there is no point giving them all the love & attention at primary / pre primary, and then cutting them adrift / not giving the support through adolescence - arguably when we are all at our most vulnerable.

For all these attrocities that I remember (and that goes back to Ryan in Hungerford), the common theme is male, loner / "personality disorder"....

Nope, it wasn't automatic, it was a semi

So what, he still killed 26 people with it!

So why were you pontificating on the importance of banning automatic weapons then?

and there are about 240k registered legal ones (about half of them in the hands of law enforcement)

Interesting

I think casual gun owners of America have blood on their hands!

'what do you ****in expect'?

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

I can't believe that hasn't been pointed out yet.

So why were you pontificating on the importance of banning automatic weapons then?

Okay Lordy one. Semi - automatic / automatic. Both are effective killing machines that make the act of killing people easy. I would ban both and I apologise for confusing you by not mentioning semi-automatic in my post. I didn't realise you would pick apart such detail. I thought you might be slightly more considerate of the bigger argument but I was clearly mistaken.

Hey, I was only trying to put forward a valid argument on the points of reference that you laid out...

don't shoot the messenger 😉

don't shoot the messenger

If I did, it would be with a fully automatic.

Even in California, home of gun crime, use of either 'assault' type weapons, let alone full auto weapons, in crime is extraordinarily rare

I'm also worried about loners all being deemed potential mass killers as the mother did in that link i posted. Thats a great message to send to the kids that is in no way going to make them feel resentful and go on a spree. You can bet no one will give a thought to bullying as if the shooting was soley the work of a dehumanized deranged monster and not a human being or partly the result of how society has treated that individual. Heaven forbid we create the monsters instead of them being born and being beyond the realms of explanation.

Semi Automatics were used at Columbine, semi-automatics (handguns) were used at Virginia tech.

Ban semi-automatics as a start. If you are going to ban semis, then ban fullys as well as they would most likely be the next choice of your average loon.

It's not the goal, just the first step on the ladder.

Even in California, home of gun crime, use of either 'assault' type weapons, let alone full auto weapons, in crime is extraordinarily rare

I also object to journalists describing semi - automatic rifles as "machine guns" but its hardly germane.

The problem in America is actually handguns, they account for well over 90% of all gun deaths

Well said.

Also, look at how New York has massively reduced violent crime.
Increased enforcent and the determination to make a safer environment help.

The problem in America is actually handguns, they account for well over 90% of all gun deaths

You do realise handguns can be semi-automatic as well, don't you?

Are the auto / semi-autos just the metaphor for the mindset? Bang in a clip, lock & load....

... As Molly said, there's a great big streak of machismo (and underlying fear*) running through American society. Hand guns migh be the problem, but assault rifles are the shorthand for the mentality - an ar probably th easiest political quick fix

* just look at the election commentary and fallout....

You do realise handguns can be semi-automatic as well, don't you?

Of course and that's one of the problem with handguns and why the focus on "assault weapons" is pointless.

Its probably easier to kill a room full of people with a Glock than it is to kill them with a semi auto M-16 copy

The type of gun is pretty much irrelevant. They are all designed for one thing - to kill. If a guy walks into a room with a break-action double barrel (fairly easily obtainable here in the UK) and takes out two people and then gets stopped while he's reloading, dare I say it, its just as bad as if 26 people die. The fact is human life has been taken.

As a slight side note I find it chilling that technicians sit in a laboratory performing experiments with bullets to make them do as much damage to human tissue as possible.

Its not the gun, as the title of this thread initally points out. Its the mind controlling the finger that pulls the trigger. 'Ban this or that type of gun' reactions are just the very beginning and the tip of the iceberg of the problem.

takes out two people and then gets stopped while he's reloading, dare I say it, its just as bad as if 26 people die

Tell that to the 24 people who are still alive, and their families.

ts not the gun, as the title of this thread initally points out. Its the mind controlling the finger that pulls the trigger. 'Ban this or that type of gun' reactions are just the very beginning and the tip of the iceberg of the problem

The problem is that the US has got itself in a right mess with guns and there is little political will to address it. Some weapons make mass killings easier than others, therefore it makes sense to ban these types of weapons first. They have no justifiable need for them and it [u]may[/u] be something that is actually achievable to deliver without having to amend their constitution

'Ban this or that type of gun' reactions are just the very beginning and the tip of the iceberg of the problem.

Absolutely, and no one is saying it will solve all the problems, but it will be a start.

As I have said: Semi and fully automatic weapons (both handguns and assault rifles) have no place in civilian life. Get rid of them.

You also have to factor in the lobbying power of the NRA: Trying to ban all guns to begin with will get you nowhere. You need to do it bit by bit.

The answer is to go right back to the 2nd Amendment - and allow anyone to have a flintlock.

Simple.

As I have said: Semi and fully automatic weapons (both handguns and assault rifles) have no place in civilian life. Get rid of them.

Agreed

"Tell that to the 24 people who are still alive, and their families."

I'm saying that it's an unthinkable tragedy if even one person is killed.

"The problem is that the US has got itself in a right mess with guns and there is little political will to address it. Some weapons make mass killings easier than others, therefore it makes sense to ban these types of weapons first. They have no justifiable need for them and it may be something that is actually achievable to deliver without having to amend their constitution"

Agreed. But thats still papering over the cracks, and not actually addressing the cause of the problem.

http://www.****/news/article-2249781/Connecticut-store-Sandy-Hook-gunman-Adam-Lanza-tried-buy-rifle-huge-sale-ammunition.html

Good job Daily Mail don't know their arse from their elbow...

So what, there's a sale on relatively small bore shotgun ammo 🙄

I liked this comment : THe USA needs to move in to 21st century. The right to carry arms was in an age of their civil war, the wild west truly wild but now the are a civilised country. With the biggest army in the the world to defend them, who do they need to shoot with their guns?

For some of them, the army is who they plan to fight.

who do they need to shoot with their guns

They need guns because other people have guns.

Why not replace every hand gun with an assault rifle on the grounds of safety/ gun crime reduction?

Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it's much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.

We can argue all we want about the gun control but it is a diversion. The killings of random innocents, the disaffected or people with mental health issues and the general level of violence are all symptomatic of something else in society that we are not addressing. I don't see that the UK is that far removed from the US in some ways we just don't have the accessible means to kill that many people (in one go) on a regular basis (if the law is applied correctly). It seems to me that Mr Obama has to opportunities now, yes a degree of gun control may now be possible and he should go for it in his last term. Far more importantly he needs to try and get a national debate started on why the US and some other countries (China for example as well as the UK) has a small number of people who believe that extreme violence is their only solution to what ails them (or us for that mater). Just my take.

Just so you know, I have read Catcher in the Rye twice and have yet to shot a President or a musician. 🙂

Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it's much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.

Good job Daily Mail don't know their arse from their elbow...

So what, there's a sale on relatively small bore shotgun ammo 🙄

Come on - give them some credit - there wasn't just shotgun ammo on sale

[i]A box of 2000 Winchester M-22 [b]bullets[/b] was reduced by $20 so they cost $109.99, or 5 cents a shot[/i]

Don't know what use they would be on their own mind 😀

"Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it's much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle."

Interesting and probably made as a throw-away comment, however I can't help saying the Connecticut shooter managed okay, as well carrying Glock and Sig handguns

Daft as it sounds that would probably help as it's much harder to lug around or conceal an assault rifle.

You've never been to the Apple store in Switzerland I take it?

[img] [/img]

The shoot-em-up video game argument is an interesting one

No, it's a retarded one.

Games don't make people go on mass murdering sprees before blowing their own brains out; being wrong in the head does that. And if you're a swivel-eyed socio/psychopath, you're eventually going to do something loopy irrespective of what computer games (video nasties, rock & roll music, energy drinks, pornography) you've been exposed to.

The logic bomb that always gets overlooked by the Professionally Outraged is that the causal link here isn't games, it's mental illness. The fact that a gunman happened to be playing Grand Theft Auto a month ago just means that it's the sort of title which would appeal to a nutcase (as well as to large numbers of normal, well-adjusted people, of course, all of whom strangely fail to go on murder rampages).

Shades of Gray has resulted in an increase in the sales of BDSM gear

Skipping the obvious question (which is "so what?"), what does this actually prove? That 50SoG has turned mild mannered librarians across the country into rampant screaming perverts, or that it's made BDSM more mainstream and acceptable so people are less inhibited about buying toys?

As for gun control,

Banning guns in the US isn't going to work. There are several factors at work here, some of which have already been discussed here. There's too many in circulation for a ban to be practical; it'd be like banning tomato soup over here. If the US announced a crackdown, the first thing everyone would do is stock up. Plus, we've already seen how well prohibition works in the US.

Then there's legislation. The Constitution is a battleship of a thing, and effecting any sort of amendment to it can take decades.

In any case, assuming there was a ban, either partially ('no automatic weapons' say) or fully, people who wanted guns badly enough would still get them. And there'd be a lot; guns are 'normal' in US culture. Just google "every day carry" for a scary demonstration of that. The fundamental problem, one of mentality, would persist.

It's like the knife ban here. I'm speculating here but, you ban knives, "attacks with knives" might go down (or not), but I doubt that attacks generally will. Thugs will still be thugs, they'll either just carry knives illegally or carry something else. The people most affected by the knife ban are regular citizens who carried a knife for fishing or camping or because generally it's a useful thing to have.

You want to tackle crime, you need to tackle the causes of crime. And that's poverty, education, drugs, employment... good luck with that.

Then there's legislation. The constitution is a battleship of a thing, and effecting any sort of amendment to it can take decades.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting the ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons, and therefore wouldn't require amending.

The fundamental problem, one of mentality, would persist.

Maybe for the current generations, but further down the line?...

You want to tackle crime, you need to tackle the causes of crime. And that's poverty, education, drugs, employment... good luck with that.

Agreed. However, it doesn't mean you should not assist the process in other ways.

You've never been to the Apple store in Switzerland I take it?

Nope, but I know that that rifle does not have a mag fitted so that, at most, it's got one up the spout before he/she has to load it and make ready.

Missing the point maybe, but seeing a magazine off would make me feel slightly more safe than not.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting the ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons, and therefore wouldn't require amending

No?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Semi and automatic weapons would come under 'arms' would they not?

Cougar I get your point but extreme positions on either side are unhelpful

For example plenty of folk drink responsibly plenty of folk dont and become angry or alchies. Its a bit of both the question is how much of each is casual.As for professionally outraged - WTF does that ad hominem mean in general and in particular on a thread related to the recent gun deaths in the US? you are better than this 😕
The 50 shades thing shows that exposure to things - new stimuli alters behaviour but I assume you got that but ignored it as it does not help your argument so you were jokey about what it meant

Some folk read some BDSM some folk had some BDSM- its not going to be as clear cut with murder though and only an idiot would argue that playing violent computer games makes you go on a killing spree. However [ to repeat again] research shows that those exposed to violence act more violently in studies
how real this is and what effect it has who knows in terms of what we are discussing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

So lets carry on arguing about an inanimate metal object that does nothing. it's the human with their hand on it that's the problem, try and solve the cause not the symptom. I am not against restricted access to guns by the way just want to get the discussion further.

A sticking plaster is not going to cure a severed limb.

Games don't make people go on mass murdering sprees before blowing their own brains out; being wrong in the head does that. And if you're a swivel-eyed socio/psychopath, you're eventually going to do something loopy irrespective of what computer games (video nasties, rock & roll music, energy drinks, pornography) you've been exposed to.

No, you're right they don't. However games like COD do have an effect on a child's behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows. I'd rather it didn't have that effect on my child, regardless of the outcome. I'm not saying this chap sat there on a three hour COD session before going on the rampage, but I'm saying that potentially it could skew a childs perspective on what is right and wrong

As for access to guns and it being the person doing the shooting - I'd rather take my chances with a bloke swinging a baseball bat or brandishing a knife than I would a nutter holding a semi-automatic gun

So lets carry on arguing about an inanimate metal object that does nothing. it's the human with their hand on it that's the problem

The two things are not isolated.

If I am unarmed, get drunk, get into a fight with someone, what am I going to do? Punch them, get punched back, end up in a scuffle. If I am armed, I am a lot more likely to shoot the other guy aren't I?

Then you've got the false courage aspect. If I see something I don't like and I have a gun, I might be more inclined to intervene and start shooting than if I am unarmed.

Then there's the possibility that simply having guns affects people's psychology and possibly their behaviour.

Bearing in mind the above, do you think Trayvon Martin would still be alive if George Zimmerman had never owned a gun?

However games like COD do have an effect on a child's behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows.

Yes. They make them excitable and possibly aggressive. But it does not follow that they lose sight of right and wrong, or are more inclined to hurt real people.

But it does not follow that they lose sight of right and wrong, or are more inclined to hurt real people.

You don't think it desensitises them at all then?

its an extreme position to claim a gun does nothing and its only an innamate object . It is a weapon and it has only one primary function- it takes two but remove one and you have a lesser issue

Its obviously easier to prevent access to the gun than to prevent mental illness.

WTF does that ad hominem mean in general and in particular on a thread related to the recent gun deaths in the US?

Sorry, you misunderstand me.

I was talking specifically about the "outraged" people who start blaming computer games (or the other things I listed) when there's a tragedy like this. You know, the sort of thing the Daily Mail likes to crow about. I wasn't having a pop at those outraged about the shooting; that's something one can genuinely be outraged about!

The 50 shades thing shows that exposure to things - new stimuli alters behaviour but I assume you got that but ignored it as it does not help your argument so you were jokey about what it meant

I'm always jokey. My point was really that it's not particularly clear what the poster - Edukator? Probably - was getting at, or how the analogy was appropriate. Has "new stimuli altered behaviour" here, or has it just raised awareness and made something more acceptable within society? Or maybe it's helped raise it as a talking point in relationships where people were too shy to suggest something a little different? I don't actually know, probably a little from column a and a little from column b. In either case though it might have given a few people ideas, but I doubt it'd convince them to do something they didn't want to do.

You don't think it desensitises them at all then?

Honestly - no.

Because there's such a gulf between a bunch of pixels and a real person deep down in our brains.

I'm saying that potentially it could skew a childs perspective on what is right and wrong

Weasel-word alert. "Potentially"? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it [i]actually [/i]skew anything?

However games like COD do have an effect on a child's behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows.

You don't think it desensitises them at all then?

Going from "excitable" to "killing spree" is a leap of tabloid proportions. By comparison, how would they react to an extended Tom & Jerry marathon, I wonder?

Kids are impressionable, but they're not stupid. Well, most of them.

Because there's such a gulf between a bunch of pixels and a real person deep down in our brains.

As an aside, I wonder how this discussion will go in a few years time, when games are photorealistic? We're getting there.

Weasel-word alert. "Potentially"? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

Is it really your view that playing violent computer games is as likely to skew your view or desensitise you to violence as is eating a packet of crisps.

I dont know why we have to debate in such extremes. 😕
Its clear that playing violent computer games will have some affect on you so lets debate what if that is where the debate is going.

FWIW locally someone dug up a corpse froma graveyard, took the head and scrawled 666 on the head and dropped it on his mates door rang the doorbell and ran off. he did this after he saw Omen.

Now the guy was a nutter[like that needed saying], and he was off his head on glue but it was an interaction between all three.

Thank god he could not get his hands on guns is all I think tbh

I dont think banning them[ games or films] will stop events like this but i dont think they generally help either.

Weasel-word alert. "Potentially"? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

You're a bit aggressive aren't you, been on the xbox this afternoon?

Going from "excitable" to "killing spree" is a leap of tabloid proportions. By comparison, how would they react to an extended Tom & Jerry marathon, I wonder?

Kids are impressionable, but they're not stupid. Well, most of them.

Kids ARE impressionable, which means they need to be taught the difference between right and wrong. If they see constant images of shootings, blood, gore and all the rest then it desensitises them to the extent that it becomes the norm. Was this killing the result of the perp playing Medal of Honour - probably not (I don't know the kids background, what he did in his spare time and so on). Does playing similar games have an effect on children. Yes, it does - I've witnessed it first hand.

Yes. They make them excitable and possibly aggressive

So you agree it makes them aggressive but don't agree that it desensitises them to violence?

bwaarp - Member

Educator, the shrinks in germany are talking bollocks. You need a sample size of 30 to make any significant conclusion, have they had 30 mass killers in germany to make such a conclusion? No. A big **** off resounding no. What were their methodologies for supporting such a conclusion because I bet statistically I can destroy their argument.

A gem Bwaarp, until there are at least thirty such killings you don't accept the validity of anything a psychologist has to say. Now what were Freud's sample sizes again? Profilers use a sample size of one successfully.

Copycat killings happen, if you accept that then you accept people can be inspired to commit crimes simply by reading. An engrossing, hands-on, sound and vision experience is likely to inspire.

One of the reasons I gave up display driving was that leaving one venue I saw someone trying to imitate what we'd been doing in the car park with people walking past. I realised I was inspiring dangerous driving.

Junkyard, it's not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are. If you read my two post I think you may get what I'm trying to get at. The issue is not the gun (yes I know they make killing easier), it's the why are people doing this? We could get fixated on all sorts of things that hurt or kill people but solve the problem we need start looking at the cause. What is happening to people to make them behave in this way? What can we do that stops someone turning into a killer. I still believe the debate is stalled, even trapped in the gun argument. Again I am not against gun control, let's get past it and into what this guy and other the way they are. What's you view on the cause?

I'd say it was extreme not to look past the gun issue.

To many mistakes to edit, sorry.

Another post to make it clear I'm anti-killerspiel rather than anti-gun. I'm quite happy for people to own and use guns under British/French legislation. Hunting, sport shooting, biathlon seem valid reasons for owning guns. Keep them under lock and key at home, and when being transported to places they can be safely used. Keep a register of ownership as for cars. No problem. When I asked a sport shooting mate what he owned he said "Clint's 44 and the Lethal Weapon Beretta". People are influenced by what they read, see, hear and play on the computer.

I does help if the police that deal with permits aren't being pressured/influenced though.

That's interesting I thought both those pistols would be illegal to own at home, wonder what reason for ownership he gave to FAO. Oh bug..r I'm talking about guns now.
Things is could the posser of such hardware become disafected with society enough to do something really stupid. Is anyone checking his mental well being.
Perhaps it's to big an issue to solve so we only try and ban this or that but where do we stop.

Banning guns in the US isn't going to work. There are several factors at work here, some of which have already been discussed here. There's too many in circulation for a ban to be practical; it'd be like banning tomato soup over here

If you ban tomato soup, eventually all of the cans in existence would be eaten or go out of date. It would take a while but it would happen.

Banning guns or stopping the sale would not remove the problem now. But it [i]might[/i] start making a dent in things for 50 or 100 years down the line. That seems a good enough reason to me to make a start.

If you can't ban them, tax them so heavily that they become too expensive for the vast majority. Paint them pink, make licenses expensive. Lots they can do if there is the will. But what Obama is saying now was also said by Bush, and Clinton. Nothing changed then

Well, looks like Obama reads STW!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20776784 ]Obama backs ban on assault weapons[/url]

Junkyard, it's not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are.

I dont disagree with the rest of your post

My view -

Many factors are at work here and none should be overlooked of which the main one is obviously what drives individuals to do this.

Access to lots of guns does not help an dis harmful as probably is not causal but it makes it easier and the death number higher but it is probably not casual - Perhaps a few nutters would not have killed had they had to use a bat or knife who knows?

Access to computer games and violent films does not help but it does not turn anyone into a killer either.

I am sure that most gun owners are reasonable folk but with 300 million guns you are going to have gun related issues more so than if you have 300.

Being where the uk is with strict gun controls and no real culture or gun lore is the best place to be.
How you get America to that? - or more likely a Canadian type level of ownership for hunting and less personal hand guns I have no idea.

How we stop mad folk no idea but I would prefer them to not be able to get hold of guns as easily as they can in the USA

Clinton banned some categories of gun but Bush didn't renew the law or cancelled it or something - Google it. Anyhow Clinton tried to do something but Bush did not.